A QUESTION OF by wuyunqing

VIEWS: 89 PAGES: 166

									A QUESTION OF
         With the recent decline of the church throughout Europe the concept of what is
right and what is wrong is brought more into question now than ever before. Some
people join small cults, some abandon any idea that right and wrong exist, most
however would believe that they have a basic idea of right and wrong is with or
without religion , but are they right? Do human beings instinctively know what is
right and what is wrong and is the decline of religion a good thing or a bad thing?
         Firstly I don‟t believe people instinctively know what right and wrong is
intrinsically but instead have a tendency to take the same view as those around them
regarding morality. Secondly as all religion is based on the illogical belief in a greater
or lesser number of lies, its decline must regarded with a certain quantity of optimism,
however don‟t get lulled into a false sense of security by atheism for rather it being
the acceptance of the truth it is merely the rejection of the lies that religions attempt to
seduce us with. Atheism in its purest form offers us no way of life, tells us nothing
about the world and gives no insight into what follows death (if anything) however on
the plus side it does offer scientists and philosophers a clean slate to work with and
from that a truly magnificent working ideology might emerge.
         Many atheists would argue that religion is the source of most wars, I disagree,
I will try to deal with the subject later, but as to atheism always automatically
bringing peace I would remind them not to forget the crimes and atrocities committed
by the communist during their reign of terror (and many communists regimes to this
day continue to be harsh, unfair, warlike and on the whole violent)
         Many Christians would argue that there already exists a perfect ideology and
that it is Christianity. I would disagree, a major problem with Christianity is the idea
many Christians have that I will behave this way because if everyone acted this way
we‟d all be better off. The issue it does not address is the fact that all people will not
automatically behave in the same way the subject does as they all possess freewill the
question then arises, if someone does something wrong, what are you going to do
about it? Another important question regarding Christianity is, who was this Jesus
fellow, anyway? I would not discredit many a Christian culture for not addressing the
first question, as all Christian countries do have police forces and armies and no, they
don‟t turn the other cheek, the main problem arises from the fact that Jesus leaves a
vast gap in his doctrine regarding the dealing out of punishment that the individual
leader, or monk will fill it with whatever happens to take his fancy, thus you get the
crusades, the inquisition and the South American missions to name but a few
instances. The fact that pure Christianity (simply the preaching of Jesus Christ)
doesn‟t actually work on a large scale, when it comes to laying down the laws of the
land although it can be reasonably successful when dealing with the relationship of
one person to another, is the reason why the interpretation of it varies so widely from
one person to another. On the plus side, because Christianity does preach restraint and
forgiveness many a theologian and Christian politician has built on that to make
reasonably fair laws. Fundamentally, though, because Christianity is steeped in lies,
such as Jesus being the son of God , the existence of God, the existence of heaven and
hell, etc., etc., I am convinced it can be improved upon, one major disadvantage of
the lies of Christianity and other religions, is the way they have a tendency to stand in
the way of both scientific and moral progress (Charles Darwin, Galileo and the like),
although Christianity is close to fundamental morality in many ways it is not perfect
and the bible holds the mind of the theologian tight on a choke chain, for however
much the think they must always gravitate back to that one book, while the mind of
the true philosopher can fly free where the only force that should restrict his thoughts
is pure and simple logic.
         Many people including myself would agree that the principles of communism
don‟t work, however why should Christianity be held immune from this criticism
when the actions of many a Pope no more represent the will of Jesus Christ than the
actions of Stalin represented the will of Karl Marx, we say that communism has
failed, yet communist countries exist to this day, so why do we say it has failed?
Because the vision of Karl Marx has not been realised and the leaders of communist
countries may pay it lip service, they may even believe in it, but they don‟t practice
the life and the social order that he envisioned has simply not manifested itself in
reality. If we are to judge Christianity on the same premise we must come to the sorry
conclusion that it too has failed. Yes there are millions of people that believe in God
and Jesus Christ but there are few who live the life laid out for them in the New
Testament, and most who claim to do so are liars. How many more cases of
Paedophilic priests must we hear of before we see that being Christian is no guarantee
at all that a man is righteous. The troubles in the North are due to the fact that to
different groups of Christian Peoples are slaughtering each other. This may seem
surprising at face value however I will try to explain this in the rest of the book.
         When we speak of the identity of Jesus Christ we are faced with many
problems as the first gospel was written many decades after his death so if you don‟t
believe that God somehow whispered the truth in the ears of the gospel writers (this is
especially hard to believe considering each of the four gospels contradicts one another
to a certain extent) then you are forced into making the conclusion that they are all
highly inaccurate portrayals of Jesus‟ life. Before the gospels were written the epistles
of saint Paul were written. Here he accuses the Christians of indulging in gross
excesses and decadent behaviour. A few decades after that Tacitus mentions the
Christians. This is roughly what he says about them:
         “ As victims to divert attention away from the fire, Nero chose the notoriously
depraved Christians. Their leader, Jesus Christ was executed during the reign of
Tiberius however this did not stop the deadly superstition and it has now spread even
to the capital itself! Alas, it seems every form of decadence and debauchery must
condense upon this our once glorious city.”
         This was slightly before or around the same time that the gospels were written,
so what was Jesus really like? Well we know even from the bible that he went to lots
of parties and drank lots of wine, we know he hung around tax-collectors and
prostitutes. Now it becomes somewhat more obvious why he told the people, “Give
Caesar that which is Caesars and God that which is God‟s.” He probably said it so that
he and his disciples could continue to get invited around to his tax-collector friends‟
parties where there would be plenty of booze and prostitutes available, in other words
this Jesus fellow was a randy booze-hound who insulted too many people in high
places and got executed for it. Of course he did not deserve to be crucified but then
neither did many others in that period who shared the same fate. That does not make
him the son of God. Jesus believed that if you turned the other cheek the aggressor
would kneel down and beg for forgiveness so when before he was crucified he said
“father forgive them they know not what they do.” He probably thought the heart of
the crowd would warm to him and beg for forgiveness so rather than his crucifixion
representing his death for man, it represent his death by man‟s hand for his inability to
fully comprehend human nature.
        A major reason why Jesus Christ could get away with saying turn the other
cheek is because he never had to lead a country, if you compare him to Mohamed who
was a politician for a while you will find that Islam is considerably less liberal than
Christianity (though some so-called Christian regimes would be stricter) Although I
would not go as far as to say that Islam is a “better” religion it is certainly a more
practical religion and can be enforced more easily, although it is probably somewhat
less fundamentally moral.
        In 1984 by George Orwell he describes a world which is governed by a totalitarian
regime, the people in the inner party manipulate history and the language in order to suppress
the people and stop them even thinking of revolting let alone acting on their thoughts, there
you could be punished for even thinking the wrong things, at every turn the media lied to the
people often telling them two things that contradicted one another, however they manipulated
the language in order to get the people to swallow the lies the Party was churning out, centre
to the whole policy of the party was the concept of doublethink the ability to suppress and
hide information that you know from yourself in order to believe what your told and only to
use it when it is necessary or useful to the Party. When I first read it I thought Mr. Orwell was
being a bit pessimistic when he thought you could get people to swallow such a ridiculous
concept as that until I realised that the Oldspeak translation for doublethink is faith.
                                 THE PERFECT RELIGION
         Coming from a Christian background I am only really in a position to criticise
Christianity in any detail however I suspect that there are a great many flaws in all other
religions as well. But what is the perfect religion then if all existing religions are flawed? To
start with the perfect religion is not a religion, it is an ideology. In the perfect ideology the
concept of faith does not exist, no single statement should be taken for granted, no story held
sacred, no piece of information left unexamined the ideology must be as flexible to
subsequent improvement by others as possible while as the same time restricting people from
committing acts of evil, it must also work and although it is useful to restrict the most vicious
aspects of our nature, it should not suppress human nature simply for the sake of doing so, but
rather only when it is unavoidable to achieve a moral objective. In the following pages I will
express my opinion of what the perfect ideology is, however any attempt at stating why I
think such and such a law should be made or that people should treat each other in such and
such a way, would be pointless without a reasonable understanding into human nature.
Therefore in the first few chapters I will give my opinion of how humans ( including myself )
and societies ( including this one ) work only then will I outline what I think the laws
governing humanity should be, and how humans should treat each other.
         At several points along the way the reader may find certain things that contradict
some deeply held belief of his, if you should find this to be indeed the case don‟t fret dear
reader! For unless there is some logical basis for an indiscrepancy this general rule of thumb
should carry you through; I‟m right, your deeply held beliefs are wrong.
         The ideology that will emerge would probably appal Abraham, make Buda blush,
Christ cringe and Mohamed moan but I don‟t care cause I‟m better then that lot anyway, you
may think I‟m being a bit arrogant and I should be more humble but your forgetting that
humility is only required in Christianity, in my ideology there‟s nothing wrong with being
arrogant, arrogance, megalomania, hubris and a health dose of paranoia are all traits
positively encouraged in my ideology, so, without further adieu allow me to give my opinion
regarding human nature.
                        HUMAN NATURE
         Take a look at the person on your left, take a look at the person on your right.
Both of them would gut you open like a fish and sell your organs to medical science if
they felt there was any long-term benefit to be got from it, that you could not fight
back and if there was no law against it, that is human nature. On the plus side they
would also throw money at you, compliment you and hug you if they thought there
was any long term benefit from that course of action either. If you find that hard to
believe consider the plight of the fish in the marketplace, who is gut open, why do we
do it? Is it for the benefit of the fish? No it is simply because we are feeling hungry or
we want to have fish available in the future to cook and eat at home, fish is packed
with essential fatty acids and vitamins and minerals so it is healthy for us to eat them,
however it is certainly not health for the fish to be eaten, so in the pursuit of our
individual interests we are prepared to completely disregard the interests of the fish.
But don‟t feel too gillty fish-eaters, after all a fish would gut you open if it felt it was
in its interests to do so.
         The replicator is essentially something that can replicate itself, it could be
simply a behaviour, it could be an arrangement of atoms with a behaviour, essentially
a behaviour is always associated with a replicator as anything that wants to replicate
itself must go through some form of behaviour in order to achieve this end. Richard
Dawkins deals extensively with the replicator and much of that which I write now will
overlap his work and the work of others.
         A replicator placed in an environment where it can replicate will do so, a
replicator that possesses the ability to replicate frequently in an environment and
survive will do so frequently, and is bound to become common in such an
environment, a replicator that can replicate in a wide range of environments will
surely become widespread provided the is no boundary restricting its spread that it
cannot overcome. A replicator that has a tendency to become common by eating
another will become common by doing so given the opportunity, a replicator that can
avoid being eaten will become more common (all else being equal ) than a replicator
that can‟t.
         Every replicator that we know of replicates by using up a finite resource, ( the
numbers of computer viruses that could theoretically exist would be restricted by the
quantity of disk space available, familiar life forms are restricted by food, water and
air, but even the less familiar archaea are restricted by some resource be it Iron,
sulphur or something still more bizarre) every natural replicator, does not always
replicate accurately, so sometimes the progeny it produces are slightly different from
the parent, because they are only slightly different, more often then not they will
compete over the same resource. Sometimes they will do better and replace the parent,
other times they will do worse and go extinct. Sometimes they will fill two slightly
different niches in the ecosystem and coexist with one another. The most important
thing to remember is that any individual replicator that can efficiently survive and
reproduce will remain and sometimes become co mmon. A replicator will not
automatically die out if it replicates at the expense of others neither will it die out if by
replicating it starves another replicator of resources and drives it to extinction. A
replicator will not always benefit by destroying everything else arbitrarily, in fact if a
replicator suffers by destroying another replicator it will cease to exist and if a
replicator benefits by aiding another replicator it will continue to exist, throughout
billions of years in the case of life replicators have emerged and gone extinct, always
the replicator more perfectly able to exist and take advantage of the existing
environment have survived while replicators who find that the environment that once
existed has somehow subtly changed to their detriment will become rarer and may go
extinct. As more and more replicators emerge the environment becomes more
complex, and as all food resources become utilised by different replicators and more
replicators emerge to take advantages of existing replicators, the only niches left
available for an emerging replicator may not be at all obvious thus the emergence of
organisms, and of extremely complex relationship between genes with on another and
organisms with one another. There is fundamentally no limit to the subtlety in the
traits that make on replicator more fit then another, after all a replicator does not have
to prove to a human observer that it is capable of replication before it can do so. Thus
although we can sometimes see how the traits of an organisms allow it to survive such
as the development of a long beak to reach nectar deep within flowers, at every level,
no matter how subtle a successful organism can meet the challenges that are thrown at
it such as cancer, disease, parasites and toxins. So it is often unwise to underestimate
the sheer complexity of the battle for life and the subtlety to which organisms are
designed to survive.
         From this we can see that essentially the replicator is not charitable, but
neither is it spiteful, the best word we can use to describe the nature of the replicator
is ruthless. It will kill or suck up to anything if it feels it will aid its long term survival
and reproduction, essentially its interests are survival and replication and it will do
whatever is in its power to secure those interests.
         When it comes to life the most crucial replicator (and in many cases the only
replicator) is the gene. As the environment becomes more complex the simplicity of
an individual gene may be inadequate for it to survive and it may only be able to do so
by working with another gene. Put it this way, imagine two genes happily existing
independently, imagine that sometimes they might stick together and when they do so
they reproduce more efficiently, imagine that sometimes when they reproduce they
produce two single genes and sometimes they produce a gene pair, the gene pairs may
out compete the single- genes and become more common thus from the point of view
of the gene-pairs producing single genes is not as good as producing genes pairs and if
the pairs split it corresponds to a reduction in fitness for both genes, thus if a third
gene finds that by latching on it can benefit and in exchange can make sure that when
the now gene triplet reproduces they produce a gene-triplet rather than three single
genes the gene triplet will continue to exist and will replace the gene pair and the
single genes provided the third gene doesn‟t reduce the fitness of the gene pair by
tagging along. Extra genes may just attach themselves or detach themselves from
outside or they may be simply the result of a mutation known as a duplication and tag
along then an individual duplicate gene may mutate into another gene group in such a
way that it contributes to the fitness of the emerging organism ( for if it does not it
will cease to exist ) thus the organism develops. I would agree with Richard Dawkins
and others whose names I don‟t know than the fundamental unit of fitness is the gene
and not the organism, if you consider fitness as the ability of an individual to maintain
its various traits and pass them on to the next generation, then by sexual reproduction,
the organism loses out in fitness as the progeny have less traits in common with their
parents than they would have if the organism reproduced asexually, the genes on the
other hand gain in fitness by getting access to a variety of new habitats that they could
not have access to otherwise (a habitat is a cell and its neighbouring genes) a gene
strives to get its progeny into an organism with the greatest chance of survival and
reproduction, the gene is more than ready to switch partner genes it shares in a given
organism in order to enhance its chances of survival, even if it must slightly adjust the
fundamental shape and traits of the organism, the organism doesn‟t care too much
about it as its will is only equal to the combined will of the genes that inhabit it.
         Although the gene is the fundamental unit of fitness, the relationships between
genes have been around so long that if most genes switch too many partners the
resulting organism is unlikely to remain viable. So organisms usually only mate with
other organisms with <1% difference in their DNA structure (members of the same
species) because most genes in an organism are reasonably conservative when it
comes to switching partners, the organism mostly acts as if it was the fundamental
unit of fitness. If we consider the DNA that contributes to the organisms fitness and
some of the harmless junk DNA (DNA which mostly doesn‟t do any harm but doesn‟t
contribute to the fitness off the other genes either but rather exists because no gene
decided it would be to its advantage to get rid of it as it is not doing any harm) in
other words if we exclude viruses and aggressive DNA, it would be true to say that
the fitness of the organism, its progeny and its close relatives are inextricably linked
to the fitness of most of the genes within the organism so all organisms (including
humans) have evolved in such a way as to allow these individuals to survive above all
others. It is said by some that ethics is intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong that all
individuals are born with, I would disagree, I would say that all “ethics” is, is the
combined will of all the genes within the organism to survive and propagate
themselves. I think every human being would feel revulsion in his gut if he killed his
children, or relatives whether or not he was conditioned for all his life to do so. Given
that ethics is simply the expression of a genes will to survive and replicate, I see no
need to elaborate greatly on the issue. Suffice it to say that there is no fundamental
upper limit to what an individual replicator or group of replicators working together
for each others benefit (i.e. humans) are prepared to do in order to ensure their long
term survival and replication.
         If you find that hard to believe then why do leaders provoke wars, why is it we
need locks and keys to keep our fellow men out? Why do we expend so much energy
in building nuclear weapons and vast armies when they can only bring death? Why is
it that rape should happen at all or that drug-dealers and organised criminal gangs
exist let alone in such vast quantities in some countries? All these things can be at
least partially explained if we assume that the individuals who are the driving force
for such activities are doing so to benefit themselves or to avoid punishment from
others (i.e. the crime boss).
         Lamark proposed that by using various limbs repeatedly an organism made
them stronger, this change would be inherited by the progeny and thus the species
would evolve. He was right when he said that individuals change by using limbs
repeatedly but was wrong to suppose that the progeny inherited these changes. The
thing that lead him to this false conclusion is the fact that many animals have evolve a
certain flexibility to environmental stimuli by natural selection. It is in fact rather
obvious that a certain amount of flexibility both physically a behaviourally is indeed
an adaptive characteristic for an individual to possess a light coat of fur would be
more adaptive in the summer, an individual with a heavier coat of fur would be better
adapted to its environment during the winter, but an individual that possessed a light
coat during the summer that grew thicker during the winter, and moulted again at
spring would be the best adapted of all. An individual that always sweated would be
well adapted to a hot moist season, an individual that never sweated would be better
adapted to a cool dry season, but an individual that sweated when hot and did not
when cool would be well adapted to both seasons, not only that, he would also be well
adapted to hot moist climates and warm dry ones at the same time so his range would
also expand. A genotype that allowed an individual to become strong when food was
plentiful and strenuous labour was required to get it and lose his muscles when food is
scarce and no great labours are required to get. If muscles are no needed the food
could well be used to build up the brain or the immune system instead. Of course if
food is plentiful all three can be built up at the same time. The body has evolved a
very simple policy when it comes to allocating resources newly absorbed, supply the
most resources to the systems that are being used the most to an adaptive end, and the
least resources to building up the systems that are currently being used the least, this
has proven to be a highly adaptive policy, and is favoured by natural selection in
many organisms.
         It is true that organisms are capable of altering their physiology and
metabolism as a generally adaptive response to certain stimulus or simply in a time
related way but what about more complex behaviour, such as chewing food, jumping,
running away from predators. Well, animals possess a wide array of stimulus-
response cycles, and even have the capability to prioritise one kind of behaviour over
another. In order to do this you need a nervous system. And the bigger the nervous
system the more subtly you can alter your behaviour in such a way as to work out
which behaviour is precisely the most adaptive behaviour to engage in at any specific
moment. However it takes time for a signal to travel from neuron to neuron, so the
closer the neurons that do the processing are together the sooner a decision can be
arrived at hence the ganglion and the brain. The brain is very specialized in its design,
all the external stimuli go into the central processing unit almost immediately, with all
the most important sensory organs, (eyes, ears, tongue, nose) placed as close to the
brain as possible to reduce the travel time of the signals, then once all the information
is processed and the best behaviour determined signals are sent from the brain directly
to the effectors (mostly the muscles) which usually provide the organism with highly
adaptive behaviour to help its genes get what they need to survive and reproduce.
         Consider each stimulus made by a sensory nerve as a piece of information,
consider a piece of information that may sometime in the future affect the well-being
or reproductive capacity of the organism in however small a way as a useful piece of
information. Ultimately there is only so much useful information a given individual
may receive from the world around him and only a given number of possibly adaptive
responses a given individual is capable of doing and thus would be worth considering
so in this situation it becomes pointless to develop the brain beyond a certain size.
         However if and individual is capable of communicating useful information
with a second individual and in exchange receiving useful information from that other
individual the number of things to consider before making a response increases and if
he is capable of coordinating his behaviour with that individual the number of
possibly adaptive responses increases to so it becomes more adaptive to develop a
larger brain. But what adaptive benefit is there in the act of telling the other individual
this useful information? (Remember the replicator motivates the individual in such a
way as to ensure it itself has the greatest chance of survival and replication) why so
the other individual can in turn provide it with useful information! Hence people tend
to have a preference of talking to “interesting” people above “boring” ones. An
interesting person being someone who can give the individual useful information and
a boring person being a person who the individual has learnt by experience will
generally only offer useless information with a much lower density of useful facts.
Considering all individuals operate this way, in order to get access to the most
interesting facts an individual must try to make himself as interesting as possible to
those particular people who have a high chance of offering him facts that will be to
his personal benefit.
         But what sort of facts are to the individuals benefit? Well, first you have
practical facts that would help the individual survive on a daily basis. If an individual
nearly dies but ends up surviving if he tells others of his experience they might find it
interesting as they might be able to copy him and so avoid death if they ever got into
that situation. If an individual sees another individual die people would be interested
regarding finding ways to avoid the same thing occurring in the future. An individual
who has successfully advanced socially into a position of wealth and power would
also be of interest as if others could copy him they too could enjoy the benefits which
he enjoys, another thing to watch out for is people trying to hold their own when
others attempt to undermine them, in order to be as interesting as possible it is also
useful to look at items of general interest and in fact a disproportionate quantity of our
attention is spent looking at these precise occurrences, all you have to do is turn on the
television to see that I‟m right.
         I my opinion when considering human behaviour and the development of
society it is important to remember that the human brain is an organ, and like any
other organ its primary function is to promote the survival and propagation of the
genes in the given individual that possesses it, everything else, philosophy, art,
science, literature, religion, self-consciousness, etc., etc., is either a means to
achieving that end or an awkward side effect. Another important thing to keep in mind
is that the unformed human doesn‟t really primarily aim to preserve humanity as a
whole and if they do take actions to that effect it is only to benefit from the approval
of their peers in fact I would say that with the exception of the close family and
progeny of the individual, every sacrifice he makes for someone else or something
else is done calculating that there is a chance he might benefit from it. That is not to
say there would be a good chance but if the possible benefit is great enough or the
possible detriment of not engaging in that action too is great enough it might still be a
chance he would be prepared to take.
         In the past paragraph I spoke of the unformed human, the problem with this is
excluding babies (who don‟t know enough to make complex decisions anyway) no
such thing exists. Although this chapter has explained certain aspects of human
behaviour it almost runs in contradiction to others such as suicide bombers, suicides,
monks taking vows of celibacy, soldiers going to war for their country and many
more. To understand these we must consider the existence of mindforms which will
be dealt with in the next chapter.
         If you asked the question what allows one man to persuade another man of a
particular view, you could argue that he was very persuasive. If one the other hand
you asked the question: what allows a million people to persuade a million others of a
particular view (you can assume there is are equal numbers of persuasive
representatives on each side) it must be argued that there is something in the view
itself that makes it appealing, but if you asked what is it precisely that makes a view
appealing, then you are into the subject of memes and mindforms. Richard Dawkins
again developed and dealt with this subject quite extensively already and I must again
say that what I say here will probably overlap much of his work and the work of
others. Richard Dawkins invented the word memes basically speaking of an idea that
can spread itself, essentially another form of replicator. He also spoke of gangs of
memes working together to persuade the listener. Sometimes the relationship between
memes in a gang may be weak, however other times it can be very strong indeed on
meme may depend on others in the gang for its very existence, so in order to describe
this strong relationship I have chosen to use the word mindform as an analogue to
lifeform basically a mindform is an organism that although it ma y not essentially be
the fundamental unit of fitness in many senses acts as if it was since the interests of
the memes that inhabit it are so strongly linked to the mindform‟s ability to survive
and reproduce.
         Like a lifeform may chose to compromise its structure by slightly shuffling its
genes around in its progeny, a mindform might be willing to slightly shuffle its
memes around in order to maintain its fitness, what this means is that all the other
memes in the mindform felt that one meme was dragging it down and causing it to
lose credibility, so they discarded it and replaced it with another. For all some say
about the immutability and fundamental truth of religion it is clear to any remotely
observant person that all religious mindforms change with the times, not because the
truth changes, but rather to preserve their ability to replicate. As Christians, for
example, are increasingly starting to take the bible less and less literally and are often
argue that the things it says are true, but true as in they are cryptic symbols that
actually tell us to live our lives more in accordance with the current status quo than
the way they appear to instruct us to live our lives if believed word by word. For
example in Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 13 it states; “And if a man should lieth with
mankind as he lieth with a woman then both have committed an abomination and
must surely die! Their blood shall be upon them.” Perhaps the modern Christian
would choose to reinterpret the phrase “committed an abomination” as a s ubtle
symbol for “its Okay.” And the phrase “must surely die!” for “should be tolerated.”
Yes that‟s obviously what God was really trying to communicate to Moses when he
spoke to him on the mount, it‟s a mystery that Moses didn‟t recognise relevance of
these fairly obvious metaphors and symbols which are perfectly apparent to the
modern Christian.


       If we assume the brain is an organ designed to help us to survive above all else
than we can make the following assumption:

1* The opinions and ideas an individual will accept are the ideas he feels will raise his
fitness by accepting. If confronted with two contradictory viewpoints a given
individual will accept the viewpoint that he believes will raise his fitness the most
from by accepting.

         This is very significant assumption, it means that even if confronted with
overwhelming proof that vast portions of his viewpoint are wrong he will none the
less stick to it if he believes that by doing otherwise he wo uld lose friends or be
declared a heretic. He might also be afraid of being considered weak- minded by
changing his views too easily although this will not be as permanent a situation as the
point may come when he would look even more foolish by not changing his mind.
Although a bad result of this is he may change his mind from the right opinion to the
wrong opinion provided everyone else believes it and he would gain more respect
from it. In a case where there is overwhelming contradictory evidence against his
view but there is still adaptive benefit to be gained from holding onto it, he will either
walk away from the arguer lash out physically at him, or, if he‟s very clever, make
some poxy little modification to his view (such as developing an idea like fa ith or
some such nonsense) although this may not convince the arguer it probably would be
enough to convince others in the same situation as the listener.
         If you are not convinced then why are people eager to accuse those they don‟t
like (people they don‟t like are people whose existence and presence near them they
would believe actively decreases their fitness) of crimes but when it comes to their
own children no amount of evidence can convince them that they did it. A school
teacher in my old school never tired of telling us how when he tells them their
children did something like bullying or drugs or robbery they would respond “My son
would never do something like that!” or “He‟s a good boy really!” in an extreme case
where the evidence is absolutely conclusive the parents may give up arguing as they
see how pointless it would be and instead try to make sure their child would never do
it again. If the parents lived in warrior cult such as the Vikings I would imagine that
they would be boosting and exaggerating their sons acts of wickedness saying things
like “My son burnt a thousand monasteries, enslaved a million monks and raped a
billion women!” In order to gain their children social respect. In such a situation if
someone said their son was merciful to a priest or something, they to would probably
respond with something like “My son would never do something like that!”
         Consider how hard it is to convince someone that you have a historic right to a
piece of land that they claim to own even if the evidence is overwhelming, now
consider how much easier the task becomes when you give them large quantities of
money in exchange for that piece of land.

Another important assumption we can make is:

2* Children would have a tendency to believe whatever they are told. And would be
far more inclined to accept a view without question than an adult.

        If you told someone who new nothing about astronomy that andromeda was
the nearest galaxy away from us he would probably say “O.K” and continue doing
whatever he was doing last and probably forget it completely (though he might
remember if you made it sound like an interesting or relevant fact) but the point is he
probably would not argue with you. In order to argue you must already have
conflicting evidence or information in your head. A child does not have this, neither
does it have any idea which pieces of information are useful and which are useless
and considering some information is better than no information at all the child has a
tendency to suck it all up without question, although this is obviously not true without
exception it would be true to say that the older the child the less easily influenced he
would be,(some parents would say that teenagers are more easily influenced than little
children, I would argue that teenagers are simply less easily influenced by the parents
themselves) I think everyone would agree with assumption (2) I was simply deriving
it from assumption (1)

Assumption (3):

3* An individual will have a natural tendency to hold onto his existing cultural
mindforms especially the ones which affect his code of conduct although that
tendency can be overcome if he feels it is to his benefit to abandon them.

        Besides appearing weak-minded and easily persuaded away from his
convictions there is another reason why an individual is especially anxious to
maintain his existing culture. In every culture some types of behaviour are rewarded
and other types are punished throughout his life an individual acquires a subtle
understanding of which things in his particular culture are rewarded and which are
punished, thus as time goes by he learns to take better and better advantage of the
culture by making the “right” decisions (the decisions that yield long term fitness
benefits) more and more frequently, if he suddenly moves into a different culture he is
suddenly placed in a position where he does not know what will and won‟t be
respected or cause offence. Thus he is at a disadvantage, although if he tours others
countries the natives might tend to tolerate and even enjoy his fresh outlook on life
(especially if he buys lots of stuff while there) if he stays there for long the tolerance
will gradually decrease, especially if he has different moral principles to them. The
problem with changing them too much if he is a tourist is once he goes back he may
then cause offence to his fellow countrymen. Thus in general individual tend to be the
most conservative when it comes to changing their moral principles (especially their
religion). Anyone who has tried to convince others out of their religious beliefs will
agree that assumption (3) is probably correct.

Assumption (4)[Also based on the assumption the brain is a survival organ]:

4* An individual will have a natural tendency to spread the cultural, religious or other
mindforms which he already believes in to other people who don‟t.

        As already said once an individual understands the ins and outs of a culture he
become quite adept at acquiring the rewards and avoiding the punishments in that
culture, it quite clear that the more people accept his culture, the more people there are
to acquire rewards from. Also when you consider that the new rookies that accept the
culture won‟t fully understand the ins and outs of it and so can be out-manoeuvred
more easily which is also advantageous to those that spread it. It also provides more
land over which an individual can roam, and the more people are agreement with one
another, the more easily they can get along. However if you are host to a particular
cultural mindform and you see those around you abandoning it, this is detrimental to
you for similar reasons, to learn the new cultural mindform you have to start afresh
from square one and vast portions of information you have gathered through your life
is rendered useless. A combination of assumptions (3) and (4) is the recipe for
tensions, conflict and war.
THE DIPLOMATIC METHOD: Here the speaker tells the listener that it would raise
his fitness to accept a certain idea or that it would lower his fitness to reject a certain
idea. In the diplomatic method the speaker merely informs the listener of the situation
around him in order to persuade him to accept the mindform.

THE FORCEFUL METHOD: Here the speaker informs the listener that he will
personally raise the fitness of the listener if he accepts the mindform and/or lower the
fitness of the listener if he rejects the mindform.

         Most mindforms spread themselves by both methods. If individuals are in
agreement over most things the most probable method is the diplomatic method,
however if they are not in agreement over anything at all and feel that an agreement
can never be reached there is a higher probability of the forceful method being used,
especially if one person can inflict more damage on the other, than the other can
inflict on him.
         So far I have explained how individual humans deal with memes and
mindforms in such a way as to maximize their own fitness, now I shall inform you
how memes and mindforms deal with humans in order to maximise their own fitness.

                         MINDFORM PROPAGATION
         I have explained that with a few exceptions humans generally except memes
and mindforms and act in ways that they believe will maximize their own fitness.
Mindforms can‟t change that unless they are very well established in the individual,
however the can far more easily trick the individual into believing that a certain type
of behaviour will increase his fitness when in fact that behaviour increases the fitness
of the mindform instead, or at the same time. Now we shall discuss how various
mindforms propagate themselves.
         In general when a human is in a situation where his body needs to make little
effort to maintain homeostasis and thus not depleting bodily re serves he feels
comfortable (a warm room, being well- fed, etc.) when the body moves toward optimal
conditions it feels relieved (eating when hungry, drinking when thirsty, sleeping when
sleepy, etc.,) when the individual rises socially by making friends or engaging in
behaviour that may lead to the production of offspring he feels love or happiness. All
these feelings are verbal approximations to described the actions of the lifeforce.
When I say lifeforce I speak of the phenomenon that subtly fine tunes the thoughts
and emotions of any given individual in order pressure or coax him into engaging in
behaviour that will result in the survival and replication of his particular genes. This
phenomenon could be called the subconscious however it has nothing to do with
Greek myth rather it is simply a result of billions of years of evolution.
         By saying God is love, God provides comfort relief and happiness. The closer
you are to God the happier you become, a life without God is not life. All those who
truly believe shall be saved, go out and spread the good word! The Christian
mindform is tricking the host into believing that by propagating the mindform itself
the host is raising his own fitness. With the concept that everlasting life can be
attained by showing total faith in God the mindform can really rewire the host brain
while often rendering the host all but immune to any rational argument relating to the
non-existence of God. As the host believes that the ultimate fitness boost can be
attained by ignoring all these so-called “facts” and “evidence” that strongly suggests
that Gods existence highly unlikely.
         Now let us consider faith healing and the near death experience. Throughout
the ages of old meditation has been used, however more recently it has been
categorically observed that suggestion has a real physiological effect on individuals.
Thus suggestion by oneself or by others may and probably does have the power to
cure an individual in certain circumstances. The placebo effect is far from fully
understood but then so is the body and the ability to cure oneself must be considered
adaptive, but why don‟t we just do it automatically? And why does stress and guilt
actually lower the body‟s immune system and ability to cure itself. Well as I said the
most important attribute of the brain is flexibility. This gives us the power to effect
our physiology and behaviour in such a way as to give us the maximum chance of
survival in a given situation. A man who is paid to be a soldier will learn the art of
fighting, a man who is paid to be a blacksmith will learn the art of forging, each one
adapts his behaviour (and perhaps to some extent, his body) in order to maximize his
fitness, now imagine someone found a way to rewire his brain in order to increase his
ability to heal, this is useful information and so would be kept and passed on and so
the practise of homeopathic therapy would begin. The body and especially the brain is
certainly not yet fully understood and contains some surprises for us yet so I certainly
would not immediately reject the effectiveness of various unorthodox forms of
treatment although they should probably accompany rather than be practised instead
of the orthodox forms especially in critical cases. This just means we don‟t know
everything about the human body rather than that God exists.
         A more puzzling phenomenon is the ability of the body to reduce its own
fitness through stress or guilt. Allow me to speculate on the various reasons why
reducing ones own fitness might be adaptive. If a man does something that other
people feel inclined to punish him for. The body may decide to take the initiative
itself and make itself sick and weakly in order to get pity, so that those who are
annoyed at the actions of the sinner might more readily forgive him as they see that he
has suffered from his action they may be more inclined to trust him not to repeat them
and thus by inflicting punishment on the inside it can prevent or ease punishment
being inflicted from the outside. Say if two people are fighting with each other if one
gains the upper hand, the body of the other might deliberately weaken the subject in
order that it would not appear to pose a threat to the man with the upper hand and thus
avoid being finished off. Also when a man is in fear of his life or a major fall in social
status the body might allocate so much resources to enable the mind to think of a way
out that it might neglect the fine tuning of other systems and thus the loss in heath
maybe an unpleasant side effect of a behaviour that would ultimately result in a gain
in fitness.
         Another idea is the idea that the lifeforce is trying to force the individual away
from a particular form of behaviour that is in some way detrimental, we know that the
body does not have complete control of itself. When you think of white corpuscles
eating tumour cells and killing old cells. The only way in which the body can keep the
vast majority of the cells acting for the benefit of the organism is to eliminate or
substantially reduce the fitness of any individual cells that harm the organism. Thus it
has a wide array of mechanisms to keep all the cells in line. Is it possible that when
people who say, are afraid of heights feel physically queasy as they approach a great
height this is because the part of the brain or body that feels threatened by the
stimulus is actually threatening and punishing the part of the body that feels it would
benefit by doing an action and thus keeping it in line? It is true that because of
bottlenecking, all the cells in the organism, have a common goal, but what if different
“segments” (this is a loose approximation of what I am trying to say) disagreed on the
best course of action to undertake in order to achieve that goal? Might that not be
sufficient motive for conflict within? Say, if section 1 of the brain/body believed that
height or spiders were deadly and that section 2 believed that they were not. Might
section 1 lower the immune system or cause nausea over the entire body in order to
intimidate section 2 into not going into the elevator? Assuming section 2 only sees a
mild advantage in doing so, by taking into account that section 1 is going to make a
great fuss about it and actively lower the fitness of the whole body section 2 might no
longer feel that it is to its advantage to go into the elevator. From section 1‟s point of
view, by lowering the fitness of the whole body it has forced section 2 out of its
madness and section 1 has just saved the body from a potentially lethal situation , thus
it believes the end justifies the means. Ofcourse there need not be just two sections
there maybe many sections all crying out arguments on the best course of action two
take and if each one believes that taking this course is a matter of life or death then
each one may be willing to drastically reduce the fitness of the organism in order to
get its way. Thus decisiveness maybe a good way to combat stress.
         Anyway I‟m meandering a bit off the subject, now let us consider the near
death experience and the life flashing before your eyes scenario. It is not
inconceivable that as the blood relatives of a given individual would tend to be around
him at the time of death as they by nature would try to avoid the death of a given
individual who contain the same genes as them that, once the body realises that it is
going to die and there is no hope for its survival or any of the genes in it, that it may
be profitable to boost the brain to maximum ability, even if it might otherwise do
some long term damage so that the dying organism may convey eve ry scrap of useful
information to its blood relatives before it dies and thus boost the fitness of its genes.
It is possible that through the phrase that those with faith will enter the kingdom of
heaven and receive everlasting life maybe the mindform‟s attempt to channel the
thoughts of these desperate genes into believing that by having faith in God they
might somehow save their skins, so the subject might convince himself that Jesus is
speaking to him and the like thus the mindform has transformed a gene-propagating
function into a meme-propagating function as the relatives of the man would be more
inclined to stick to Christianity or convert to Christianity (I‟m sure many a dying
Christian has also told his relatives useful information as well so lets not blame
Christianity too much). Although Christianity is theoretically supposed to be non-
materialistic, in reality most of the established churches have priests and bishops who,
although they may not officially get paid large quantities, they get lots of perks and
fitness benefits (although in some churches their not officially allowed to have
children and indeed with concepts like the afterlife and all, the mindform may succeed
in suppressing that urge we all know what many of them get up to with their
“nephews” and “nieces”) Thus the leaders of may churches and cults could be
regarded as being in the pay of the mindform.
                                  DRUG ABUSE
         I have already explained why the ultimate reason for happiness is to direct the
individual into fitness raising behaviour, however the proximal mechanism for doing
so is through the release of certain chemicals. Herein lies the weakness as there are a
number of fitness lowering chemicals that can cause the brain of a given individual to
mistakenly assume that he is raising his fitness (in other words makes him happy). So
he will continue to take the treacherous toxin. His family will see that he is lowering
his fitness and for reasons already explained will try to stop him, because the drug has
deceived him the addict believes (subconsciously) that by taking it he is raising his
fitness and that it is his own family, who are trying to lower his fitness. Some of the
addicts friends may try to persuade him to stop as in a less fit state he is less able to
contribute to their fitness and looking after a needlessly sick friend is a waste of
valuable fitness raising time. However to this misguided individual they too are trying
to lower his fitness and must be avoided. Yet even in this altered state of mind he
realises that he needs friends to survive, but who can you turn to? Who will be your
friend while at the same time tolerate your habit? Why other junkies of course! It is
beneficial for a given junky to befriend another junky as they can all work together to
secure the cheapest deals in drugs, help each other out when one goes unconscious
and also when it comes to robbing nice old ladies to feed their habit, etc., etc.,
         The more useful members of the gang, the better, but what self respecting non-
addict would benefit from the company of these losers? Who could seriously benefit
from living in dingy, vomit- filled flats, having friends who might, on occasion take a
crap on the carpet if they were really out of it and were strongly linked with petty theft
and so might get the non-addict in trouble? Why none of course! Much better to find
another addict to hang around with or failing that to turn a non-addict into an addict.
So you see it is in the interest of the addicts to acquire more recruits so they develop
memes (arguments) to try and persuade the innocent non-addict into their decadent
way of life and so a mindform gradually develops. Here the chief memes are the ideas
that you should try everything once and that you shouldn‟t restrict the liberty of
others, also that life is all about experience and if you haven‟t tried drugs you have not
lived, unlike many a mindform there is no need for the drug mindform to offer any
forceful arguments or way to enforce the taking of drugs by a possible recruit, once
the recruit first consumes the drug he is himself consumed by the mindform and the
deadly substance does the rest.
         Supporters of legalisation of drugs claim that it is in the interest of liberty to
do so, however I fail to see the liberty of the addicts life when in some cases every
waking moment is spent trying to get the next fix, sometimes not even for the high but
simply to avoid the withdrawal symptoms at this point the drug has worked its way
sufficiently deeply into the system of the addict to actually reduce his fitness when he
does not consume it.
         As people can get to the stage where they are reliant on the drug for fitness. He
who controls the supply of the drug, controls what the addict has to do in order to
increase what he perceives as his fitness. And as humans do what they can to increase
their fitness, the dealer controls the addict. Having complete control over another man
has serious advantages to it and the dealer can maximize the money he can make by
upping the prices to whatever he wants, thus the drug industry can become quite
lucrative indeed. This attracts people to it as people who engage in such activities can
raise their own personal fitness. Essentially drug-dealers are in the pay of the drug
         In America there are lots of different ethnic groups of people thus there are
lots of different cultures lots of different cultures may mean a wide variety of food,
but is also means that a characteristic that one person would find admirable, another
might find detestable, a compliment to one, is an insult to another, if you said
something to one person he might give you a slap on the back and invite you round to
dinner, say the same thing to someone else and he‟ll blow your brains out. The basic
point is, it does not only matter what you say or do but rather who you say it in front
of or do it to. Therefore the best thing to do if you want to survive is to stick with your
own. In order to find your own you have to advertise which culture you belong to.
The main method of silently displaying this is by the means of clothing and material
        With lots of demand comes supply, industries in turn manufacture goods in
order supply that demand, with so many niches in the market and such a wide range of
tastes and preferences there is plenty of opportunity for the entrepreneur to make his
fortune. However with so many different people trying to sell their goods how do you
get the edge over the others? Why by advertising of course! In a country where people
already have the mentality of displaying who they are by their materials the advertiser
merely has to latch on to that and try to give his product a good image so that when
you buy the product you are not merely buying a utensil, you are buying an image you
are buying social status which in turn adds adaptive value to the product and raises the
price the salesman can charge for it, which is adaptive for the salesman. Now consider
things from the advertising company‟s perspective. From their point of view they
want money from the industries so it is to their advantage as a company to get their
advertisements to get more products sold than any other company above all else, so
they can receive more money, and money is the only reason a company exists.
Therefore companies that happen to develop management structures that achieve
these goals more efficiently do better than companies that don‟t, the best method of
achieving those aims is to provide monetary and promotional incentives to individuals
that can devise advertisements that achieve the goal of selling products more
efficiently. The best way an individual who wants to rise by developing better
advertisements can achieve this goal is to create an advertisement similar to a
previously successful advertisement except slightly different in such away whe re with
the creator thinks it can surpass the original in selling ability. Many of these attempts
fail and fall slightly short, but the ones that succeed become the basis from the next
young hotshot to work with. Thus you could say advertisements evolve to be more
        Since the invention of television, commercial breaks have become a major
source of advertisements so companies pay the television station more to broadcast
their ads over a given period if more viewers are watching. So it is in the interests of
the television companies to show programming that attracts the most viewers
therefore if someone in the film industry wants to be rich he will try to create a piece
of media that will attract more viewers, the best way to do this is to take an e xample
of something that already attracts many viewers and try and modify it slightly and
improve on it. Thus programming evolves to have the capacity to attract more
viewers. If every programme successfully evolves to attract more viewers then unless
viewers are appearing out of thin air you can be sure that as time progresses the
average viewer will tend to watch more and more programmes.
        Let us presume Joe watches 3 hours of television a day, if every hour contains
4 commercial breaks and each commercial break contains 5 advertisements Joe
watches 60 ads every day. That‟s 21900 ads in a year and assuming Joe lives for
seventy years, that‟s 1,533,000 advertisements in his lifetime(not including billboards,
magazines, radio, etc.) Perhaps this is an overestimation but there are people like Joe
and considering the fact that ads are getting more and more persuasive and the
phenomenal number of ads it must be quite clear that this is having no small effect on
Joe‟s psychology. This will have a tendency to make Joe want far more materials than
will obviously raise his fitness level as all these goods cost money, this means that Joe
will be prepared to do anything in order to acquire money, this means that he will
direct his mental efforts towards the acquisition of money, if you want money, it is
worth your time to butter up to rich people and try to persuade them to give you
money and not worth your time to spend time chatting to poor people when he could
be spending all that valuable time talking to rich people and potentially getting money
which is what Joe wants anyway. This means that rich people are treated with respect
while poor people are ignored. As respect gives an individual control over others this
is a fitness raising thing to have, and as being ignored means that no one will help you
when your in trouble this is a fitness lowering position to be in. Thus the incentive to
acquire money is increased still further. If you are taxed you lose money, so nobody
wants to be taxed in this society, with low tax comes low social welfare. Which makes
people still more afraid of poverty. The people with influence will also tend to use
their influence to raise their social status, thus fame will also be worshipped and as
wealth is also necessary for status people with influenced are likely to use it to
increase their affluence so money may also come with fame, however people may
also use their affluence to increase their influence so fame comes with money.
         As we can see there are many processes by which this mind form manages to
grow and propagate, in fact I might even go as far as to say that the capitalist
mindform at present, is the strongest and most robust mindform to date. But here is
where the loop ends, with more demand and more competition than ever, the
advertising industry is now more affluent that ever (as is the film industry) and thus
with more incentive than ever before people are drawn to make still more persuasive
advertisements and still more addictive films and with less money spent on public
education, the poor are in less of a position to think of ways to change things and if
the social structure is dynamic enough they will not even bother, after all, if they work
really hard and get lucky one in a hundred of them might someday become rich.
Although the rest will live and die in abject poverty.
         Let us consider some other ways in which this mindform defends itself. Firstly
there are ways of getting an education, but they are only available to the rich and if we
apply assumption (1) as it is in their interests to stay rich and they benefit from their
position they will end up using their education to maintain the status quo. Any poor
person who does per chance become educated will themselves be placed in a position
where they benefit by maintaining the status quo. People may talk of helping the poor
and the injustice of inequality, however, although some may do something about it
most will silently act in such a way as to maintain the status quo in the big picture
those that threaten the mindform the most will subtly be reduced to positions where
they are no longer capable of harming it.
         A mayor product in a capitalist society is music, and by a process analogous to
films and advertisements it too evolves to be more and more addictive and Joe finds
himself listening to more and more music. Rock music plays an especially important
role in the capitalist society. Where once the demagogue would speak from a pedestal
and insight a revolution, the modern demagogue, the rock-star merely shouts angry
words in rhyme to an audience, Rock is a convenient activity to give people who
would otherwise have the ability to destroy the mindform. The same atmosphere is
maintained in a rock concert as a rally. The rock-star feels he is bringing about great
change, the audience feels that together things are going to change, but as the rock-
star is dependent on the richer people to fund concert, and if he is successful enough
he himself may become rich and famous and therefore in his interest to maintain the
status quo, the mindform has found an ingenius way to remove the dangers posed by
these rebellious people, by placing the most rebellious and influential in the positions
where it is to their benefit to maintain the status quo. Although they will not
completely backtrack and say in the middle of the concert “Hey guys, you know
what? The systems great! Let‟s all live by the system!” The music which they write
will subtly lose the power it once had. And since the rock industry is steeped in drugs
although the rockers may commit petty crime they will ultimately lack the
organisation or will to revolt. Indeed crime is a great way to become rich, I don‟t wish
you to mistake me for Karl Marx or anything, and crime certainly does not benefit the
Bourgeoisie but it essentially does little or no damage to the capitalist mindform as it
merely provides more products to sell on the market, better locks, burglar alarms,
guns, knives, geto music, etc., and though few individuals benefits from living in this
violent society, the mindform certainly does and the status quo continues.
         Music essentially concentrates on feelings, but feelings are fuzzy things, by
keeping the minds of the populace on fuzzy issues, rather than rational thought from
whence real chance can emerge, the whole process of psychoanalysis is another
example of keeping the subject on feeling rather than thoughts, as feelings can be
more easily manipulated (I shall discuss this later) and so by maintaining the populace
at this level of thinking the capitalist mindform prevents any organised change from
taking place.
         To top it all off all these people who are influenced strongly by the media, are
poorly educated and want low taxes vote. In other words, in general, the only head of
state that can ever be elected is the one that panders to and supports the mindform.
This will not always be the case, sometimes a leader may emerge that has the ability
to convince the people via assumption (1) that a completely different course of action
would be more adaptive, however the capitalist mindform has thought of that too, and
in many capitalist countries the number of terms a given head of state can serve is
limited, there are many pseudo-reasons for having this law, however the real reason is
so that no single individual has that power to change the mindform. And since at the
start of any process of change a certain amount of discomfort is felt this means that
before the process is completed the head of state must be replaced, the new head of
state who is just starting off will want a quick way to become popular and will reverse
whatever change the last person put into action and go back to the “good old way of
things.” As any given politician relies on the media and the people at the top of the
media benefit by preserving the status quo the politician with too many radical
opinions is unlikely to rise anyhow, so all politicians are essentially in the pay of the
capitalist mindform.
         We have now gained a certain level of insight into the operation of humans
and mindform, though this discussion is by no means complete and we shall be
returning to it later. However before we talk more about these topics. I would like to
introduce another concept, that of the tribal unit. Which is what the next chapter is
               THE TRIBAL UNIT
         If a meme was a gene, a mindform, an organism then the tribal unit might be
described as an ecosystem. The analogy is pretty vague and inaccurate so it would not
be wise to take it too seriously. However one of the main characteristics of an
ecosystem is that, unlike an organism (where the component genes almost always
work together) in the ecosystem there is a very real competition between various
organisms, I wish to emphasize this in order to blow away some of these social
theorists who foolishly treat races, nations, cultures, classes and religions as fully
united groups of people. Perhaps my use of the word tribal would only slightly
overlap the accepted definition. My definition of a tribal unit is simply a group of
people in which the members would tend to put their own interests above the interests
of non- members. Thus I might use the word interest group to describe the same
         Why can‟t we just all get along? How many people throughout history have
asked this question. The answer is usually, I suppose its in our nature to fight. But is it
that simple? Perhaps if we look at the issue in finer detail we might be able to
understand the general phenomenon better and by using this knowledge wisely the
day may indeed come when we all will be able to get along (or at least get along a
little better than were are now).
         Consider a group of rich people one rich person with a sword could never
ward of a bunch of poor people who hunger for their wealth. He would simply be
overwhelmed, he could hire a bunch of highly trained fighting men to ward off these
poor people and also make sure that they don‟t get their hands on too many weapons
either, however what‟s to stop the fighting men turning on the rich man? The basic
concept necessary to protect ones wealth is that of divide and conquer. You have
several groups of fighting men in different regions. If one tries to go after your wealth
you pay the other group extra to crush them. Any given group knows that if they
mutiny and seize the wealth from the rich man there is a distinct danger that a group
of more loyal troupes will be given incentive to slaughter them. Since the benefit of
getting a few shillings as their share of the rich mans mansion is out-weighed by the
cost of having a sword run through your gizzard, the army will usually remain loyal
unless their pay falls sufficiently to spread enough discontent to incite such a mutiny.
But if all the troupes ganged up on all the rich people, what‟s to stop them benefiting?
Ultimately to do this requires speech and since any individual who revealed such a
plot emerging against the king would be rewarded, the king would find out and be
able to put a stop to it. But how could he if everyone would benefit from such an
action? Well everyone would not benefit from such an action if the king was in
anyway sensible, as what‟s to say his favourites will retain their privileges after the
revolt? Therefore those who feel their doing fine already would do everything in their
power to prevent the revolutionaries from winning. Ofcourse if everyone hates the
king especially the army, there usually is a revolution. So a king needs favourites.
         Now lets us consider the situation, you have a bunch of rich layabouts who lie
around giving the generals and bishops orders, a bunch of reasonably well-paid
bishops, priests, generals and officers. The church tells the peasantry that they are fine
as they are and if they keep working hard for God and their king then they will all
enjoy everlasting life in heaven. The generals and officers tell the better off than-the-
peasants army to slaughter the peasantry if they stop working and start stealing from
their Lord. And the peasantry work because its probably better than the consequences
of not working.
        The concept of being nice to those that are nice to you works very well in a
small society where an individual who rewards the behaviour of those who treat him
well (unless he knows they treat him well because they fear him, by knowing that, he
knows that whether he returns the favour or not they will still treat him well in future,
so he will not waste his time by rewarding them too much unless he feels it will
enhance his reputation with his friends who don‟t fear him) in order to encourage it in
future and punishes the behaviour of those who treat him badly (unless they are bigger
and stronger than him). This individual will benefit from this behaviour in a small
society and it may even be transposed to a larger one to a certain extent, however,
slight modifications must be made. In a large society you will not be talking about
subduing tens or hundreds of people but rather hundreds of thousands and millions of
people. For that you need a larger army, more generals and priests and a large
nobility. Although the upper echelons of the nobility might know each other by face
or by name, they certainly would not be of sufficiently small number to all know each
other well. Therefore they have to develop a more generalized code of conduct to
allow themselves to benefit. If the aristocracy told the peasants that “We are exactly
the same as you, but we have more money than you and we do next to no work for it
and you know what? You can‟t have a penny of it! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!” There
would be an uprising. If they said “Everyone sho uld be kind and generous to everyone
else.” They would all feel obliged to give their money away which would not benefit
them one bit. If they said “Everyone is entitled to tax everyone”(or if every individual
aristocrat said “I am allowed to tax everyone else”) then they would surely try and tax
each other and get into awkward power struggles in which case the peasants would
probably rise up and try to tax them. The only code of conduct that works in the
aristocrats favour is the law “We are allowed to tax you but you aren‟t allowed to tax
us.” This is less simple than it seems for who is we and who is you. Another question
the peasantry might ask is “Why can‟t we tax you if you can tax us?” and the answer
would be “Because we are better than you!” and then they would list the traits that
make them better, it is at this point we realize that in order to pull this off the
aristocracy need to have a sense of identity and the things that give them their identity
must not be possible for the commoner to buy. Things like clothing, a knowledge in
Latin and Greek (Which can only be got by private tuition) the ability to play the
piano, which can only be acquired if you own a piano.
        At this point our peasant might say “But I never had the opportunity to acquire
these things, I never had the money to buy clothes or an education! And besides I
have skills which you lack, I bet you I can plough and till the land at ten times the
speed you could if you ever tried! I slave and strain for a pittance while you live in the
lap of luxury and in return what do I get? NOTHING! Your not better than me! YOU
BASTARDS ARE FUCKING ME OVER!” At this point our aristocrat would
probably call the guards to flog him. Our uppity peasant gradually realises that saying
and thinking such things corresponds to a reduction in fitness and gradually speaks
and maybe even thinks differently in future.
        However what if another powerful elite figures they can become even richer
by stealing the money off the elite we were talking about, suddenly this e lite requires
that the peasants should take up arms to defend the property of the aristocracy. It is
clear there are going to be soldiers on both sides who are going to be slaughtering
each other and anyone who is unlucky enough to find themselves in their path. But
who should they side with and fight for. Now we move into more tribalistic concepts
such as religion, race and nation. All these concepts are arbitrary divisions however an
individual needs protection from enemy tribes so he has to join one tribe, but who to
join, why the tribe that will benefit his genes the most to join, in other words the tribe
that will accept him the most heartily, the tribe that will raise him to the highest social
position, the tribe which is least likely to be slaughtered by another tribe and the tribe
which is least likely to take offence from his actions and kill him.
         Make no mistake in believing in the indivisibility of nations, the unity of race
or the eternal perseverance of a given religion or the unity of its members. There is
but one thing that can truly and permanently hold a tribe together and that is mutual
survival benefit to its individual members. Phrases like the unity of nations are merely
developed to keep the members within the tribe after they join. Ofte n those that leave
will be deliberately inflicted by a reduction of fitness on leaving by the tribe itself this
can be regarded as another attempt from the given mindform to survive and propagate
         The most fundamental problem is that any reasonably unified tribe can beat an
individual if it comes down to it, this is to the benefit of the tribal members as they
can use him as a slave who will do a lot for them and will not demand anything in
return (mainly because if he does, the tribe has the capacity to inflict upon him, a
massive reduction in fitness) the individual however may be able to make himself a
member of the tribe and so increase his fitness in the long term.
         Another major fundamental problem is that a tribe that has the capacity to
inflict damage upon another tribe without the other tribe being able to inflict damage
back on the original one, can subjugate the other tribe and use them to increase their
fitness by saying things like: “If you do such and such, or don‟t do such and such we
will reduce your fitness” as this only requires a brief word if you can get someone else
into a position of such control, it is well to your advantage. However the only reason
the other tribe would do such a thing is because they would know that their fitness
would be reduced if they did not. Perhaps the persecuted tribe would say “You know
guys if we all gave them a reduction in fitness for ordering us around, why then they
would learn not to order us around anymore!” Hence suddenly the tables are turned
and it is now the second tribe who acquires the massive fitness gain and the first tribe
which suffers the massive fitness loss and after all, everyone really wants to increase
their fitness.
         However before that can be achieved there will be a huge power struggle
where each tribe tries to show the other one that if you don‟t obey us and
unquestioningly the consequences will be grave. In the meanwhile, vast numbers of
humans may be killed, the warriors simply to eliminate the other tribes ability to
inflict harm, and the civilians to make sure the other tribe does not even think of
repeating the conflict once it is lost. All else being equal, victory goes to the most
ruthless tribe. Luckily all else is not always equal and other tribes around the area may
decide to side with the less aggressive tribe as it is surely not in their interests to hang
around and wait for the day when they too might be subjugated. Another thing is a
tribe that can bring benefit to its members will be able to coax more people into
joining and thus have a greater reserve of manpower. However a combination of
diplomacy and ruthlessness often allows a tribe to grow very big and powerful indeed.
         People will in general attempt to attain the highest social positions in life,
provided the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. If someone however realises that
he will never be able to rise an instead will always be persecuted simply because of
the way he was born, where he was born or who he was related to (why they would do
such a thing will be explained later) he may find it more to his advantage to find those
in a similar situation and form a tribe with them and so by working together they may
be able to improve each other‟s lot.
        If we consider the ancient times, when all the work was done by hand, having
slaves and servants was a great survival benefit. Thus the tribe whose members could
successfully acquire such people provided an incentive for people to attempt to rise
into the inner echelons. Thus the tribe that was best capable of persecuting, subduing
and enslaving others grew the largest, persecution leads to fission and still more
tribalism and tribalism leads to war.
Let us now take the most important statements made and call them tribe rule 1 and 2

TRIBE RULE 1: A tribe is held together by mutual benefit to its individual members.

TRIBE RULE 2:Persecution creates tribalism as a means of defence and excess
tribalism leads to war.

         Fortunately in the modern world what with technology and all if we all worked
together harmoniously we could probably reap enough benefit to bond the whole
world together as a single tribal unit, however, those who are the most militant and
who rip others off, will benefit the most unless they are taught a lesson by an even
more militant force an this militant force is liable to take advantage of its powers to
rip others off for its own benefit as well. I believe the single harmonious world tribe
has recently become a real possibility what with mechanisation and artificial
intelligence, if it ever came about, however with the fact that militancy is so regularly
replaced by militancy, its hard to see how we can get from point A to point B.
         We have agreed that a great many different tribes exist, and not only that, but
that they have probably existed for a long time as well. Thus it is reasonable to
assume that people have evolved to be able to realise whether a given tribe would be
liable to accept them or not. And to know which tribes are liable to kill them if the got
too close to them. Thus an individual learns to perceive the tiniest differences in
people to tell whether they are friend or foe, it could be the way that they dress, it
could be their accent, it could be their general attitude and demeanour, it could be the
shade of their skin their opinions and beliefs, etc., However they would also have a
tendency to ignore the characteristics of people that are not socially relevant.
         A whole range of mindforms have developed to take advantage of mans
inherently tribal nature, yet this tribal nature, as has been explained at the start of the
chapter is merely the result of the selfish gene phenomenon. Many tribal mindforms
take advantage of certain characteristics developed by humans in order to propagate
themselves and try to distort them in order to propagate the mindform or the tribal unit
itself. As I said before, the mindform is not a well-defined unit and nationalist memes
and religious memes are more than capable of ganging up with each other and mixing
to form mindforms that are often disgustingly self-contradictory but are still accepted
by people because of assumption one, most mindforms cause their hosts to tribalize to
a certain extent, however some rely on it in order to propagate. Now we shall discuss
some of them.
                          RACISM AND NATIONALISM
         Let us first consider whether racism is a gene or a mindform. Firstly there is
no one selfish gene which if you removed would cause the individual to go prancing
around giving money to the poor and feeding bread to the birds. All the concept of the
selfish gene means is that if an individual gene emerges that is capable of survival and
replication it will do so and if it can‟t, it won‟t. Selfishness comes into the discussion
when we take into account that arbitrarily benefiting other genes is not on any gene‟s
agenda and if it can increase its own personal fitness at the expense of another gene it
will do so at the drop of a hat, a gene will only seek to help another gene if by doing
so it believes that the chances are it will bring a net benefit back to itself. The
behaviour of an organism is the result of all the genes inside it trying to propagate
themselves in a very loose way. But before we go off saying racism or nationalism is
in our nature let us consider how a new gene emerges. When the first mutant gene
develops it will be in small numbers only if it can replicate while in small numbers
will it ever reach a stage where it exists in large numbers, therefore there is a critical
period that tests whether a gene may or may not survive and the simple test for
whether it is fit or not is simply whether it raises the ability of the organism who
possesses it to survive and propagate. This means that all are genes are only likely to
cause us organisms to want to survive individually and protect our close kin.(Siblings
parents, children) there is no way any gene that caused an individual to engage in
behaviour that compromised his own fitness, but raised the fitness of his race or
nation could ever make it past the critical period, as it would simply be out-competed
by genes that raised the fitness of the individual organism at the expense of the race or
nation and would disappear therefore racism and nationalism are not inherently in our
nature although protecting our family would be. The simple example of this is that a
couple of mixed races or nationalities who have children would prioritise the lives of
their children above the former. So how is it that some people are racist? Well in this
case I think it is clear that we are looking at the work of a mindform. Racists would
regard their race as an extension of their family. This is how the I think the mindform
         In the stone age when there were very few humans dispersed across a large
area of fertile land and people were nomadic, food was available and no massive
cooperation was required to get it, archaeological evidence suggests strongly that
humans lived in widely dispersed family groups of maybe 6 to 10. Only small groups
were needed as all that was required was to make simple tools out of stone and to hunt
animals and discover edible plants. There was great skill needed in tracking the
animals and knowing where to find the plants or how to make fire, build a hut, or
make a spearhead or a harpoon but the point is although great skill was required no
great organisation was required. A group of 6 to 10 people were essentially capable of
sustaining themselves, and all that was needed to link the group together was the
selfish gene as they were probably all closely related, and you scratch my back I‟ll
scratch yours idea. The people at this period would gather together on special days in
order to exchange useful information and goods, as well as women to avoid
inbreeding, this is again you scratch my back I‟ll scratch ide a and no finely tuned
ideology is required to sustain this type of behaviour. There was much superstition,
but concepts such as right and wrong were not developed to any great elaboration.
The death rates were high, but so were the birth rates and thus these people could
sustain their numbers and get by on the whole.
         The time might come when the land around could not sustain all the people
living in it and some people were going to live while others were going to die. At this
point one of two things might happen let‟s discuss the first thing first. The bigger the
tribe the greater the chance of winning and claiming the land, however the more the
spoils would have to be divided up one way for two tribes to decide to side together
rather than kill each other is to use the selfish gene, if tribe A says to tribe B, “We
have the same great, great, great, great grandfather, that means we come from the
same stock.” Tribe be might say “My God, were family!” This is just about appealing
to the selfish gene however the fraction of genetic stock shared would probably be
negligible. The real reason they would side together is because tribe A knows that
tribe B consider them as family and therefore would be less likely to betray them
while tribe B knows that tribe A consider them as family and therefore would be less
likely to betray them, this is beneficial to all individuals concerned and therefore the
extended family concept is maintained as it benefits individuals that accept it, the
concept is also readily absorbed by many a human mind that has been naturally been
shaped by evolution to protect the family, however it will not be accepted by an
individual who knows that by doing so he will jeopardise his nuclear family, here true
human nature shines through. If you read translations, or the original (if you know the
language, which I don‟t) you will see that a major part of history is concerned with
vast family trees and with who gave birth to who.
         This is because of the agricultural revolution. With agriculture you need
people to plough and irrigate the land, sow the seeds, protect the crops and livestock,
from birds and wolves, and reap the harvest. The level of organisation needed to do
this is considerably larger, however the amount of food that can be obtained from
living this way is also great, however with more food being produced, the burden of
protecting it from marauders is also much greater. Thus the army develops. As I said
before the best way to link a group of fighting people together so that they kill the
enemy and not each other is by some loose ideology concocted in order to make each
one feel as if by fighting the enemy they are defending their family, and therefore in
order to increase the number of people that could be joined together into such an
army, the concept of family was extended to extended family, to tribe and eventually
to race and nation, this does not represent evolution in human nature, but rather the
evolution of tribal mindforms, constantly evolving to create bigger and bigger armies,
as a bigger army will usually defeat a smaller one. The fact is that concepts as vague
as these are not automatically developed by an individual and will only truly have a
chance of being accepted if such an individual is rewarded for saying things that agree
with their doctrines and punished for saying things which disagree. Since the primary
function of these concepts is to form a large army, and since it is not adaptive to waste
resources on forming such an army without the strong possibility of war. And since
the strong development of these concepts would cause frigid relations with other
tribes thus impeding trade relations which is a maladaptive side effect of nationalism,
and since people tend to die during war all of which greatly reduce the fitness of
individuals inside the warlike nation, what possible reason could they have on a large
scale for doing such things?
         Well, if they win they might be able to enslave the citizens of the vanquished
country or force them to accept agreements that rip them off economically. However
if they lose then they themselves shall be the vanquished. One reason for starting
fanatical nationalism would be that the presence of another country nearby that is way
behind in military technology and would be easy pickings, so the benefits of
nationalism would outweigh the costs (which would be negligible so long as the
soldiers with machine guns are faced with nothing more than spears), another reason
for developing nationalism would simply be if the country is already being attacked
by outside forces. In this case, not developing nationalism would result in defeat and
those being attacked would have no other option available to them.
         Racism is another example of a mindform trying to extend the concept of the
family unit beyond that which it naturally covers. Colonization is a good example of
how racism was developed due to the fact that a country containing one race was
ahead militarily of a country containing another race. They saw that they would
benefit from an ideology centred around inequality. So that is what happened, this is
more confirmation of assumption (1). Even the most academic minds seem to be ruled
by this phenomenon and sometimes I think in many cases intelligence in an individual
is no more than a measure of his ability to convince another man of a particular
opinion that he will ultimately benefit by.
         In truth snobbery, racism and nationalism are all different sides of the same
coin : tribalism. There are many different reasons for declaring war, but, in every
case, the person who declares war does it simply because he believes the benefits of
doing so outweigh the costs of not doing so. All war starts with tribalism of some
kind, for to have a war you need a friend and a foe. And if you possess no clear sense
of who your friends are and who your enemies are you won‟t know who to kill and
who not to kill, so you might as well pack up your weapons and head home for
supper. Giving people a sense of identity has many positive aspects to it as they tend
to work together better and look after each other more. However it also may set the
seeds of tribalism, more frigid inter-relations between tribes and ultimately, war.
Some aspects of tribalism are good, but we must not gratuitously support it, or
develop an extreme sense of identity to the point where we defend our own even when
they are blatantly in the wrong.
         There are a variety of ultra-tribal mindforms out there, in each case the host
will try and convince the potential recruit that “We‟re better than them anyway.” (If
we band together we can all benefit and they will be unable to defend themselves) or
“They hate us too you know!” (The are becoming tribal and if we don‟t coalesce we
shall surely be defeated and all suffer) the only way to stop this happening is to have a
well-structured legal system that is capable of representing and defending everyone
equally. Thus it is important to resist the temptation to tribalize or the future will
consist of nothing more than a never-ending series of wars. The worst thing about
these mindforms is that often the state, the force that educates our children is the
source of these mindforms how often is unquestioning patriotism praised to the high
heavens while treachery, even if it is for the right reasons, is despised.
         Finally I would like to emphasize how concepts such as patriotism and
treachery show once more that humans do not when unconditioned lean towards
nationalism or racism. Consider the fact that if you betray your country the system
would hang you at the drop of a hat, while if someone betrayed their family they
might be excluded, the may be punished, but they would unlikely to be killed as their
kin truly and naturally have their best interests at heart and would be unlikely to
destroy those that they are so closely related to. A mans fellow countrymen will only
preserve said mans life if they think they can get something out of it, so detracting
from the security of a country as a whole is penalised while contributing to it is
rewarded. Punishments of this severity are only necessary because people don‟t have
any natural loyalty to the country and will betray it if they as individuals feel that they
can benefit by such actions, only sever punishment and reward can discourage such
         This is an interesting form of tribalism. This is an extreme case of a tribe being
formed due to mutual interests. Basically Karl Marx took all those who were being
abused and trod under by the system and tried to turn them into a cohesive fighting
unit. He was not the first person to turn them into a tribal unit however, that was done
long before by the middle and upper classes.
         If you walked into a bar and said to a stranger sitting beside you “Ah, for the
delights of Beethoven! How subtleties of harmonics, the sprightly tone and the
moving rhythm of the music must have stirred the depths of his tortured soul and
brought him for one brief moment out of that dismal abyss and out into a metaphorical
garden of light and beauty!” the stranger next to you might ask you if you were gay or
he may point out that Beethoven was deaf and then turn away to finish his pint in
peace but either way he would probably not by you a pint or start a friendly
conversation with you. As the brain is essentially an organ for survival, after such a
cold reply, it would make a silent note to itself “Don‟t mention Beethoven in future.”
Or maybe “Beethoven was deaf, don‟t talk about how his own music affected him.”
Either way said individual would modify his behaviour to gain more respect. If he
came in another day and said to the stranger sitting by the bar “Did you see the match
last night? The score was 2 all! Fowler made a great strike in the last minute!” are
stranger might turn around beeming and say “Actually no! I was really hoping to
watch it but I missed it thanks ever so much for telling me the score as I don‟t think
I‟ll be able to see it anyway, let me by you a drink!” in this case that same person
makes a note to himself “Talk more about football.”
         The point is that various tribal groups might find different topics to be of
interest. Any individual, no matter how intelligent will tend to talk about things which
he feels the listeners would be interested in and he hangs around gro ups which are
interested in the topics which he knows about. Thus if an intelligent person should
grows up around people who are interested in football he will gather large quantities
of knowledge concerning football, if he grows up around people who liste n to
classical music, he will gather a large quantity of knowledge concerning classical
music. The football fans would say a classical music listener is full of shit while a
classical music listener would say a football fan‟s head is full of mindless trivia and
that he has no true soul. In truth both stores of information are useful in the right
company and useless in the wrong one. If you are poorly educated you don‟t want
people who know much more than you to be around you, as that would lower your
status, instead you would hang around other people who are poorly educated and what
is more you would discourage well educated people to talk to you too much as they
would make you look foolish. This eventually ends up with separate tribal groups
forming. So that even if a reasonably intelligent individual coming from a poorly
educated area should have access to information in libraries or on the internet, he does
not have the incentive to absorb it as the more he learns, the more he is ridiculed by
his peers.
         Thus even after a supply of information is made accessible to them the culture
of ignorance that has developed over the years remains and many of the intelligent
people will not pay attention in class simply because they fail to see the advantages
that can be reaped by doing so (and if they see it then they don‟t feel it in their gut).
Now let us think why advantage should be reaped by doing so anyway and why
intelligence is such a great thing. Firstly why should reading Shakespeare and
knowing vast quantities of information about composers, renaissance artists and
generals of old as well as Latin and Greek entitle you to more money than the next
man anyway? I‟m not saying that such knowledge is a bad thing to have, but is it
really that much more useful than knowing lots about football players and pop-stars?
Why should a man that knows the former information be considered better than the
man who knows the latter? To these questions I would say quite simply that the
former information is associated with class and success. In a word where the
Bourgeoisies knew lots about football and pop-stars and while the Proletariat knew
only Latin, Greek and History and where information about football and pop-stars was
taught at school, those who spoke Latin and Greek would be considered very vulgar
and uncouth. Now let us consider intelligence. If two people were arguing over
whether it is better to be intelligent or stupid, if the person who was arguing on the
side of stupidity was intelligent then his heart would not really be in it and if the
person who was arguing on the side of stupidity was stupid then he would lose as he
would be too stupid to defend his case. We can quite clearly see that if intelligence is
a measure of the ability of an individual to make everyone e lse believe he is better
than they are then quite clearly we will all think that intelligent people are better than
everyone else and try to become like intelligent people we know.
         The IQ test is only a test for intelligence if you define intelligence as the
ability to do well in an IQ test, though it undoubtedly indicates a mans capability to
perform well at various tasks.
         Anyway although the proletariat aren‟t interested in a wide range of subjects
they are interested in information that might raise or lower their fitness, therefore, like
most people they know when they are getting ripped off, they just don‟t speak too
loudly about it to the upper classes for fear of punishment and when someone supplies
them with an idea that they think they could benefit by they are well capable of
snapping it up.
                         COMMUNISM CONTINUED
         By labelling those under-privileged as a single interest group and saying that
they could benefit by overthrowing those that profit from their toil, communism had
the potential to appeal to a vast portion of the population. However there was one
major flaw to its spread, yes equality has the potential to make those who are under-
privileged slightly better off, however becoming wealthy would make them better off
still, and besides the revolution would take its toll of lives so in a dynamic society like
America the proletariat there would rather try and raise themselves up through the
system rather than drag it down. The reason Russia was the first to revolt was because
it was a static society, the peasantry knew that whatever they did in life, whatever they
said, they would never advance themselves, so for them, communism was their only
opportunity for advancement. Some say communism is good in principle but fails in
practise, I would say it is bad even in principle. Ultimately people like to further
themselves, communism in its ideal sense opposes any form of inequality, the perfect
communist society is a society ruled by envy, where the good fortune of one
individual is resented by all the others. Where talent is loathed beauty is besmirched
and genius is ridiculed, the communist society in its ideal form is a society without
reward for merit and such a society must indeed be considered a sad one. In some
ways it was for the best that communist countries did not live up to Marx‟s ideal.
         In fact I‟m not even sure whether in principle tearing down the houses of the
Bourgeoisies would better the lot of the proletariat anyway. The problem with
communism is that after the revolution the people were expecting the leaders to come
out and say “Right! Now we‟ve got rid of our aristocrat oppressors, mansions,
diamond chandeliers, champagne and servants for everyone!” In truth what they
should have said is “Right! Now we‟ve got rid of our aristocrat oppressors we‟re all
going to live like shit and what is more, anyone who tries to better themselves by
thinking that living in wooden hovels without toilets isn‟t good enough for them is
going to be given a right going over by everyone else!” In the ideal communist
society, if you put a toilet in one persons house everyone would want one, and as you
can only build so many toilets in a given year, at the end of the year, some people
would have toilets while others would not, the only ideal communist answer is to
build no toilets at all so that nobody will get jealous!
         In reality ofcourse the party simply became the new Bourgeoisies so while
retaining only some of the principals originally lain down. The basic driving force
behind communism is the idea that most people would be better off without the rich
taking advantage of them, when it became more apparent that the average quality of
life in capitalist countries exceeded those of communist ones, the movement lost
momentum and started going into regression. But let us not judge Karl Marx too
harshly, for although much of the thinking behind communism was flawed it did
demonstrate to the Bourgeoisies that the workers could become a force to be reckoned
with if they were mistreated too badly. Thus modern socialism was born and now
even the governments who call themselves right wing give more to social welfare than
before Das Kapital was written. Communism is the ideal example of how a tribal unit
disintegrates once it ceases to benefit its individual members.
         Some people in this world are more tribal then others, but most will certainly
modify their views to increase their fitness on the whole. It would be incorrect to view
a tribe of people as a collective organism, people leave the tribe people e nter the tribe
people punish and sometimes even kill fellow tribe members as they jostle for the best
positions within the tribe. There are tribes within tribes within tribes and in many
ways the tribes that we consider ourselves members of go along way in defining us as
individuals. But for some people the tribe is nothing but a tool, a base of support, if
you will to further their diabolical ends, these people are the leaders.
         What makes a man a good leader? Or does such a thing exist? A better
question might be what makes a man a successful leader? And is becoming a leader
always adaptive? To understand these things we must first understand the abstract
concept about which this whole subject revolves, that of power.
                         THE TRUE NATURE OF POWER
         Every given society does, in general, not advocate the arbitrary murdering of
people. This is largely because every individual in such a society does not want to live
in a world where they themselves might be murdered. The society as a whole will in
addition reward individuals which discourage people from murdering in general (not
in every instance) this is because if it did not then those people would no longer
discourage murder anymore. However if an individual should find himself in a
position where he comes face to face with a successful warrior who has slaughtered
many before him and has many friends and allies who would gladly avenge his death,
this individual might think that the potential praise and reward whic h others might
give him should he succeed in killing this warrior is outweighed by the chance that
this warrior would kill him and thus might feel more inclined to stay out of his way.
Every individual seeks to maximize his fitness so although this individ ual may want
this warrior or killer to be eliminated in order to reap the fitness benefits of living in a
neighbourhood free of homicidal maniacs he probably would not feel it worth the
fitness loss got from dying. And if his challenge to said killers authority should result
in all the people of the neighbourhood suffering then he would not even benefit from
the gratitude of those around him as they would not tend to encourage the type of
behaviour which would result in them suffering.
         Essentially the point is, you can teach a whole society that killing is wrong,
you can philosophically tell them that if we all lived in a world where those who kill
are allowed to roam around that we will all suffer, you can say that those who engage
in aggressive activities are seeking attention (as they indeed are) and that by ignoring
them you can show them that they are not impressing anyone, thus discouraging the
behaviour in future, but if someone in the vicinity is going around shooting people
and hurting people then they will not be ignored as people could not afford the risk of
doing so.
         We sometimes speak of power as in the power of a light-bulb but when we
speak of power in this chapter we will simply be referring to the power which one
human can wield over another. May no mistake concerning honour, bravery, valour or
nobility, power is simply the ability of one man to inflict a fitness loss on another
where the other is incapable of inflicting the same fitness loss on him and get away
with it. This fitness loss could come in the form of sacking him from his job, burning
down his house, murdering him and his family, torturing him for a prolonged period
or revealing some piece of information that damage him in future. The nature of the
fitness loss varies widely, it may even not actually be a fitness loss but rather
something the other man perceives to be a fitness loss. Such as cutting off a supply of
drugs or doing something that he thinks might send him to hell and the like, with this
in mind it is not easy to see where the saying “power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely” comes from, as in its very nature power can only be acquired by
through demonstrating the ability to commit acts of evil.
         There is another way to acquire power over another and that is to become the
sole supplier of something they rely on. Ofcourse in order to truly have power you
must have the ability to cut off that supply at will, or else it is nothing but slavery,
which is not really a nice way to acquire power either. The acts of charity a single
man is capable of are not enough to gain him any significant power unless he has
influence over others. Ultimately the promise to help another involves going through
the lengthy process of fulfilling it every time the other does what you want, the threat
to damage another involves no such sacrifice should the other obey. And that way you
could order a vast quantity of people about with very little effort, you could also use
that power skilfully to aid your friends.
         All long term power comes from the ability to inflict damage or withdraw a
favour. If you do a favour to someone else there are two different things he may think
of you. He will either think that you are nice or he will think that you are weak. If he
suspects you are doing the favour only because you fear him, he will try to promote
that fear as it will result in more favours being done to him, if he thinks that by
promoting fear you are willing and capable of punishing him for his actions and
would never repeat the favour again he will be nice to you in exchange.
         Why is it that so many people read up on serial killers, generals, crime bosses,
dictators and the like and read less about ordinary farmers, dentists or shopkeepers?
And how come someone such as a general who has merely spent his time killing
people can receive more money and more fame than say, a farmer or a doctor who
spend their time curing people? Well nowadays there is probably a good deal less
admiration for violence than their was in the roman period or the colonial period,
however it still exists. If you know that people inherently want to raise their fitness,
and will do what they can to stop their fitness being lowered, then if you can acquire a
position where you have the capacity to raise or lower the fitness of others at will and
you choose to raise their fitness when they obey you and lower it when they don‟t
obey you, then statistically speaking, people will have a greater tendency to obey you
in future. Once you build up such a reputation you may issue a whole string of
complex commands to your underlings who will in turn, issue a whole string of
commands to their underlings in order to satisfy your will as they fear the
consequences and seek the reward of doing so. Ofcourse its not that easy as in the
same way we attempt to influence others, others will attempt to influence us. The pop-
star in a concert or speaker on a stage, or politician addressing his people may feel
that he is able to control when the audience claps by saying the right thing, however in
many ways the audience will control what he says by deciding when to clap. Perhaps
absolute power maybe undesirable, but it is also unattainable. The most vicious of
leaders only maintains his position by abusing and intimidating the populace
constantly. The only reason that they don‟t turn on him is because they fear him, the
only reason they fear him is because the army gives him the power to punish them,
therefore our tyrant does not possess absolute power as he does not possess the ability
to stop committing atrocities as once the fear goes down the anger comes up. He also
has to make very sure to keep the army on the right side of him aswell as they provide
his only means of punishing the populace therefore he may be forced to satisfy the
will of a number of generals in his so-called command even if he disagrees with them,
thus in the same way as he may oppress the population, he himself becomes oppressed
by his own reputation, it is impossible for power to become absolute though it is only
too possible for it to bring untold misery to those who wield or fall victim to it.
         A successful leader is not necessarily the same as a famous leader. Augustus
reigned for forty years and although we have all heard of him most would consider
Nero to be a more famous Emperor. A successful leader may indeed be quite ruthless,
but he will always make sure he has enough friends to protect him from his enemies.
It is the unsuccessful leader who mistakenly believes that fear alone will be enough to
preserve his position, it is he who eventually gets himself into the situation where if
he stops oppressing the people they will automatically rise up against him. With such
a bad leader the population grow to hate the army who he orders to commit acts of
atrocities towards, and they and the whole administerial body become extremely
unpopular at this stage the administerial body and the army grows to hate him and he
must punish them in order to make sure that they don‟t try to depose and kill him.
However now so many people hate him that if the could only organize themselves
they would surely have the power to overthrow him. At this stage he becomes
paranoid of every conceivable form of communication which anyone is having behind
his back. Eventually someone decides that risks involved in killing him are
outweighed by the risk involved in not killing him and our leader is assassinated. This
atleast must raise questions concerning whether leadership is necessarily as adaptive
as its cracked out to be.
         Why is it that leaders so often hold out to the bitter end and criminals who
have been sent to prison so often re-offend? Well consider this, you are in a mansion
with servants attending to your every command. The people all around you are telling
you how great they think you are, suddenly you lose all your power, you have to scrub
your own dishes, now you are infact worse than a commoner as atleast they have been
scrubbing dishes all their lives and are reasonably adept at it, while you are
pathetically incapable, not only do most people ignore you but some also hate you and
aren‟t afraid to say it to your face, you are not only loathed, you are despised. Such a
fall is clearly maladaptive and since the leader has used much of his brain-power to
amass vast quantities of information concerning how to advance in court, how to
command great armies in order to achieve victory, and has very little knowledge
concerning how to wash the dishes, how to mend the lawnmower etc., etc., therefore,
once he falls from power he will often try to rise again. This is also due to his being
highly reputation conscious (for if he was not he would not have risen so far) so every
second of his being seen in such a humiliating position would to him, seem
         The criminal is in much the same situation, having learnt the tricks of the trade
by hanging around other criminals he has learnt how to steal money from other people
and get away with it, his mind is full of useful tricks and methods to get himself rich,
he does this for his own benefit, after going to prison he can see to a certain extent
that perhaps this is not so beneficial, however, once he is out of gaol he finds that it is
extremely hard to find a good job as he now has a criminal record, all his friends are
criminals and many decent law binding folk shy away from talking to his kind of
scum. Therefore by becoming a criminal he has closed many doors to many jobs such
as, say, a bank manager and the like. Now although if he had never committed the
crime in the first place it would be far more advantageous to make it in the world the
honest way, now he has a smudged reputation, crime remains the best living available
to him even taking into account the fact that he went to goal. Hence, in many cases the
temptation to re-offend is often great.
                         REGARDING THE TWIN STUDIES TO THROW
                         DOUBT ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE EVIL GENE
         A famous study designed to tell how much of our behaviour originates from
our genes and how much originates from the environment were the twin studies. The
results surprised many who favoured nurture over nature. It turned out that there was a
high correlation between the level IQ of a group of twins separated from birth and
brought up in completely different surroundings (That is not to say they had identical
scores but rather that they had a greater degree of similarity than if they were say,
brother or sister or two strangers on the street) but not only that, they also showed a
remarkably high similarity in their choice of dress, preferences of colour, taste in food
etc. (that is not to say again that they were identical but merely to say that time and
time again they showed to high a similarity to be attributed to coincidence) so does
this mean nature has won? No! It merely means that our genes contribute to our
behaviour. This is no great surprise considering that if we had the genes of an amoeba
we would not even have a brain, let alone have a brain that makes us behave the way
we do. So ofcourse our genes contribute to our behaviour but they ce rtainly do not
determine it. The twins did not share everything in common, it was merely the traits
that they shared that the attention of the researchers were geared towards.
         Consider the evolution of the anatomy of the body, in order to tell whether two
animals belong to the same class or order an etymologist will not look at the major
anatomical characteristics but will rather concentrate more on the vestigial organs.
The organs which serve no great purpose to the organism. This is because nature will
rapidly select any creature whose anatomy is altered in such a way as to allow it to
survive better, either by taking better advantage of a niche which his predecessors had
already taken advantage of, or by taking advantage of a new niche. Thus two creatures
quite closely related to each other might have remarkably different anatomies
provided that they were making good use of the differences to serve an adaptive end.
Vestigial organs, on the other hand are organs which were once functional but now
cease to serve any great purpose a slightly larger appendix makes no difference and
therefore will not be selected by nature to become bigger or smaller beyond a certain
size, therefore organisms whose similar ancestry goes far back may have striking
similarities regarding the presence of vestigial organs.
         Similarly as the brain was originally built by the genes and it exists in order to
benefit the organism, one must suppose that behaviour from which rewards are readily
reaped shall increase while behaviour which results in the detriment to the individual
will decrease, behaviour which, on the other hand neither adds nor detracts from the
fitness of the individual which practises it will tend to remain unchanged.
         Now we can see that it is no huge wonder that these twins might show
similarities in the most trivial things (preference in music, taste in sweets, etc.) while
they would differ according to their occupation and to a certain extent culture. In
conclusion I believe if Billy and Bobby were two identical twins whose parents died
and they were fostered by two different parent, perhaps Billy‟s foster parents lived in
Wicklow and his favourite colour was blue, if Bobby was brought up in outer
Mongolia there would be a higher than average chance that his favourite colour would
also be blue, the same would apply if he was brought up in Bangladesh, Western
Australia or by a group of Polar Bears somewhere in the Arctic however, if Bobbies
parents also lived in Wicklow but belonged to the “Those who like blue are the sons
of Satan” sect I would believe if anything the chances that Bobby would like blue
would if anything be lower than average. In conclusion behaviour changes from that
which we are born with due to environmental pressure, if no environmental pressure
is supplied then the behaviour is unlikely to deviate significantly.
         Now in any given society there is a huge environmental pressure which
determines our moral values in life. If you grow up in a criminal gang you will be
encouraged to break the law while those brought up in a law-biding society will be
punished. In conclusion the right upbringing can turn any man into a saint and the
wrong one can turn him into a sinner. When I say upbringing I am not solely speaking
of that which the parent give the child but would include school, church, neighbours,
etc., Thus there is almost certainly no evil gene as it would not be adaptive to develop
a gene that would make the organism go around the place pissing people off even if it
was to his disadvantage.
         What is morality as we know it? Morality as most people would treat it is that
which does not piss off too many people that would be inclined to hurt you in future.
It is not so much the sinful act that makes a man feel guilty, but rather the possibility
of being disapproved of by others or being ejected from the tribal unit. This is obvious
enough when one considers the fact that if two people existed and one person felt
guilty for doing something that was even in the long term, adaptive to them, while the
other person did not, the person who didn‟t would reap long term benefits that would
be unavailable to the guilty person, and therefore the descendants of the person who
did not feel guilty for fundamentally sinning but merely felt guilty for doing
something which the majority disapproved of would become more numerous than the
person who felt guilty for sinning in a more fundamental way. Hence the morals of a
given population are essentially malleable.
         Consider a world where the moment you did someone an altruistic favour the
police or the mob came along and beat him up and then beat you up. The first thing
you would do might be to side with the other person to overthrow the police or the
mob, but if these efforts merely hurt him and you more, after a while you would both
gradually learn that helping others resulted in punishment and would cease to do it,
ultimately is does not matter what they stand for, any group of people who have the
capacity to hurt other people while successfully resist any attempts to hurt them
greatly influence the morals and social structure of the people they hurt. Ofcourse the
people they hurt may tribalize and set their own sub- morals but this would not be
fundamental morals but merely an adaptive response as a group in order to minimize
the damage inflicted upon them, however in order to live this way, within their society
they would have to punish those who break the code of conduct and would have their
own authority figures within the tribe although they would still respond to the
authority of the police or mob in the most adaptive way available to them.
         The principals of a man is merely the course of action he feels will yield the
greatest benefits to himself in the long term. This is complicated by the fact that other
people like to have people they can rely on when in need and so will reward those
who keep their word and punish or shun those who break it. So a man may sacrifice
his life for a cause if called upon to do so. The perfect mind wo uld not make such a
sacrifice, calculating immediately that in said given situation there is no adaptive
benefits in doing so, but the human mind, like most parts of the creature is not
perfectly adapted to survive and the evolution of mindforms that may induce the host
to give up his life for the sake of their own propagation (the cause)and the evolution
of mindforms exceeds the evolution of the biological brain by far. Ofcourse there is
very real detriment in being considered a coward so the most adaptive thing to do is to
put on a brave image to those around you and then do whatever it takes to survive and
indeed many people do just that.
         A man may hang himself rather than betray his family (which can be adaptive)
or his religion or country (which is only adaptive to the mindform he plays host to)
however over an extended period of pain the lifeforce will usually win over, hence the
power of torture. When an individual is told verbally that he will be killed unless he
does such and such, the temptation to do such and such will indeed be great, however
he may still refuse, however, if someone is in pain the effect it has on the mind is far
more fundamental. The pleasure, pain mechanism was well enough developed in the
jellyfish or earthworm in order to give them a decent chance for survival and ever
since then it has become the body‟s primary means of detecting an agent that is
actively reducing the fitness of the organism, the response of any organism to this is
simple, to do whatever it takes to stop the pain and nine out of ten times this saves the
organisms life or health.
         A given individual may have a whole set of beliefs deeply ingrained in him, he
may even die for them as the mindform may be able to twist and contort his mindset
in order to do so. However when exposed to a long term stimulus such as pain, this
triggers the lifeforce in a far more fundamental way than speech or dead threats ever
could and gradually, little by little, connections between neurons are broken while
new connections are formed with the purpose of stopping the pain which is generally
adaptive. Thus even a fully grown man with a whole set of deeply held beliefs can be
brainwashed into thinking something else.
         I don‟t personally believe that after say, the first seven years of his life a man
has necessarily fully developed his personality. Far more likely, the reason that this
seems so is due to the fact that a man accumulates a whole range of information and
views during his early days that will allow him to rise through one tribal group while
it would offend or not impress many others, now he could start from square one again
and try to gain new information and develop new views to gain acceptance into a new
tribal group however his past would always come back to haunt him. As those in the
new tribal group might say “Oh you believe that do you? From what I heard of your
past your opinions were once as those of our enemy! Begone you sniffling weasel!”
So it is often very much to the advantage of an individual to stick to the type of people
he has learnt to get along with as he learns more and more in order to advance through
the tribe and make more friends and have more dominance etc., etc., the little memes
which the mindform uses as hooks to anchor itself to the host, even when o ther
arguments try to get rid of it, enter the individuals mind hence the phrase “you can‟t
teach an old dog new tricks” does have some significance and it is also true that the
brain does physically become less able to accept new information with age aswe ll,
however I think that much of peoples refusal to accept new opinions is more due to
the former reasons than many of us think. A fact that supports this is the fact that
wealth often changes peoples viewpoints quite dramatically. This can simply be
argued through the fact that the individual believes it is worth his while fitness-wise to
start at the drawing board again and rise through this new tribal unit, as they possess
more resources that they could potentially give him.
                                 THE LURE OF POWER
         If many leaders do, infact get assassinated then what is the advantage of
attaining power? Well powerful people do get money and a social status that can often
exceed people who are simply rich, but I think another reason people try to occupy
positions of power is similar to the reason why people strive to occupy positions of
wealth in a capitalist society. Power is essentially the ability to lower the fitness of
another without that other person being able to lower your fitness. If a man can be
hurt more by the man hurts than is equal to the damage he can inflict upon him, then
that man does not have power over the other one. Thus in a society where the weak
are persecuted, rather than being considered nice people, the only way for a man to
avoid such punishment, is by possessing a greater capacity to inflict damage on other
people then they can inflict on him, thus in an unfair society where good is not
rewarded and the only thing that can protect you is the ability to inflict great damage
on those who think that they might be able to profit from your loss, the hunger for
power is great, this is merely the adaptive response of the individual in order to
survive. The problem here is that the best way to display ones power is by
demonstrably hurting someone else so onlookers will know that if they mess with you
then they might suffer his fate. A problem arises from this and that is that there is
nothing adaptive regarding hurting another if that other can turn around and hurt you
more so instead of choosing wicked people for such a demonstration, in the unfair
society weak people are chosen instead.
         From this we can see that the fairer a society is, the less desperate the struggle
for power becomes, as to have it is no longer so adaptive. Although in any society the
money and status will continue to draw people in. Another reason that people strive
for power to a somewhat greater extent than is truly adaptive is because he who has
the power will be listened to somewhat more than he who has not. And therefore will
have more influence over the culture. How will he use this influence? Why to
convince everyone else that he‟s great ofcourse! Therefore there are a whole bunch of
memes floating around the place to induce people to strive for power.
                                 THE RISE TO POWER
         So we have ascertained that there is a very real and definite incentive to
become powerful, but wanting something and getting it are two different things. Much
of the conversation at the beginning has been dealing with how people maintain once
they have it or why they don‟t wish to lose it. But a far more interesting question is
how does some ordinary Joe rise to power, no dynasty is eternal so how does it come
to be that one dynasty can replace another? Well first our hopeful leader must find a
core interest group, then he must say to the interest group, “You know if you do such
and such you will all benefit, if the core interest group believes him then they will do
such and such an if they do benefit as a whole then they will be more inclined to take
his advice in future. However they must not only believe that our leader has a plan
that will truly benefit them if carried out, they must also believe that he can discipline
the men within the group who let the group down, reward those that benefit the group
and resist the powers outside to who believe the plan will work out to their detriment
and will be inclined to do what they can to stop it. In short leadership takes a
combination of wisdom, charisma and diplomacy. The true nature of wisdom is the
ability to determine a feasible course of action that will benefit and please the interest
group as a whole. The true nature of charisma lies in the ability to convince the
interest group that they will benefit from this course of action, to reduce opposition
both from within the group and from without. This can be in the form of violence or
whatever. And the nature of diplomacy is the ability to alter the course of action when
one comes up with an insurmountable problem in such a way as to still achieve the
most important interests that the group has. A successful leader (especially a militant
one) will try to expand the core interest group (from the point of view of the militant
guy this would be in order to increase his army). Once the leader has secured the
loyalty of his core interest group he can begin to create propaganda in order to build
up a military. Now he can gain control of an outer interest group, a group that is
altogether larger than the core interest group but mainly only support for fear of being
punished by the army if they do otherwise.
         The dilemma which faces many a leader is that of thinking of a course of
action that benefits a particular interest group to make them sufficiently better off in
the future in order to agree to the risks involved in undertaking it. The fact is it is hard
to tell at face value whether a given course of action will be detrimental or beneficial
and much harder to convince others that of this as people tend to take an if it ain‟t
broke don‟t fix it attitude. Thus to a large extent those who rise to power focus on a
particular interest group rather than everyone because seeing that one man‟s gain is
often another man‟s loss it is much easier to speak to a bunch of people who would
benefit from a particular course of action, get their support and convince them to form
a large enough army to defeat all who oppose it. Nowadays with democracy things are
much better however in the ancient world this was always going on, one man
convincing a small fighting group of people that they would benefit by hacking
another group of people to pieces and taking their property, then sometime later
another leader emerges who represents another interest group. In democracy luckily
there is somewhat less hacking people to pieces however there are s till those who
represent different interest groups squabbling among one another, one thing about the
beauty of democracy is that he who represents the largest interest group pulls most of
the vote, however this problem can be overcome through the formation of mini-
         When you talk of warrior-leaders especially you will find they will try to give
their interest group a sense of identity, and a sense of being better than those around
them it is in the interest of the leader to create a pyramidal society with them as the
capstone as it means that the can gradually get everyone around them to serve them
hand and foot. The best leaders aren‟t like this and don‟t behave like most humans in
that sometimes they will do things that are maladaptive to themselves in order to
benefit the support group as a whole in order to get others to do the same and thus
improve their own reputation. These leaders play host to some mindform that they
themselves have manipulated in order to best get the group to complete the ob jectives
they devise.
         The leader and those around him become the authority figures, people who it
is very adaptive to please and highly undesirable to disappoint, thus these people have
great influence over people and have the capacity to mutilate and alter the morals of
society, thus many of the morals we have today such as loyalty and patriotism are
merely those laid down in order to create a mindless army that will blindly save their
sorry arses by a bunch of leaders, aristocrats and politicians, who are essentially
people too. One might be tempted to ask the question what gives them the inherent
right to do so. Why nothing ofcourse! However don‟t go around the place saying that
too loud or you may end up in gaol. As people generally accept morals that e nd up
being to their benefit, people will really think that it is fundamentally the right thing to
do to give ones life up for ones country, because of the approval that saying such
things and acting like you really believe them will get that individual.
         Animals with the tiniest of brains can communicate with each other. A frog
will croak to attract mates or repel rivals and there are many examples of how body
language and verbal communication are used even very low down in the animal
kingdom. Essentially this is simply due to a sensual cue activating a behavioural
response, humans to have this same cue/response cycles in our brains, however we
also have the capacity to override them if we feel that they are to our long term
detriment. Thus we get emotions giving us impulses to do things as a result of various
stimuli, and we often follow these impulses however we are also very capable of
overriding them should there seem to be a net benefit in doing so.
         I believe a loud shouting voice is instinctively an assertion of dominance. The
listener will either have an impulse to strangle the speaker (in other words become
very irritated with him) or listen to him and abide by what he says. If a speaker speaks
loudly and provocatively it is only a matter of time until he will enjoy a rise in power,
or suffer a terrible fall. That is if people feel he is unchallenged the will feel obliged to
side with him as he seems a fairly aggressive fellow you would not want to get on the
wrong side of. Or if he is challenged people might feel inclined to take him down as
he is a cocky arrogant bastard we‟d all be better off without.
         Now let us move on to the wide eyed stare, in cartoons you can see snakes
hypnotising people by staring at them with wide eyes, and the wide eyed stare clearly
does have a distinct psychological effect on the spectator, but why? What possible
adaptive benefit could there be in being more inclined to believe people who stare at
you with wide eyes? Well infact in many cases we aren‟t, usually when people stare at
us wide-eyed for a long period of time we often simply end up being freaked out so
there certainly are mechanisms within us that counter that effect however a very
common occasion when the normal person, rather than the crazy cult leader will use
the wide eyed stare is when talking to babies, this is not a conscious decision but
rather an unconscious action that takes place naturally, now the reason becomes more
obvious. For the brain of a human being to become an adaptive organ and pay back
the metabolic cost for its existence it must be packed with useful information. Much
of this useful information is social etiquette, yet social etiquette changes with the
times, other useful information would be where to the food is and how to dress your
own wounds, but much of this varies from place to place depending on the life around
and the tools available and but how could nature design a constant genome that would
allow a baby to instinctively know what information is useful and what information
isn‟t? Well it can‟t, but it can do the next best thing.
         It is in the parents genetic interest to preserve their child therefore it is also in
their interest to give him the pick of the most useful information that he needs to
survive, so if only the child had some mechanism to prioritise the information they
receive from their parents above other information, then they could greatly improve
their chances of survival. Well they do, when they fix on the eyes of another human,
some mechanism in their brain flicks on the pay attention switch. The parents will
also widen their eyes in order to maximize the degree to which the child will pay
attention, this is the most important function of the wide eyed stare but it is by no
means the only one.
         It is used also to convey feelings of sexual attraction and to communicate to
someone that you are serious about something. Although people may be freaked out
by someone silently staring at them for an extended period of time for no reason (this
is because it has a tendency to distract their attention from more useful information
around them) if the speaker is telling them useful information while staring at them
then they will be more inclined to listen, if ,however the speaker is telling what they
know is a lie to them while staring at them, the listener may get a strong impulse to
punch said speaker in the face. The ability of an individual to decide whether to
believe an argument based on the facts alone rather than the method of deliver y, how
many other people agree, or whether they themselves would benefit by believing it (in
other words how biased they are) a measure of how strong or weak- minded that
individual is. Now we are ready to analyse some leaders from history while trying to
apply what was said in the book so far to them and to the spectators.
                                 ADOLF HITLER
         During the nineteen-thirties there was a recession all over Europe, but
Germany of all the countries was especially badly hit as they had inherited a huge war
debt after the World War I from the treaty of Versailles. Also during that time there
was no anti- racist movements and eugenics was considered an acceptable opinion
even if it was not agreed on by all. Although the First World War caused some people
to think twice about nationalism always being the best course of action, war was still
glorified to a certain extent, so we can see that at that time the whole culture was not
nearly as hostile toward racism and the like. Infact anti-Semitism was quite common
in Germany at the time anyway (although it was obviously not taken to anything like
the extremes which Hitler later took it to) we have to remember that many of the
morals we now have such as believing racism to be a bad thing and taking nationalism
with a pinch of salt. Believing that maybe we should tolerate each other more and the
like did not always exist and, along with the EU, are largely a result of the two world
wars at the beginning of this century. After World War I there was a great feeling in
Britain and France that this must never happen again. However in Germany who was
probably in the worst state of all the countries there was a desperation to get
themselves out of this position.
        Hitler may have had a loud booming voice and a wide eyed stare but if he
came into a tea party with light piano music in a country that wasn‟t suffering any
troubles and made such a speech, rather than a fanatical applause there would
probably just be murmurs of “Well someone obviously got out of the wrong side of
bed this morning. Pass me another buttered crumpet dear.” As I said people tend to
take an “If it ain‟t broke don‟t fix it.” Attitude Germany however was broke so when
he offered a means by which the individuals could improve their lot they rallied to the
cause (not everyone obviously but a much larger fraction that would have done
otherwise). The racism itself got the people to cooperate by regarding each other as
one big family and everyone else as the enemy. This is exactly what you need in order
to form a huge army. People don‟t just automatically accept racist mindforms but as
the country was bust each individual realised that by accepting it he could improve his
own personal lot and that of his starving family and people do accept mindforms that
bring them nearer to that end.
        Once people did accept the mindform they could act as one massive single
unit, which meant that they could quite easily intimidate others into joining. As Hitler
condemned pacifists and the like, once he gained enough support, the choice that the
individual German faced was not merely, support Hitler or continue being poor, it
became support Hitler or be persecuted by those around you. This provided enough
adaptive pressure to convince still more to join. Another thing about racism is an
individual can rapidly tell whether he will benefit by following by looking at himself.
The concept of looting the shops owned by Jewish people also gives those that do the
looting money and as long as they don‟t suffer for it, long-term benefit. Ofcourse
there was always the danger they would someday pay for their crimes but as everyone
else was doing it there was safety in numbers and since those who complained about
persecuting the Jewish people would be looked on suspiciously, there was equal
danger in not looting their shops and the like.
        The Holocaust is an example of how something can really get out of hand, it is
quite clear that if you steal someone‟s property and clothing, round them into
concentration camps and treat them like cattle, when they get out they are going to be
absolutely furious, so when the war was turning against the Germans, they were left
with two choices, restore six million people who had been unjustly lowered to the
most humiliating of levels to their positions of former power or kill them and the
Nazi‟s chose the latter.
        Of all the events in history the Second World War and the 3 rd Reich is the
most chilling example of how humans naturally have no real grasp or desire to grasp
onto fundamental morality unless they feel they will benefit by it. Hitler believed that
the empires of the past fell because of racial pollution, nothing could be further from
the truth as the reason most of the empires of the past prevented their colonies from
rebelling was by giving them an opportunity to rise through the system and therefore
maintaining discontent at tolerably low levels by allowing them to benefit by being a
member, cultural diversity is the trade mark of a long lived empire not a failing one
and if the lifespan of the 3rd Reich is any indication of how long a “racially pure”
empire can maintain itself then I would say anyone who believes fanatical anti-
immigration laws could ever in any way benefit us is a nutcase.
        On the whole Hitler was responsible for the deaths of six million Jews, tens of
millions of Russians and millions of German and allied soldiers, however he met his
comeuppance in a tiny little bunker in Berlin and the name is considered an insult in
many circles, however other mass- murders in history have got off far more lightly
        In all of history there has never been a tribe such as the Jews with so much
money yet so little weapons to defend it with, this unfortunately is the recipe for
persecution as there is always the incentive for the leader of another tribal group to
say “We have weapons, they have money, what say we use our weapons to take their
money.” And infact throughout the middle ages Jewish people have been continually
persecuted (when I say Jewish people are rich I say it in the same context as
Americans or Japanese are richer than Afghans or Ethiopians there are obviously
exceptions and it only applies on a broad spectrum) it is not that the Jews are the
richest people in the world, after all the Roman and Aztec Emperors were not Jewish
neither are the royal family of Saudi Arabia infact there are many examples of other
people in the past who were filthy stinking rich who weren‟t Jewish, however the vast
majority of them were well represented by armies which in turn were well capable of
slaughtering those that resisted them.
        If you knew a Roman emperor whose money you wanted and went around the
place spreading bad rumours about him you‟d be liable to get your head lopped off if
on the otherhand there was a Jew whose money you wanted and you went around the
place spreading bad rumours about him there would be much less he could do about it
as in many medieval regimes they weren‟t allowed to carry arms and even if they
could carry arms they could not form an army as the only army allowed is the army of
the state, in order to have your own state you need your own nation which is
something that the Jews lacked.
        With the industrial revolution and free trade they were suddenly presented
with a situation where they were to a certain extent atleast protected by an army and
had the opportunity to rise into more influential positions than ever before, now they
had the ability to take on the enormous task of founding their own country, however
you must remember that the will of the tribe is only the sum of the wills of its
individual members and why should a Jewish businessman or lawyer bother with the
hassle of Zionism if he‟s doing fine just the way he is. I would imagine (from a totally
ignorant point of view) that if you asked the average Jew before the Holocaust how he
felt about Zionism he might say it was rubbish or he might say apathetically that he
supported it sometime in the vague future but I would imagine the level of fanaticism,
determination and support to the movement would have been too low to make
anything actually happen.
        After the Holocaust however, when they witnessed one third of their
population get slaughtered at what was little other than the impulse of a nation, the
fact that they needed an army to protect them fell into sharp relief and the Zionist
movement gained enough momentum to make Israel a reality. Some say that the
reason they were allowed to have Israel was due to international sympathy for the
holocaust however although that was probably a factor, a bigger one would be the
support and determination for Zionism the holocaust generated from within. After all
in the beginning the British rounded Jewish immigrants into concentration camps in
Palestine, it was only after Jewish suicide bombers and other terrorist actions were
used to demonstrate that they were serious that the British granted them their state.
         From the point of view of the Palestinians a bunch of Jews came marching
into their country and snatched it from them, which is wrong, after all, they played no
part in the Holocaust so its not their fault. From the point of view of the Jews it is
absolutely essential that they should have their own army to represent them should
someone else come along and try and do a Hitler job. The second world war was not
the first time the Jews have suffered and it may not be the last.
         The thing that makes the troubles in Israel or Occupied Palestine especially
hard to resolve is the fact that as opposed to most cases where the occupying force
occupies a country for profit and if the country should prove too much hassle to
conquer they move away, in the case of Palestine the occupiers are as fanatical as the
defenders. So you see, the main root of the troubles is not particularly complicated
and the solution to the troubles is not so much complex as non-existent.
                        ALEXANDER THE GREAT
         Unlike Hitler, Alexander the Great inherited an army from his father Philip of
Macedon. His father had already conquered Greece, however after his death there was
some trouble from the unruly Greeks and he launched a series of campaigns that
successfully quelled it then he marched into Persia conquering all that was owned by
Darius. However he did not stop there but went on to conquer vast parts of what is
now Southern Russia and a bit of Northern India. Once he led his army through a
burning dessert precisely because the history books said that noone who tried this ever
came out alive, he did but three quarters of his army didn‟t. If you add up all the cities
he sacked and all the women and children he sold to slavery they might well have
added up to a couple of hundred thousand or even a million. He was one of those
buggers who was prepared to undergo enormous hardship himself and thought for this
reason that everyone else should, he once murdered his one of his friends because he
insulted him while they were drinking.
         Unlike Hitler however Alexander was more culturally tolerant. He killed
people by the barrel- load, certainly, but if people submitted to him he would usually
let them off lightly. He brought democracy to some of the town he invaded this was
not because he was a democrat himself but rather because Darius was not, although he
did treat his family with great leniency and tried to keep them living in the manor they
had become accustomed to. He also tried to expand his base of support by calling his
empire the Greeco-Persian empire so ensuring that he could gain more manpower
from the Persians aswell as the Greeks. Alexander loved to be praised and hated to be
insulted he even claimed to be descended from Ammon. The fact that those who
insulted him tended to end up with javelins through their gizzards is perhaps the
reason why so many people praised him. Another reason was the conquerors who
preceded him in history had the same attitude to people who praised them and people
who insulted them, so gradually the culture evolved to praise people who go around
the place slaughtering others on mass and since Alexander slaughtered more people
then all of his predecessors put together, on that premise he was really praiseworthy
and seeing that evil is always punished, it must be quite clear that those who insulted
him and ended up with javelins through their gizzards were really evil as saying the
slightest mocking comment against Alexander the Great is possibly the most evil
crime you can commit.
         So undoubtedly inspite of the atrocities which inflicted upon countless
innocent people Alexander the Great was held in great esteem by his contempories
and herein lies the danger for the admiration of the primary sources describing his
actions and even the secondary Roman sources (who themselves lived in an
imperialistic militant culture) in infective across the ages and even many modern
historians will regard his achievements with a certain admiration its as if some
historians believe that because everyone else thought it was O.K to enslave people
and sack cities that it was O.K.. So you‟ll get some crazy people saying “Oh how I
hate the corrupt politicians of today where has honour and nobility gone? I wish we
had someone like Alexander the Great to govern us! He‟d do everything right!” Well
undoubtedly if Alexander the Great was governing us now you would get much less
scandals of corruption on high in the press, every second phrase in the newspaper
would be some new complement of how he is once more victorious over the evil so
and so. But there would also be the heads of journalists who tried to criticize him
rolling around the floor. The leaders of old never had to lie so much to cover up their
crimes because anything that they did was by definition not a crime, as someone once
actually said in so many words to Alexander. On the whole whatever we or the press
may say, regarding social welfare, health benefits, subsidised transportation and the
like people like Berty O‟Hern, Jacque Sherak , Gerhard Schroder or Bill Clinton are
tens times the man Alexander “the Great” ever was.
         The imaginary being know by the Christians and Jews as Gods is essentially
an abstraction of the ultimate alpha male. Yes I know he is suppose to be above male
and female but lets face it, he‟s male, the pronoun everyone uses for God is He and
the image that is conjured up by God is a strong tall old man with a great white beard.
People may say “that is just our flawed mortal attempt to envisage Him its not how he
really is” but since God does not really exist except in the minds of the believers, and
since I don‟t know anyone who refers to God as she or it, I think the first sentence
holds true. Practically the whole of the old testament is basically telling us stories
regarding God asserting dominance over non-believers and those who mess with the
chosen people. The reason we should not criticise Him too loudly can also be
explained by assumption (1) in that He is all-seeing and all- hearing in other words it
has nothing to do with Him being perfect but more to do with the fact that if you say
He‟s not perfect and start criticising the things He does or start saying “I think perhaps
you could have done such and such better” He will do to you as He did unto the
Canaanites or the Egyptians or the profits of Baal. In fact large portions of the bible
basically say “You can increase your fitness by following God and those that don‟t
follow God suffer a decrease in fitness” and thus very religious Christians are very
careful never to insult God. Its quite comical when you consider all these people
quivering before an alpha male that doesn‟t actually exist. But it goes farther than that
it goes on to say “If you don‟t believe in God you will suffer a decrease in fitness and
if you believe in him no matter what you see your fitness will increase.” So not only
do people fear criticising God for fear of his wrath, they also fear not believing in Him
for fear of his wrath. You may say that it is probably better to have an imaginary
alpha male whose organises people to engage in fitness boosting activity than a real
one who is always going to be concerned about maintaining his power by inflicting
misery upon those who challenge it and although there may be something in it there‟s
not all that much as in practise the power associated with him goes to the Church, who
in turn would be inclined to abuse it to a certain extent and would usually tell the
people that God agrees with such and such a leader for fear of being harmed by the
angry leader.
        Christianity and Judaism have the most powerful gods of all the religions, this
might be due to the fact that its believers were relatively powerless during its period
of formation and that this God with its relatively moral view and code of conduct was
a way in which they could draw the strength they needed to be brave and to survive.
Also a powerful person such as an aristocrat could never think up a concept such as
God as it would make him seem to insignificant and subordinate, much better to have
a bunch of little gods who squabble among each other that way the concept of
deifying a pharaoh or an emperor does not seem quite so ridiculous. Again I‟m not
saying that God was never of any value but rather that in order to believe in Him you
must have this concept of faith which involves making unlikely and sometimes
impossible conclusions from what you see. Once you dismiss the rational you are lead
on a path that can take you anywhere from devil- worship to witch hunts. God does to
a certain extent demand us to dismiss making obvious conclusions based on that
which we see around us which is bad thinking practise to say the least
        And now the final chapter on human nature before we start on morals
summing up what was said in the earlier chapters and perhaps drawing a few new
         So now we have an accurate portrait of our precious humans, the image
conscious weasel, the profiteering liar and the ruthless villain whose only motivation
for not committing the most horrendous acts of cowardice is the fear of being labelled
a coward, through every good deed we do, through every temptation we avoid, lies the
fear of being punished or the hope of being rewarded, yes people may do thing which
are obviously doing them harm even though they help others, but this is always due to
the fact that their brains have been addled and reprogrammed by some manipulative
mindform which seeks to further its own end. And many more who have been
similarly addled will engage in behaviour that is not only detrimental to themselves,
but detrimental to everyone else aswell! Ethics are nothing more than the greedy
desires of the genes to propagate themselves while morals are nothing more than the
greedy desires of the mindforms to propagate themselves. Assumption (1) is not a
generalization but an unavoidable rule almost as fundamental as gravity which people
will predictably obey whether they like it or not.
         You may at this point consider the text to be a tad pessimistic however would
it be considered pessimistic for an aeronautical engineer to take the force of gravity
into account? Would it be considered pessimistic butcher to take the concept of
bacterial decay into account? If a carpenter refused to build a house until he received
wood that was not rotten, or should a shipbuilder refuse to build a ship whose hull had
large holes in it, would that be considered pessimistic? Similarly if one is to develop a
successful, working set of moral principals one must take human nature into account.
The truth is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact which we can either accept of ignore.
Unfortunately due to assumption (1) we are only too capable of ignoring it. Yes life
and history are full of cases of ignorance, betrayal, robbery, murder, rape and theft
and the worst thing about it all is that the moment anyone gets away with such things
and doesn‟t get punished but instead rises to the top of the social ladder the moment
he does something wicked to someone else, all his admirers go “I would never believe
alpha would do such a thing!” or “Oh well I suppose Beta deserved getting tortured
horrendously, after all he did accuse alpha of being impolite when Alpha rightfully
called him a piece of shit and then laughed.”
         In this chapter I will try to summarize the evolution of religion and the
evolution of science.
                         THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION
         Man is a social species and although he is capable of living on his own for a
reasonable period of time, when it comes to living alone he is a lesser species with
animals such as the cat, the squirrel, the robin and the crow out-competing him at
every turn, if we could not communicate with each other and work together our feeble
bodies would be out-competed by more able-bodied creatures and although a few
humans might be able to survive this way, as a species we would be pushed to
extinction it is knowledge and knowledge alone that give us the edge over other
animals the ability for a child to learn, not only from his mistakes and successes but
from those of his parents aswell. Thus communication and a knowledge of how to
form profitable interpersonal relationships with others is essential so we dedicate vast
portions of our brain to getting along with others or arguing and winning against
others etc. We thus have developed a wide range of vocabulary to describe the
behaviour of other people both in a general and in a more temporary way. (Selfish,
kind, cruel, moody, complex, cowardly, angry, happy, sad, annoyed, jealous, afraid,
etc., etc.,) Usually if we are in trouble we call for help, this is a fitness raising action if
the alternative is death, one can see that if you are about to die anyway you have little
to lose by crying for help whether you can see anyone around or not. So we can
imagine a situation where a man falls into a river or some such thing and cries for help
and shortly afterwards sees a floating log which he swims towards and is saved, or
perhaps he cries for help as he is surrounded by lions and then a gazelle emerges from
the bushes and the lions ignore him an rush after the gazelle and kill it instead. In
either case such a man might believe that someone was responsible for all these things
happening and might relate the story to someone else, who might in turn relate a
similar story to him, if people hear enough of such stories they might begin to believe
that there is a person with special powers out there that is capable of helping them, if
it is true it would have great adaptive significance to get on the right side of this
person. It is worth noting that the gods of polytheistic religions are not infallible or
morally irreprehensible but merely far more powerful than mortals, have long
memories are nice to those who butter up to them and vengeful to those that challenge
them, so there is nothing to say that this “man in the forest” who sends gazelles out to
distract the lion will always do so, far from it, as many people are eaten by lions, he
obviously only sometimes does it to those he favours. Then you get some people
telling others that the man in the forest favours me and you mess with me you mess
with the man in the forest, this is adaptive for said person to say as it might cause
those around him to treat him with a respect they would not otherwise confer upon
him, hence the origin of the Holy Man.
          Another source of myth is undoubtedly children driving their parents mad with
annoying questions. Picture this dear reader, Ug the caveman is sharpening his flint
axe when his son Gertrude comes up to him and asks “Daddy, how was the world
made?” To which he responds “I don‟t know.”
“How was the world made?”
“I don‟t know.”
“How was the world made?”

              “I DON’’T BLOODY
To which he roars in exasperation

“Was the world really farted out of the backside of a hippopotamus?”
“Yes now go away and leave me alone!”
       To which Gertrude quietly toddles off and keeps himself occupied with
something or other.
       When Gertrude himself marries Jessica and begets Claudius, the time comes
when Claudius asks “Daddy? How was the world made?” To which Gertrude
responds “Well my father told me that it was farted out of the backside of a
hippopotamus.” And the time comes when Claudius tells his son “My father told me,
whose father told him….”And sooner or later you will find a wise old sage sitting in
the middle of the fire with the people of the village gathered around him in awe, and
now he is about to speak, his brows crinkle and he stares mystically into space as he
utters these words in a horse, solemn voice. “It is the wisdom, of ages….that the
world…was farted…..out of the backside……of a hippopotamus.” After dropping
these pearls of wisdom into the minds and hearts of the villagers, a long and respectful
silence follows with the odd whisper of: “He‟s very wise isn‟t he? How does he know
so much?”
         Once the Holy Man arrives on the scene, you have a man who is paid to
practise certain rituals and invoke the favours of certain Gods, you also have a man
who has the authority to subtly alter the religion in anyway he pleases, in other words
in a way that benefits himself, thus the religion becomes impossibly complex for the
average working man to understand as he has more useful thing to do such as till the
land, weave clothes or build ships and houses. This means that because he does not
understand all the intricacies of the religion that he must consult a Holy Man in order
to get the favour of the gods. This is in the interests of the Holy Man so religions get
more and more complex. It is obviously not as simply as one Holy Man or a group of
Holy men getting together one day and saying “Hey guys those peasants think they
know it all, what say we make this religion so impossibly complex that they require
our help to understand it” but simply every Holy Man contribution to the complexities
of the religion add up and you end up with a religion that is very complex indeed, the
Holy Men may not even themselves realise what they are doing, but merely feel in
their gut that adding to the complexity is right, it is important to realise that the
individual which engages in behaviour that is adaptive to himself will not lose out on
fitness if he himself does not realise it is adaptive to himself.
         An example of this is how the spelling of the Egyptian language increased in
complexity and actually became less efficient and harder to learn as time progressed,
or the way Christianity started with a Communist hippy called Jesus who went around
the place crying “Peace and Love Man! From each according to his ability to each
according to his need!” and ended up becoming an institution with vast expensive
Cathedrals and Churches, with services and tithes and money you can give to the
church in order to supposedly buy your dead relatives into heaven and days of saints
with an infallible Pope who can abolish purgatory or make someone into a saint at
         Another thing the Holy Man contributes to is the standardising of religion, if
different Holy men contradict each other too much then they undermine the respect of
the entire order, thus within a given religion, everyone makes sure they get their story
straight or else their fellow Holy Men might punish them for heresy as they are
undermining their comfortable and adaptive position of authority.
         Essentially once the Holy Man becomes an intrinsic part of the religion,
describing the development from there on is no longer best done by merely
considering human nature but must also take the interest of the mindform itself into
                         THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE
         Some philosophers suppose that reality is subjective and what you believe is
real is real. There is a word to describe this particular train o f thought: Bullshit. If that
was true then you would not need to hire vast armies of scientists to try an achieve
nuclear fusion. Instead you could get a cardboard box, pour some water into it, stick
an electric cable inside and if you really believed that energy was being produced and
supplying the grid then energy would be produced and the worlds energy problems
would be over. The same applies to strapping yourself to a firework and believing it to
be a rocket-ship. There is ultimately every reason to think that truth is objective
although the uncertainty principal is a bit weird, it does not disprove the objectivity of
truth and there are a vast number of intuitive examples that basically prove it. I will
deal with this a bit more later, suffice to say that when we are met with a problem
some trains of thought lead to a solution while other methods of thinking yield
nothing. The kind of thinking that leads to a tangible solution to a problem is know as
the scientific method. Which basically means observing and collecting all the useful
information that might help that you can, analysing it logically and then formulating a
plan of action. I believe it certain that humans are intrinsically born believing what
they see and trying to understand the world around them using a rough approximation
of this highly adaptive method (although the logic of a child is obviously not perfect)
then they are brought into some fanatically Christian school and this way of looking
and dealing with facts is gradually conditioned o ut of them. But how did this
originate? Well, being seen as right boosts social status, as you would tend to be seen
as a supplier of useful information and people would see it as in their adaptive interest
to talk to you, on the plus side this provides incentive for people to try and come up
with the right answer, however on the minus side when people are losing rationally
they may believe they can profit or a avoid loss in status via the forceful method and
if they are powerful enough they will indeed succeed in persuading people to ignore
what they see with their own eyes. From the mindforms point of view it can have
people going around saying things that contradict with it especially if they are right,
so this rational child is gradually taught to ignore what he sees(by a method of reward
and punishment) and believe what he‟s told and as his mind has not had time to
absorb the necessary information necessary to argue the bullshit they throw at him he
ends up accepting it unquestioningly.
         Fortunately because the scientific method does allow people to solve problems
which they would not otherwise be able to solve societies that happened to support
and fund a certain amount of rational people to think about problems and overcome
them have been more successful than societies that went on blind faith alone, this was
often due to being able to develop a better military. Fanaticism may to a certain extent
boost the fighting capability of a army, but it is not enough on its own, and the end of
the day you also need organisation, discipline, tactics and high quality weaponry to
develop these member of your society must be able to think rationally so those
societies that tolerate rational thought in at least some directions are more successful
than societies that are fanatically fundamentalist. Also science allows cures for
diseases and the like to be found so those who look upon a civilisation and see less
diseases, starvation and a successful military wish to imitate them as it would boost
their fitness. Therefore they too begin to take a more tolerant view of science and
even encourage it via funding. For the scientists who is getting paid to uncover the
truth assumption 1 gives little conflict to him, however you still get scientists who
think double in order to boost their fitness and be accepted and encouraged by their
family and friends, these people see no conflict with say, evolution , genesis and the
fundamental truth of the bible (it being from the mouth of God and all).
         Freudian psychology and its descendants are mindforms but are unlike either
science or religion. Now there are some psychologists that sit back and listen to their
patients problems without saying much but within the field of psychology and
sociology lies powerful methods to alter peoples behavioural patterns. The method of
the psychologist silently listening, usually only asking the odd question is rather
similar to that of the so-called wise- man, this gives the impression of omnipotence
without said person being forced to expose their ignorance by saying too much. The
way in which the psychologist or the sociologist can subtly manipulate human
behaviour is if the patient is doing something they want to encourage they associate it
with something that is socially acceptable while if the patient is doing something they
discourage they associate it with something that all would find appalling, Freudian
psychology became particularly powerful and popular at the time of Freud because of
the power it gave the analyst by being able to associate all forms of behaviour to
“subconscious” desires for incest, murder and other horrendous crimes Freud and his
supporters could maintain a position where they could constantly accuse those around
them of horrendous criminal desires and thus remain on the aggressive because of the
whole concept of the sub-conscious is very hard to argue against the opponent would
be accused and although ofcourse he would not be punished for his so-called criminal
desires, he would look a fool thus Freud or his supporters would make his opponents
look like fools and for every accusation they could throw at him the opponent could
throw very little back. Thus those who supported Freudian Psychology would achieve
a position of undisputed dominance and thus become authority figures, this would
make the theory gain credibility.
        In the past pages is contained the bulk of what I have to say regarding human
nature and its not a pretty picture, you, the reader may say that things are more or less
fine and that its best to leave things well alone. Some say that capitalism is the closest
we‟ll ever get to Utopia and that it cannot be surpassed. This is the basic if it ain‟t
broke don‟t fix it attitude and in many ways it is probably for the best as the world
would truly be an awful place if everyone was immediately convinced by every crazy
man on the street or cult leader, however we have to ask ourselves the question, is it
broke and can it be fixed. We have gross inequality throughout the world, just because
we can‟t see the starving masses doesn‟t mean they don‟t exist, although Western
Europe has not had a major war in the past fifty years or so, it is a very different story
in certain areas of Asia, South America and Africa. Since the nineteen-eighties the
weather patterns have begun to change due to mans activity, although significant
measures have been taken to cut the emission of CFC‟s the hole in the ozone layer is
far from closed up although it has decreased this year while species of animals and
plants continue to go extinct at rate that can only be described as horrific. Inspite of
death, climate change and extinction human beings on the whole have never been
better off, but that is to the shame of the past and not the pride of the present and it
cannot be argued against that the environment has never been worse off than it is
today. Some may say that right now I‟m still alive with my job and my car when
things start to affect me seriously, then I‟ll do something about it. Once things start to
affect you seriously there will be very little you can do about it most of these
problems require a massive determined long-term effort to solve however they can
undoubtedly be solved.
        Many people do care about these things, however many don‟t and those that
care can often make little more than meaningless gestures so long as they don‟t get the
support they need from those that don‟t. What is more many who do care start to think
that what they do in their life is little more than a meaningless gesture and
consequently don‟t do much that might inconvenience them too much. Well that‟s
fine because all those gestures add up although a man who is prepared to inconvience
himself for the greater good is to be admired there is no need to arbitrarily
inconvenience yourself for no purpose. The actions of recycling every can, of placing
your bottles in the bottle bank, of not buying goods made from the rainforest, of
throwing the odd Euro into the collection box for the third world does make a
difference to real people plants and animals. But most importantly it signifies the will
to preserve and create and not to destroy and waste. The ideology I am about to layout
before you is not perfect, and I hope that those who follow can make further
adjustments and succeed in the areas where I may fail, but I believe that hopefully it
will be better and more practical than any other ideology/religion/ way of life that is
currently in existence, read on and feel free to judge.
         Let us make no pretence, this ideology is itself a mindform. Despite all I have
said about mindforms tricking us into engaging in maladaptive behaviour, without
them we would be far worse off for memes are essentially ideas and without ideas
where would we be? Not even in the Stone Age probably. Now here is my reasoning:
we need to find one way or another to live we don‟t really have a choice unless we are
suicidal, so the way I see it we might aswell choose a mindform that truly reflects the
lifeforce a mindform which will ultimately confer upon humanity the ability to
organise itself in such a way as to maximize its chances of survival and hopefully lead
to a reasonable to high quality of life for all. If you forget nationalism and how you
are only suppose to care about the lives of those inside your own country and think of
the sheer waste of life and resources which war has caused, the horror, the torture and
the suffering that has resulted from what can only be described as the sadistic,
profiteering will of some people you must realise mankind‟s need for unity, the only
way you can unite everyone is if that unity is advantageous to every member
involved, in order to form a tribe there needs to be a mutual goal which all its
members share in common, yet how can you form the Tribe of Man? What possible
reason could there be for us all to unite together? And what is still more confounding
is that when the Tribe of Man begins it will surely consist of a mere handful of people
and these people may in some instances have to defend themselves from attackers and
may eventually become as tribalistic and insular as the attackers themselves. Yet if
they can‟t atleast make some attempt at defending their own they will surely be
         What could possibly ultimately unite so many cultures together when some
cultures share almost nothing in common when something which is a matter of
politeness to one is the gravest insult to another? Infact some societies have laws
which are blatantly immoral and must be changed, yet if we agree that some laws are
wrong and should be changed how to we stop ourselves from unjustly imposing our
will upon a culture when what they were originally doing was, infact perfectly
harmless and it was our punishment that was wrong. Infact what is right and what is
wrong? The last question, above all else is the most challenging, the most challenging
aspect of it is the fact that we all believe we know what it is even when we don‟t (As I
explained in the preceding chapters).
         Many of the cultures of the world have very little in common, the people who
practice them on the other hand have a great deal in common, we all wish to live
become rich do well for ourselves and our families etc., basically survive and
reproduce without having the people we know and love drop dead around us
needlessly. Thus although we do not already know what fundamental morality is
already, fundamental morality does have a definition: the set of morals and way of life
that would appeal most to the unformed human.
         And from here:

         If nothing else I write is listened to or remembered, then these three statements
shall be all that I leave to posterity. I think that this is an even better definition that
“Treat thy neighbour as you would he would treat you” as if you are feeling suicidal
this statement would apparently advise you to go on a killing spree first and indeed
some people in fanatically Christian countries (or should I say states) do infact go on
killing sprees before popping a bullet through their own head. The humanist golden
rule of “Treat others as you would want to them to treat you if you were in their
situation” is basically a rehashed version of Christianity without the God and at the
end of the day this would suggest you should supply a junky with heroine, as if you
were addicted you would want someone to give you heroine, or perhaps a policeman
should let homicidal maniacs and rapists off the hook because if he was in the
homicidal maniac or rapists situation he would want to be able to go around the place
killing and raping people without policemen going around the place trying to catch
         Why should we say that life is more important than health and health is more
important then happiness? Why because life is necessary for health (you be hard
pressed to find a healthy corpse, or a happy one for that matter) and although strictly
speaking health is not absolutely necessary for happiness it certainly can be thought to
be a major contributing factor and although an old granny in bed may not be healthy
herself, she will undoubtedly derive happiness from the health of her grandchildren
and be considerably less happy if they are deriving happiness from taking drugs and
getting in fights. If we can accept that life is necessary for health and happiness and
health is a major enough contributing factor to happiness as to, in the long term, cause
a substantial decrease in happiness to the individual and to his friends and family if
totally neglected and is exchanged instead for short term happiness which will
ultimately be outweighed by the long term misery it will ultimately create both to the
individual and to those around him. There fundamental mora lity is merely an
alternative expression of the fundamental principle of the utilitarian philosophy. The
second statement regarding fundamental immorality is harder to reconcile as it can
only be regarded as the utilitarian philosophy in reverse order unless we believe that
the death of one would bring more misery to another than the misery of the first one in
the first place, the same must be argued for sickness and injury in order for
fundamental morality to be fully reconciled with the fundamental principles of
         Personally I think that even if this is not always true, that fundamental
morality takes precedence over utilitarianism as it has a fundamental Darwinian ring
of truth about it that utilitarianism slightly lacks. Have our ancestral strands of DNA
frenetically out-done the competition, have the fish hid from the squids to remain safe
and sound while rushing out to forage when the coast is clear, have the mammals of
the mezoic hid from the dinosaurs only to creep out at night to forage and withstood
the decades long starvation and darkness that the great asteroid brought, have the men
and women of the French revolution fought and died for democracy just so that a
bunch of stoner-wasters could lie back, be happy and die of lung-cancer?
Undoubtedly it is wrong to say that to arbitrarily cause pain to another or to be
miserable for no reason is what we should do and indeed the revolutionaries of old
have indeed fought and died so their descendants might live better and happier lives
but they also made the sacrifice for another reason… continuity. Although it is good
to be happy it is also important to maintain continuity and progress and that is why I
believe that even if the above paragraph does not reconcile utilitarianism with
fundamental morality that utilitarianism is wrong while fundamental morality is right.
         Thomas Jefferson listed the fundamental rights of man to be life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. This is basically fundamental morality with liberty stuck in
the place of health. But should liberty really be placed into a system of morals as a
fundamental axiom? Freedom is a fuzzy word which can‟t really be properly defined
and those who think that freedom is a concept that was developed by democracy
would be well advised to remember that Hitler, Stalin and Moa Sea Tung all spoke of
freedom. How many wars have been fought, how many people have died for the sake
of that fuzzy concept? Too many! What is total freedom anyway? A man who can
roam the Earth but has no means of acquiring food or water would gladly live in cage
if he was given a bowl of soup everyday (of course if he could acquire food and roam
the Earth at the same time he would probably take that option in preference to either)
the same would apply to a man who was given the freedom to roam wherever he
wanted in the baking dessert or live in a hole with water being lowered down to him
everyday. We do not have the freedom to fly because of the law of gravity only
through working together to build planes helicopters and balloons can that freedom be
acquired, yet in order to work together we must make concessions with each other so
you see we must trade one freedom with another. At the end of the day no country
with a population in excess of 1 can do without laws as people must organize
themselves in order to survive. If we truly abhorred laws so much then why is it that
more people wander around in the Australian outback I‟ll tell you why, because they
starve that‟s why! But you don‟t even need certain death to discourage you from
freedom, all you need is a net reduction in fitness. Due to arguments I‟ve mentioned
earlier when man is faced with the choice of freedom and increased long-term fitness
he will almost always choose the latter.
         Utilitarians would say that freedom brings happiness and that freedom is what
we ultimately want, Pah! If man truly wanted freedom, he would not have married
woman! If freedom is what humans truly seek then why is it the moment the laws of
society are relaxed they will use their new found freedom only to throw it away or to
restrict the freedom of others through drugs and crime, and from what we know of
Thomas Jefferson when he spoke of liberty he obviously included the liberty to own
slaves as he had three of his own. The societies which placed the greatest emphasis on
the social importance of freedom were generally slave owning societies. In my
opinion once you have no slavery and democracy where every adult has a vote. The
concept of freedom can lead to few further reforms and the importance of these two
things can be derived from fundamental morality anyway and I will do so later. In
summary the fact that freedom is a fuzzy ill-defined concept means it is essentially a
malleable one to the eloquent demagogue which he can use, twist and mould to serve
whatever end he wishes to pursue, generally to form an army and achieve absolute
power through a military dictatorship. Thus to set freedom as an axiom in
fundamental morality would be a dangerous thing indeed.
         However oppression is not a good thing either, so let us instead derive
freedom as a secondary function of fundamental morality, in other words although
freedom is of great importance where it directly contradicts fundamental morality
fundamental morality must take precedence.
Here is the derivation:
         Consider the means by which freedom may be restricted, what is to stop you
running into only farmer McGregor cabbage patch and stealing all his cabbages?
What is it that restricts you? What is it that stops us from robbing a shop, a person or a
bank? What is it that restricts our freedom to steal cars, or litter the street? Why the
fear of getting caught ofcourse! But why do we fear getting caught? Because we
might be punished or scolded depending on how bad the crime is and if the person
who is scolding us sees that it is having no effect upon our actions then he/she may
decide to punish us. Being scolded certainly does not increase ones happiness and
being punished will always detract from the happiness of an individual and may
detract from his life and health aswell. Thus punishment is itself an act of immorality
unless the result of discouraging said behaviour will result in a net increase in life
health or happiness.
         Another great advantage of fundamental morality over utilitarianism is it
allows a still greater quantitative analysis of a given law or principle. Ultimately
happiness is impossible to quantify although it is possible to use your intuition to a
certain extent as to whether a given individual is happy or not he/she may jus t be
pretending to be happy or miserable etc. and some people are more expressive than
others. On the other hand it is very easy indeed to tell whether someone is dead or
alive and although it maybe somewhat harder, you can via diagnosis get a reasonably
clear picture over the state of health of a given individual, by setting the most easy
thing to quantify first and the hardest thing to quantify last, we can gain greater
insight into which decisions are the most moral. Perhaps one approximate measure of
happiness would be how many around you wish you to be alive, well and happy and
how many want to kill you, severely maim you, or cause you excruciating misery,
then again perhaps this is not true, perhaps a better measure of happiness would be the
degree by which you successfully survive and reproduce or maybe happiness can to a
certain extent be measured by you overall success or the activity of the body and/or
the mind, perhaps all these things are true or perhaps none are, at the end of the day
happiness is very hard to quantify, however I am sure life is necessary for it and
health is, atleast a major contributing factor.
         Fundamental morality allows certain things to be said in a clear and
determined voice over issues regarding which classical humanism co uld only give a
confused mumble over. Issues which I will relate to in the following pages.
         At the start of this chapter I said that fundamental morality is the system of
morals that would most appeal to the unformed human but is this true? Well if you
think of a baby, such a creature knows nothing of courage and valour, nothing of
patriotism, infact the very concept of suicide seems alien and incomprehensible to it,
there is very little it wants other than life, health and happiness so it would
undoubtedly see great benefit in embracing a system of morals that would allow it to
guilt its parents into giving it such things, thus I am confident that my definition of
fundamental morality is, indeed the system of morals that would appeal most to the
unformed human.
                          REWARD AND PUNISHMENT
         If the result of a certain type of behaviour is adaptive an individual will tend to
repeat it and if an individual sees another profiting from a certain type of behaviour he
will tend to imitate him or punish him if he feels the result of that type of behaviour
will ultimately have unpleasant consequences for himself or if he believes others will
reward him for punishing the villain. If the result of a certain type of behaviour is
maladaptive to an individual he will avoid repeating it or if he sees another individual
lose out through practising a certain type of behaviour he will tend to avoid copying
him or reward him in the case where he believes that type of behaviour will ultimately
help him or that others will approve of his rewarding this hero.
         Thus we can see why acts of good should be rewarded so that they might be
repeated while acts of evil should be punished that the vile behaviour should not be
repeated. This is also why over-bearing bosses decrease the overall efficiency and
stunt the initiative of there employees. If the boss should shout at any suggestion
which he disagrees with while merely going “Humpf!” if he should come across a
suggestion which he agrees with then employees shall simply avoid making
suggestions in the first place as there is no reward scenario for doing so. Perhaps this
is mildly better than the boss who neither rewards nor punishes anyone but the boss
who rewards behaviour that is to the benefit of the company and listens to the
suggestions other people make though perhaps not agreeing with them. (By providing
a no lose scenario for making suggestions more suggestions will be made, stupid
suggestions should not be rewarded although they should not be punished either
unless the employee should become forceful and start shouting) that is not to say that
nothing should be punished, actions that ultimately compromise the efficiency of
running the company should be punished so that those who commit them should not
repeat their actions. When I say should I do ofcourse mean should if you want the
company as a whole to make a large profit. The issue is far to general to say whether
the smooth operation of said company is fundamentally moral or not.
         Christianity emphasises the importance of self-sacrifice for the sake of others.
We worship Jesus for being crucified on the cross and say that he died for the sake of
all mankind. To a certain extent this encourages people to put themselves out for each
other, but on the whole I believe this cult of self-sacrifice is a rather morbid belief.
Still more morbid is the insistence of Christianity to pick an instrument of torture to
represent its religion. Christianity teaches us to help the poor but it also subtly
ingrains in us a hatred for the rich for as Jesus himself said “It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the gates of heaven.” I
strongly believe that we should indeed help the poor but we should not gratuitously
resent the rich. For if we resent the rich then to make someone richer is to make
someone more resented and what do we do when we give money to a tramp if not
make the tramp richer and by Christian reasoning perhaps more resented, therefore in
order not to inflict upon the poor a status in which they will be resented, perhaps we
should not give them any money at all. This reasoning is ridiculous, but so is the
insistence of Christianity that every act of charity must be accompanied by an act of
sacrifice. That is why we have charity fasts and charity runs and then we somehow
feel cleansed because we feel that we have shared their pain when it would be much
better for us to simply give more money or go off into the countries themselves to do
voluntary work.
         Another problem with this morbid insistence of gratuitous self-sacrifice is that
those who do sacrifice themselves because they believe it to be right will tend to
resent those that don‟t and instead enjoy themselves. So fanatically Christian societies
tend to be filled with party-poopers who gratuitously go around the place stopping
people from enjoying themselves and saying things like “How can you wallow in such
frivolity! Have you not forgotten the sacrifice that Jesus made for you that we might
all be saved? You should instead occupy yourself with more constructive activities
like whipping yourselves, vows of silence or fasting for weeks on end as our beloved
messiah did in the desert aswell as vows of chastity!” The last one, the vow of chastity
can be especially damaging as some of these sexually frustrated priests and nuns start
to go mad and get off by whipping little boys and girls and buggering them while
nobodies looking. Another bad thing about self-sacrifice is it brings about a fear in
technology that makes life more convenient as things should not be convenient!
Instead all tasks should be as unpleasant and arduous as possible that we might come
closer to the gates of heaven.
         Instead of saying self-sacrifice is a must I would say it is important that the
individual should realise that the value of his life is not greater than that of the people
around him but he must also realise that it is no less valuable either. Thus when we
say that morality is that which ultimately promotes life, health and happiness in order
of decreasing emphasis while immorality is that which ultimately promotes death,
sickness/injury and misery in order of decreasing emphasis before a given individual
decides whether some particular action is moral or not he should include his own life
health and happiness etc., along with everyone else‟s. Thus it is right to give money to
a poor person as it may make the difference between life and death for them and if
anything most people feel happier for doing it anyway. Voluntary work for the poor is
also good but self-whipping is bad as it doesn‟t help anyone and instead turns you into
a bitter twisted nutcase. It is not right to sacrifice your life at the mere whim of
another but only to do so should it definitely save the life of another. Neither sho uld
someone sacrifice or endanger his health unless it would cure another of his ailment.
Let us also remember that although it is certainly not necessary to turn into a total
health freak sometimes it is good to strain ourselves and push ourselves to the limit
for the sake of our own health. Though I think acquiring a skill or becoming learned
should be included as mental or intellectual health as it is strongly linked with fitness
in the Darwinian sense of the word.
         As every individual cares only for their own interests (survival and
reproduction) and would be unlikely to sacrifice these interests for if one was ever
prepared to sacrifice his own interests he would be out-competed by others individual
who weren‟t we can assume that acquiring the position of leadership won‟t change
this. Also let us remember that every leader concentrates on maintaining the interests
of his base of support (those individuals he relies on in order to maintain his power).
If the leader is military dictator he will aspire to prioritise the interests of the army
over all else, if he is a hereditary king he will aspire to prioritise the interests of
aristocracy above all else, if he is a communist it will be the interests of the army and
the party. However although democratic leaders do, to a certain extent, favouritise the
party- members and those who fund their election campaigns they must at the end of
the day, be voted in by the people and thus will place the interests of the people fairly
high on their agenda. All that is required for a democracy to achieve a high level of
morality is for every individual to vote for the leader that will benefit him the most
and the leader that will benefit the most people wins this is exactly what people do
and can be expected to do as it precisely coincides with human nature, so although
there maybe a certain amount of wheeling and dealing atleast it can be said that a
democratic leader cannot deviate away from benefiting a great number of people to
anything like the degree that any other form of government could. And as most
people, no matter how formed, have atleast a slight tendency to increase their own
personal fitness (life, health and happiness which although some may deviate from,
statistically speaking, most will lean towards, and its statistics that sway votes one
way or another and can make or break a government) thus democracy is the most
fundamentally moral form of government.
         Some may speak of the tyranny of the majority as a complaint raised against
democracy, well the majority may indeed be tyrannical under democracy, and this is
fundamentally wrong, however they may not aswell and no other form of government
can prevent the tyranny of the majority and most other also allow the tyranny of the
minority. Neither tyrannies are a particularly good to have but one thing can be said,
all else being equal it is better for the majority to oppress the minority than for the
minority to oppress the majority as the numerical number of people that end up being
oppressed is fewer. This again validates the statement that democracy is a better form
of government than any other, however we must remember that democracy is only a
better form of government because it is more fundamentally moral than any other
form, therefore if we can make some minor alteration to democracy that may cause it
to slightly deviate from its purest set of principle ideals yet might enhance the
morality of the government that we should do so as fundamental morality is the
primary end and democracy is merely a means to that end.
Here is the alteration I propose:




         We can see from these laws that even a democratically elected government
does not have the right to issue capital punishment for any activity that does not
threaten the life of the majority. If a compromise in which both these things may be
attained, then as it is our duty to follow the path of greatest morality then that
compromise should be put into practise.
         Some people might still insist that in many non-democratic countries the
leaders do infact take an interest in the well-being of their subjects. Well to a certain
extent that is true but they would only look after them just enough so that they would
not revolt. Infact certainly in an unstable regime which is not hereditary the most
popular person would in general gain power, this would mainly be due to the fact that
he had the largest army, infact campaigning for an army is rather similar to an election
campaign in that the aspiring leader would make populist promises in order to raise a
big enough army in order to seize power. Yes in many ways a revolution is quite
similar to an election except instead of assembling in a voting booth the voters
assemble in a field of grass, instead of being handed a pen and a ballot paper they are
handed a shield and a cutlass and instead of filling in a form and placing it in the
ballot box the voters must hack the opposition to pieces. So in so much as promoting
life is concerned the election is far more moral then the revolution, a revolution most
certainly does not promote life to the vanquished, health to those who have had their
arm hacked off, or happiness to the widows of the dead and wounded. Revolution is
horrible and terribly immoral and every country should undergo at most one
revolution….the revolution from a non-democracy into a democracy. Further changes
should be made via election. It is true that the first leader who has struggled through
revolution to attain power may indeed rule reasonably benevolently however his
successor (son, relative, friend) is likely to be worse as he would tend to take his
power for granted. The emperors of Rome are a good example of this, Augustus was
tolerant of criticism ensured that grain prices were low for the populace and held
many games to keep the populace entertained. His stepson Tiberius was cold and
intolerant or criticism, unlike Augustus who called the men of the legions comrades,
Tiberius felt it to be unbefitting an emperor and merely referred to them as men and in
his older life buggered baby boys and girls. His successor Gaius Caligula was a
complete raving loony who ordered people to be tortured for fun (he was very fond of
killing people by a thousand cuts), made his horse a senator, declared himself God
and used to take the wives of Senators away in the middle of meals, fuck them and
then bring them back to dinner and comment on how they were in bed to their
husbands. So you see that once democracy is relinquished, things can only get worse.
         Another major problem with turning a non-democracy into a democracy is that
a good freedom- fighter is not necessarily a good campaigner for an election. The
skills you need to be a freedom fighter are tenacity, fanatical adherence to your
opinion, the refusal to compromise or give in to the intimidatory actions of the non-
democratic state and ruthlessness. Although you need a certain amount of ruthlessness
to get democratically elected it is a ruthlessness that is full of compromise and there is
nothing to say a freedom fighter will be good at canvassing either, that is why when
freedom win, they don‟t always remain democratic.
         Although the act of fighting is in itself an act of barbarity it must be confessed
that in a non-democratic country with a ruthless leader, it is often the only way to
achieve change. Having said that you can‟t say that anyone who feels a bit miffed
with some new law a government passes is fully entitled to go around the place killing
and maiming a random sample of people thus although some people say “One man
terrorist is another man‟s freedom fighter” there is clearly a very great need to draw a
definite distinction between the two. In a truly democratic country there are no
freedom fighters, only terrorists with one exception; the situation when the state has
authorized the death of innocent people (individuals who have not been responsible
for the deaths of other innocent people) freedom fighters only attack those in the
police- force, the army and politicians, lastly freedom fighters don‟t kill anyone under
the age of 18 as they have little influence over the state anyway. It must be
remembered this is only in an evil state(a state which authorizes the killing of
innocent people), in a righteous state it is wrong to kill policemen, army- men and
politicians. The way I see it, even in a non-democracy, freedom fighting should not be
the first resort. Every criminal system has a maximum capacity, the way I see it if all
the people on the street protested for democracy all at once the police could never
arrest them all, thus if there was truly enough support the state would be forced to
comply or kill them. When the first dead body of an innocent man falls on the ground,
that is the time to begin freedom fighting, before then it is terrorism. That is not to say
all protests are a good thing, but you must remember if protesters break stuff or
illegally block traffic by protesting without a permit the policeforce are fully entitled
to arrest them and put them in gaol. But what if this swamps the prison system? You
may ask. Well, in a proper democracy there‟s not all that much to protest about and
most of the populace will respect the state significantly to merely write to their TD if
they have a problem and the TD should address issues which many letters have
written with respect to in parliament. Also the state will ofcourse license peaceful
protests that don‟t get in the way of too much, thus, in a proper democracy the only
violent and illegal protests that will take place will be held by a few nutcases who will
be few enough in number to be easily handled by the prison system without the need
for ruthless measures, such as killing them all, to be practiced.
         Many democratic countries have a house other than Parliament, in England
this is the house of Lords, in Ireland the Senate. There is no point in having two
houses if they are structured in the same way. I think the best way to organise the
second house is via the principle of the corporate state with interest groups electing
representatives the interest groups don‟t always have to remain the same. This is a
good idea because by collecting people who represent greater groups with different
interests into the same room is a very good way to arrive at compromises. Having said
that, the final decision must be taken by the majority of the population as that which
the majority decide is likely to be beneficial to the majority, and that which benefits
more humans is likely to lead to a greater quantity of life health and happiness. Every
TD should be represent roughly the same quantity of people and every man should
have one vote thus the secondary house should merely serve an auxiliary function; to
submit proposals to the main house of parliament, the house of Parliament should vote
on the proposals submitted to it by the secondary house and on its own proposals.
         Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of
government apart from all the others I on the other hand would say democracy is the
best way to decide who should lead a country, but it is not all that is required, you
can‟t make silk purse out of a sows ear and a crap leader will always be a crap leader
whether he is democratically elected, inherited the throne or achieved power through a
military uprising. The most important thing for a state is the policies which the leader
decides on after attaining power and that is beyond and apart from the principals of
democracy. Thus this book is certainly not finished yet.
         Now for a moment let us move away from the issues of how the power
structure of the state should be organised on to the case of squabbles and feuds
between individuals. If some eccentric architect gave the blueprint for building a mile
high paper dog with match sticks for structural support and an aircraft runway running
along its back with the assumption that there was no gravity or wind and that the
strength of matchsticks is twenty times that of steels he would be laughed out of the
company building, yet when Jesus Christ tells us that if you turn the other cheek when
hit your brother will be shamed into kneeling before you and begging for forgiveness,
we stare at him in wide-eyed awe. What a the woman who is gang-raped by soldiers
during a war, she may turn the other cheek but will they kneel before her and beg for
forgiveness? Usually not. There are many other cases like this and the main reason
your brother would kneel down before you and beg for forgiveness is for fear of the
outrage it would cause the spectators. In a public stoning session turning the other
cheek would have no such effect because stoning people who do things that are
culturally unacceptable (be it speaking their mind, or sleeping with the wrong person
at the wrong time or whatever) will have no detrimental consequences for those who
do it. Thus although there are instances where turning the other cheek is the right
thing to do, it would not be right to turn the other cheek if the net end result of such
action should be nought but misery, injury and death.
         Let us instead consider whether taking revenge in a particular situation is right
or wrong on the basis of the results of such an action. The act of punishing a particular
type of behaviour will have one of two results, it will either cause that kind of
behaviour to decrease or it will result in a vicious power struggle. If the punishment is
too small the original persecutor might consider it still to his advantage to continue to
wrong the victim, while if the punishment is too great the persecutor may feel the
necessity to punish the victim in order that he might not repeat such detrimental
behaviour unto him again ( remember that we are not dealing with a perfect peace
which the persecutor has broken but rather a scenario where everyone is jostling with
everyone else in order to test each other for strength or weakness so if the persecutor
was himself wronged in a similar way to the wronging he commits he may feel that it
is not right for him to have to take what he is given while o n striking back he is
punished more than ever before and thus feel the need to lash back). Therefore I
propose instead of saying that the vengeance should be equal to the pain that has been
inflicted I would say that the vengeance should simply be enough to successfully deter
the persecutor from repeating his crime whether it should result in more or less pain
being inflicted or not.
         Some speak of over-reacting to something, say Billy was quietly sipping a
carton of milk when Bobby grabs the milk from Billy and sprays it all over Billy‟s
clothes now imagine Billy should knee Bobby in the groin punch him in the stomach,
knock him over and stamp on his head Bobby might argue that Billy was over-
reacting as all he had done was mess up Billy‟s clothes whereas Billy has caused him
permanent brain damage however Billy might also argue that Bobby was over-
reacting as all Billy had done was nothing while Bobby had come up and messed up
his clothes. If over-reacting is causing more pain than is necessary to insure that the
offending behaviour is not repeated then perhaps causing less injury to the offender
than is necessary to insure the offending action is not repeated might be described as
         Ofcourse one person may feel a certain injustice merited a certain punishment
while the person who was punished might feel it did not and may himself decide to
punish the man for over-reacting, the man who was considered by the other to be
over-reacting may himself decide that the punishment of the other for over-reacting
was itself an over-reaction and might decide to punish him for it etc., Thus we get a
feud. There are two ways and two ways only of ending a feud, you can either kill the
enemy, the friends of the enemy that might want vengeance, the friends of their
friends etc., etc., or the two sides may decide to forgive each other, infact forgiveness
is the only way to convert a war into a lasting peace. In order to forgive the other
person must first be sorry. Infact it would be wrong to reek vengeance on anyone who
apologised and promised to be good in future provided they were telling the truth, as
the only function of vengeance is to insure that the action is not repeated. That is
regarding feuds between individuals in a lawless environment. In such an
environment there is no long lasting life, health or happiness to be attained from
continuing to fight each other when an agreement can be reached.
         The law is a different matter altogether, the nature of the law is to inform
everyone prior to the taking of any action, that particular actions will be punished in a
particular kind of way, by doing this we can stop people from engaging in actions that
are detrimental to the group as a whole, this is another reason why democracy is
essential because in any other government the law is simply written to benefit those in
power, in a democracy however, the law is written to benefit the maximum number of
people as he who writes or approves such a law will gain the maximum number of
votes. The law is a completely different scenario to the feud. In the case of the feud
you have a power struggle and when forgiveness and peace arises the person with the
most power (the greatest ability to inflict pain and damage upon others) will probably
get the best deal. Essentially over-reacting and under reacting are not quantitative but
entirely a matter of opinion. This is what will happen; as the law is merely a
predetermined system of punishment and punishment is merely the ability to kill,
injure, remove resources or shove others in gao l, in every environment (especially
undemocratic ones but the same applies to democracies aswell) the people or group of
people who have the greatest ability to inflict pain and misery upon others will
become the authority figures and will have greatest influence on the law. Thus in
order to avoid pain being inflicted upon themselves, people will aspire to get on the
right side of said authority figures, hence when they do something bad to other
people, the sycophants will laugh and say that said victim deserved it by remaining on
good relations with these authority figures the authority figures will, in exchange
defend their interests and help them fight their feuds. When the angry person that was
wronged attacks the authority figure the sycophants will say he was over-reacting
again to maintain a relationship that is beneficial to themselves. This situation could
be set across a school playground or across an entire country contain wealthy people
and bums. Although the law is not by definition fair, there will always be people who
reward certain behaviour while punishing others in such a way as to orchestrate the
behaviour of those around them to benefit themselves. Every nation has a written law
however every neighbourhood, society or anarchist commune has a code of etiquette
which is essentially the same, where some types of behaviour and words uttered will
be approved of and rewarded while other things will be punished, if you went to an
anarchist commune and sang “Money makes the world go round!” You would be
booed and hissed at and maybe even attacked, this is in itself a punishment scenario
and the result of an unwritten law. Infact any attack on anything is an attempt to
punish a certain type of person or behaviour which is itself an attempt to lay down the
law so when anarchists go around the place selectively trashing things they don‟t like
they are not getting rid of the law, but merely laying down a new set of rules, a code
of behaviour which must be abided by if you don‟t want your shop to be trashed. Or
maybe even a law that says “Thou shalt not build shops!”
          Thus forgiveness is not enough and there must be a set of rules approved of by
the majority that provides a reward punishment situation which encourages people to
cooperate with each other in such a way as to maximize the life, security, health and
happiness of all involved. Thus the law must not be moody or forgiving but constant,
consistent and predictable if we lived in a society where you could kill a man and if
you looked really sorry in front of the judge he would give you a lolly-pop a let you
off then undoubtedly people would try this technique and would tend to risk
murdering those that they really hate. It is important to realize that people must be
stopped from acting on their hatred as people don‟t just hate fundamentally moral
individuals, they might hate someone for being born a particular way, or being from a
particular country or maybe because he is just one of those annoying goody-goody
two shoes and they would just love to see him die for the hell of it. There is nothing to
indicate that all people are fundamentally good and everything to indicate that if you
don‟t deter people from engaging in a certain action that more will do it. A law that is
not enforced is not a law. A law should either be enforced or erased as if you get
people into thinking that most laws aren‟t really enforced then they start breaking
them and getting indignant when they are actually punished. No law that is not there
for a fundamentally moral reason should exist. Every individual must get into the
habit of thinking that they must abide by the law but they can vote to change it.
Whether you label the law as justice or vengeance is beside the point the real function
of it is to organise human behaviour on a large scale there is no other way of doing so
other than punishing people for doing wrong. The law must be entirely action based
(an action is a behaviour which directly affects the fitness of another individual) an
have nothing to do with thought or opinion, if two individuals commit the same action
for two completely different reasons they should both be given the same punishment.
There are two things which should affect the strength of the punishment; how much
damage the behaviour does to the life health and happiness of others and how much
benefit the offender gets from it (the greater the benefit, the greater the punishment
needed to deter it.
         At the end of the day as the strongest and most ruthless usually emerges
victorious from any power struggle resulting from a chain of revenges most disputes
except for the most trivial should be dealt with through the medium of a law which,
by the democratic will of the people has been fine tuned to deliver the most moral
result. The case for vengeance should only apply for situations outside the umbrella
on the law and apology and forgiveness should come as swift as possible
         However the law can only work if people report crimes to the police and often
when you speak of gang beatings and the like there is not even enough time for the
police to arrive before the victim dies, problem here is apathy and the continual
emergence of sub-authority power structures. A good example of this is the fanatical
refusal to tell the teachers that is present in many schools or the ideas that it is wrong
to grass someone up to the cops. This is simply the result of a person or group of
people beating up and punishing those who tell, the net result is that less people tell,
once a certain threshold is reached even if someone does tell there are not nearly
enough other witnesses who are prepared to back him up so he does not achieve what
he set out to do and he gets punished for doing so, eventually it is accepted that telling
teacher or reporting people to the police is wrong and people who are generally
fatalistic by nature decide that as long as this is the new unspoken rule they may
aswell derive best advantage of it, so more vested interests emerge and the idealist is
swamped in these and it is hard to impossible to restore the original order of things.
Because people in such an emerging culture of crime and persecution realise that
telling is to their detriment they say stuff like “Leave people to fight their own wars”
or “Don‟t get involved its none of your business” The absolute and undeniable
problem with this is that the persecutor/initiator almost always wins. Consider the lot
of the bully or mugger as they look upon the crowd with the eyes of a predator, before
they even begin an attack the look for the person in a situation in which he is least
likely to be able to fight back. So any conflict that comes in this nature is fought on
the terms of the initiator. The victim never has a fair chance of defending him/herself
as if he/she did the attack simply would not be initiated in the first place.
         Now let us consider burglar alarms, a burglar could break into a temporarily
vacated house that has a burglar alarm grab a few light valuables and leg it but if he
has the choice between robbing a house with a burglar alarm and robbing a ho use
without one he will almost always choose robbing the one without the alarm. When
people say “Oh you should have been more careful” or “You deserved it for not
putting on the alarm” although there is limited truth in this, the fact remains that if
everyone had an alarm the burglars would not just disappear they would either put
more effort into finding ways of getting round them or resort to some other form of
crime, the main reason that so few house with their alarms on are robbed is simply
because house without alarms are available and if the chances of getting caught are
only 1% higher if a house has an alarm then the burglar will generally rob a house
without one as he can get the same gain and his chances of being caught are
marginally smaller. The same goes for teaching self-defence techniques, if all young
people are well trained in self-defence the mugger will simply rob old grannies more
and risk robbing young people less. That is not to say that burglar alarms and self-
defence training are bad things but merely that they must be accompanied by
something else, a willingness to look after one another and help each other out. After
all what use is a burglar alarm if noone comes to see what all the racket is about and
its no use for the family alone to be woken up if they find that they are being robbed
by about ten burglars with knives and guns. Thus if it comes down to it we must be
willing to stand together committed in our determination to lay down the law. But
what should the law be what should we tolerate and what should we not tolerate? This
shall be dealt with in the next chapters.
        In many ways hypocrisy is the greatest tool of social inertia, where society has
evolved to put great pressure on us to do certain things, then when on seeing the error
of our ways we condemn them, it labels us a hypocrite. So for fear of hypocrisy we
keep our mouths shut and go back to doing that which we once did, be it drinking
smoking or whatever. It is indeed important to put our money where our mouth is and
to practice what we preach, it is not that I support people who go around the place
doing things that are grossly immoral and then telling everyone else to be nice to each
other rather I loath this attitude that if you go around the place doing nasty things
admit that you do nasty things, say “HA! HA! I don‟t care.” And then accuse those
who accuse you of hypocrisy when although they may be guilty to a certain extent
have never done anything nearly as bad, that such a person is to be respected as a
character seems wrong. After all can it really be said that someone who kills one
person and then preaches of the evils of murder is worse then someone who kills ten
people and then goes around the place telling everyone how great murder is? At the
end of the day Let us say that practising evil things is bad, preaching evil things is
better than practising them but still not good, preaching good things is O.K while
practising good thing is good. On the browny points scale I would allocate a +10 mark
to someone who practises a good thing, a +1 mark to someone who preaches a good
thing, a -1 to someone who preaches a bad thing and a -10 to someone who practises a
bad thing. Thus we can see that someone who tells everyone else to be horrible and
does himself do nice things is far better than someone who tells everyone else to be
nice and does nasty things yet even he is slightly better than someone who tells
everyone else to be nasty and does nasty things.
        Now I shall prove by induction that calling people a hypocrite is pointless as
everyone who calls someone a hypocrite is themselves a hypocrite. First assume that
everyone who calls others a hypocrite is a hypocrite themselves, when we consider
that the meaning of hypocrisy is to accuse people of something tha t you yourself have
done we can see that the hypocrite who calls others a hypocrite is himself a hypocrite
from his very actions. Q.E.D.
         Throughout history society has shifted between tolerance and intolerance, in
periods of tolerance crime becomes unbearable and people go around the place giving
each other venereal diseases while destroying their bodies with drugs, in periods of
extreme intolerance you get thrown in gaol for chewing a piece of gum or saying the
wrong thing at the wrong time in this chapter we shall deal with the issue of whether
to tolerate something or not from the point of view of fundamentally morality.
         If you speak of total equality you automatically open doors into complaining
about wealth and any form of discrimination including the praise of intelligent or
athletic people or the favouritising of anyone above anyone else. I know that noone
seriously believes that that kind of future is attainable but if we set tota l equality as an
ideal we bring ourselves into a situation of permanent hypocrisy and once one
principal is not in any way practical whose to say another or indeed any of them are.
In any case humans don‟t really want equality to the point where any form o f
competition is meaningless, as animals we all instinctively compete for the greatest
share over finite resources instinctively trying to manoeuvre ourselves into such a
position so that if the food runs out, we‟ll be the last to go. Thus a great deal of our
enjoyment comes from watching people compete in order to out do each other as long
as its not too violent and even if it is such as boxing, people will come from miles
around to watch it, the same would apply to gladiatorial combat in the days of ancie nt
Rome, although both boxing and gladiatorial combat are probably not the most
healthy sports to watch (or to play!) it is a simple and straightforward fact that you
will never be able to drive the competitive urge out of humanity a world where there
was total equality would have no football stars, no pop-stars, and no stars in acting.
What do we talk about if not “I prefer so and so to so and so” or “Whose your
favourite pop-star, football player, politician etc., etc.,” Infact a world of total equality
is a world in which there is nothing to aspire to be, nothing to strive for, would be a
boring and depressing world indeed. People speak of total equality as something to be
aspired to, Pah! What is love or friendship if not the preference of one person over
another would these communists ban love and friendship too?
         To say that it is good to have some rich people is not to say that it is good to
have poor people (unless you choose to use the word poor in a purely comparative
sense) and it is certainly a bad thing to have starving homeless people. Inequality is
only a good thing in a land of justice, a meritocracy where good is rewarded and evil
is punished, where everybody has a chance to rise to the top. In an aristocracy there is
nothing wonderful about seeing a bunch of wealthy bums lying around doing nothing
while being served on hand and foot and knowing that no matter what you do in life
you can never get into that position simply because you were born to the wrong
person. Thus a society should be dynamic. Many countries would call themselves
meritocracies however although many can indeed be consider socially dynamic, there
is nothing emeritus about being a drug baron, a crime lord, suppressing rival computer
software that‟s better than yours is anyway, running pirate record shops or inciting a
riot by visiting a mosque and then indiscriminately bombing Palestinian refugee
camps. Neither is there anything uplifting for a man of principals in such a socially
dynamic society in seeing a bunch of gobshites rise to the top while good people who
are dedicated to their work are looked over and trodden under. Thus although total
equality is probably not the best thing to have there is one thing that all societies
should have…true justice.
         Instead of looking at equality, which carried to extremes can lead to fanaticism
which is on the whole counter productive and I would even go as far as to say,
immoral let us do something which we do in physics and look at the symmetry of the
situation, in every problem in physics there are things which should be taken into
account and things which are unimportant and should be ignored, the coulombic
attraction/repulsion of two charged particles is proportional to the product of their
charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. Thus
two electrons the same distance apart will experience the same electric repulsion from
on another be they floating in a café, in the house of Parliament or thousands of light
years away in an orbit of radius 100 of million miles around a Pulsar. The only thing
that matters is how far apart they are from each other and the medium between them
(the permitivity of air is nearly the same as that of a vacuum). In the case of humans I
would say that as we are more or less the same as each other anatomically and we
certainly have the same basic needs and wants, that if two people are being treated in
a different way that not only should there be a reason for this but there should be a
fundamentally moral reason for it too.
         Essentially hereditorial intolerance is the punishment of an individual for
being born, it doesn‟t have to be genetic it only has to mean that one person is treated
worse than another simply because of who their parents were. On the whole
hereditorial intolerance must surely be the vilest form of intolerance because the
individual who is persecuted can certainly not be regarded as responsible for his own
birth and throughout his life can never change his parents (except through lying which
people should not do and should not have to do as it is surely the persecutors who are
in the wrong) if a man can be “punished” for being born then a man can be punished
for anything and a country that tolerates it is not a just co untry. The idea that two men
could be born one might live in the lap of luxury, engage in sleezy deals that will
ultimately kill and impoverish the masses and will have a great many friends and be
respected simply for who he was born to while another might struggle for his very
life, study hard, scrimp and save to get by, be generous and kind to all around him and
would still be treated like shit simply for being the way he is, is repulsive. Anyone
who condones hereditorial intolerance cannot claim to have any true morals but is
instead a mere animal who chooses whatever code of behaviour he thinks will offer
him the most benefit whatever the cost to other innocent people. Only in a society in
which good is rewarded and evil punished will people tend to treat each other in such
a way as to maximize life, heath and happiness as a whole. Hereditary Intolerance
would rank number one in forms of intolerance to be avoided. Essentially to punish
someone for being born is anti- life and that is very immoral.
         Heredorial and genetic intolerance includes the persecution of an individual
for his/her , race, sex, hair colour, size of waistband, size of ears, size of nose, number
of fingers, social status of parents, nationality, house/caravan of birth etc., etc., there
would be some forms of hereditorial and genetic that would be emphasized more as
evil then others however, at the ended of the day each one is as bad as the other.
         Ah yes! I can just see those bigoted right wing fuckheads complaining now
“Dam your political correctness! These days were not allowed to offend blacks, Jews,
knackers, gingers, women or ugly people, I mean what innocent group of people who
are incapable of changing the way they are can we gratuitously make miserable for
the sake of our own petty, sadistic entertainment?” The answer is simples NONE OF
THEM! Persecuting people for simply being born or for something they can never
change is wrong! End of story.
        Some speak of the Fibbonachi sequence as the code for the proportions of
beauty. I doubt it is that simple. There must surely be three things that influence the
individual regarding the choice of a sexual partner.
1 Whether said person looks fertile, healthy and capable of bearing many children.
The health is not merely to do with whether the children are capable of being
produced but also whether his/her genetic contribution will confer upon them a
genotype that will ultimately allow them to survive.

2 Whether they are both capable of cooperating with each other regarding the bringing
up of said children. After all its not much good having children with the perfect genes
if the parents can‟t get along, the children end up turning into psychologically fucked
up homicidal maniacs and end up being fried on the chair.

3 Whether the choice of partner is a culturally approved of one. By having a partner
that others find attractive and that everyone else wants but can‟t have is a sign of
social status. (The acquisition of anything that many other people want but don‟t have
is a sign of success and social status after all the only thing that gives anything value
is demand and sexual partners are no exception to image conscious people) The
acquisition of social status often puts people in a position where resources can be
easily acquired and channelled towards raising the children which is itself adaptive.

If certain proportions are indeed attractive to the majority of people it is simply
because they indicate health and if those should happen to have some relation to the
Fibbonachi sequence then so be it. The fact that whether everyone else think said
partner is desirable is adaptively significant is the reason why human beings
constantly express their opinion over whether some individual is attractive or not and
ask others what they think of a given individual. This can lead to an immense quantity
of feedback which results in fashion trends, which end up with people buying
extremely expensive clothes and breaking themselves financially and self mutilation
be it strapping thing round your neck to make it twelve feet long, starving yourself to
the point where the fertility of the individual is actually reduced (which sort of defeats
the whole purpose of the exercise) or cutting pieces off the nose and ears and re-
sowing them aswell as ripping open the breasts and shoving bags of silicone gel inside
so that the individual will not even be able to breast feed.
         An individual is fully entitled to be physically attracted to a certain type of
person. But it is wrong to blame someone for looking ugly that is definitely genetic
intolerance and is as low as racism, sectarianism or snobbery. Although commenting
on someone‟s looks every now and again probably would not do any harm obsessing
over who is the best looking, in such and such a neighbourhood and ranking people in
order of most beautiful, second most beautiful, third most beautiful etc. and constantly
commenting on how you touch up your looks this way by doing such and such or that
way by doing such and such I believe can have a very destructive effect when taken to
extremes. Even in a world where ugliness is not positively commented on in a world
where beauty is constantly remarked on people who don‟t get showered with flattery
will start to get the message. And at the end of the day talking about who is the most
beautiful person will only mutilate the tastes of both participants in the conversation
as part of our opinion of beauty is dependent on those around us. This is game playing
where each participant guesses what the others are thinking a nd tries to form an ideal
of beauty that the others will agree with and approve of. In a world where beauty is
only occasionally remarked on society will gradually find itself slipping back to
finding people who satisfy criteria 1+2 attractive and ignoring criterion 3 this will
lead to less anorexia, plastic surgery and maybe even less suicide. Since most people
take their health seriously anyway it is my belief that not constantly commenting one
physical appearance will lead to a more moral society.
         In this section for convenience we shall include xenophobia, as the root of
these things and their effects are more or less identical. Speaking from a purely moral
point of view these things are not essentially anymore immoral than any other form of
hereditorial or genetic intolerance. However they are exceptionally dangerous because
of the increased capacity for tribalism and the development of all out war. Another
reason is because throughout history people have use these things along with
snobbery and religious bigotry to their individual advantage although as a rule these
things act to the detriment of the masses.
         Fortunately our progressive society is gradually realising the dangers which
these things pose although everyone is not completely convinced. The idea that to
persecute another simply because of the place or the way that he was born is immoral
is widely accepted but the major problem is that the main origin of this was a general
reaction against a repetition of the second world war and as that slips further back into
the past the fundamental motivation for tolerance becomes weaker. It is indeed true
that any proper interpretation of Christianity will also lead to the unavoidable
conclusion that these things are wrong, however this “because Jesus says so” rule can
only work for Christians and since the brain is an organ for survival if a Christian
should feel that it is to his advantage to be both racist, Nationalist and Christian an
intelligent and resourceful brain is well capable of hamming up some half-arsed
reason for endorsing all three. A problem with the anti-racist movement is that it
stems from movements such as the black-power movement and as a reaction against
Nazi-Germany, the problem with this is that since a given movement generally mainly
cares for the well-being of its members the black-power movement is bound to be
centred around furthering interests of black people while condemning racists as facists
or nazi‟s brings associations with white racism against other races and so anti-racist
movement tend to overlook any racially motivated persecution of white people and in
an unwritten way it is often assumed that the white race is the most racist race of all.
This is itself racism.
         The result of all this are words like “positive discrimination” where leaving a
white man unemployed even if he is more qualified to handle a job is viewed as a
progressive move. Perhaps positive discrimination was and maybe even is a necessity
in a world where the employers themselves are somewhat bigoted, perhaps positive
discrimination does provide a bridge between a world where your race determines
your income and status, but it is a concept that should not stay around forever and
must be eventually replaced by a legal system where race is not even recognised.
         The reason why the USA needs positive discrimination is because there is a lot
of underlying racism in their society, black people are generally poorer and state
funded schooling by all accounts is a load of shit thus poor people often end up less
qualified than rich people so they have less opportunities to rise, there is also and old
boys network. It can clearly be seen that positive discrimination is needed to break it,
but all that this really results in is a multi-ethnic upper class oppressing a multi- ethnic
lower class same oppressed poor people, same greedy rich people except the greedy
profiteering rich people now come from a more racially diverse background.
         At the end of the day a meritocracy cannot truly exist without high quality free
education that extends all the way to third level because if you have 1 st and 2nd level
free but have a fee-paying 3rd level then employers will simply ignore 1 st and 2nd level
qualifications and concentrate on third level ones. Private schooling should not be
immediately banned or anything like that because it is better and making something
that was better worse is an act of spite and can hardly be considered progressive,
rather the state should aim to bring public education up to the level of that which is
         Imagine that two people are applying for a job, one is black, the other is white.
If you hire the black one the white man remains unemployed, if you hire the white
one, the black one remains unemployed. Either way one has a job an one does not,
given no other knowledge there is total symmetry in the situation and neither choice is
morally better than the other. So how do we make the decision? How can we allocate
jobs in order to maximize life, health and happiness? Well if you have a broken water
mains and you hire a plumber to fix it you will be happiest if he fixes it quickly does
the job well so it won‟t have to be repeated, comes punctually and doesn‟t charge too
much . If you are on a bus you will be more likely to be alive and healthy if the bus
driver doesn‟t say, drive on the side of the road or skid on ice just for the fun of it and
happier if he arrives at his destination quickly and safely, if you are getting surgery
you will be more healthy if the surgeon sterilizes his instruments before cutting in, so
you don‟t get some flesh eating virus and happy if he does not make a load of
unnecessary cuts leaving you looking like chop-suey. If you are stranded in sea you
are more likely to be alive if the rescue workers can arrive at your location promptly
and know how to treat you once they find you.
         Thus in every job there are people who will perform it well and people who
will perform it badly. In a job that should exist the person who performs it well will
ultimately promote a greater quantity of life health and happiness than the person who
performs it badly. That is not to say he will directly make his immediate co-workers
happier, but ultimately over all, his presence and efficient execution of the job should
lead to greater net gain in morality than a poor performance of the job. Infact, that
should be the definition of performing a job well and any “job” whose performance
will in the long term lead to nothing more than death, pain and misery should not
         Thus we can now see which man out of the two should get the job; the man
who has demonstrated the greatest capacity to performing it well. A “The best man
should get the best job” rule is in my opinion the most moral way of organising
things. Every employer should set out the requirements for a given job prior to
interviewing people and if someone should be hired over a more qualified person for
tribal reasons then the more qualified person who finds himself unemployed should
have the right to take action against the employer. Thus if a white employer should
hire a less qualified white man over a black man the black man should be entitled to
take action but if a black employer should hire a black man over a more qualified
white man the white man should also be entitled to take legal action. The best
(wo)man for the best job policy should be implemented throughout the spectrum of
tribes without exception. Let me reiterate once more the absolute necessity to provide
equal opportunities of acquiring such qualifications to all people, otherwise the
system will not be a fair one. By setting this as the ultimate goal we can ensure the
axe will not swing from one type of bigotry into another.
         I have now fully explained the reasons why racism and nationalism are wro ng
in every rational sense, however there are many people who are not in possession of a
rational mind, people who may never be convinced, people who will strive to
undermine the peace and build up tension instead so, the question we must ask
ourselves is just how dangerous are these people and how should they be dealt with?
Although a religion may be a perfectly harmless thing and it may be wrong to
persecute or oppress it, at least in a religious dispute the peoples who lose can simply
change there religion, you cannot change your race and you cannot change the
country you were born in. This fact means once a conflict is started there is no way to
make the enemy disappear short of all out genocide. These should not be important
factors but by making a big deal out of them past leaders have been able to build up
tensions, give people a sense of identity and start a conflict, enslave those who lost the
conflict and generally rise in power and in dominance. Once tensions has increased
between any two tribes who would regard their identity as genetically inherited,
individuals in one tribe born into this conflict will observe that members in the other
tribe persecuting because of things they can never change. Thus they will ultimately
come to the conclusion that they would be a lot better off if the enemy tribe was
eliminated if they experience members of the enemy tribe helping them and
disapproving of the crimes that their fellows commit they might feel less hatred. But
let us assume, for the sake of argument that they don‟t. When some other members of
the tribe who feel the same way about meet him it they may reinforce each other and
decide to do something about it, this will result in the persecution of members of the
enemy tribe. Now there is total symmetry here and the children in the “enemy” tribe
will grow up going through exactly the same thing and they too may eventually
persecute their enemy tribe (the former tribe) and so the cycle continues. Few people
see the big picture once the tensions rise to a high enough extent (to the point where a
member of their friends or family gets killed) because that would hamper their
fighting ability which they perceive as necessary for their survival and continuity. So
those that make comments like “Why do we have to hurt them, after all their just
people too.” Get frowned upon and maybe even punished, behaviour that is frowned
upon or punished gradually diminishes this is happening in the enemy tribe too so that
when someone is being persecuted by the enemy, even if so me other members around
are not contributing to it they will show little sympathy as if they did so they would be
disapproved of by their kin. This makes the persecuted individual feel more hatred
towards the members of the enemy tribe.
         Only not by seeing the members themselves but the tribal mindforms that
drive the deadly behaviour forward as the enemy can such a situation be defused.
However the preceding paragraph only applies when tension get really bad, once that
happens in is very hard from preventing all out war from ensuing, another major
problem is the average person on the street will elect a leader that echoes his feelings
and so in times of national tension warlike leaders tend to rise to power, the leader
himself will be the type of person who can sense the feelings of the populace and will
deliberately echo them in order to maintain power, in a time of great tensions, when
the populace hear the leader telling them that they can do something about this enemy,
they will have there opinions reinforced and cheer thus reinforcing the opinions of the
leader. One dinner time conversation of how much I hate so and so and how such and
such an enemy leader and everyone who supports him should be hung and how I like
so and so‟s hardcore no nonsense style, he has the right idea, may have no effect but
millions of such conversations happening simultaneously are enough to launch
nuclear weapons.
         Now we must contemplate on how to defuse such behaviour before is sets in.
Firstly we must remember that violent factions who commit crimes and claim to
represent a certain tribe are not necessarily approved of by all the people they claim to
represent. Secondly we must clearly disassociate ourselves from those who commit
illicit acts of violence and claim to represent us. Although it would be wrong to take
the motivations behind a given crime into account but rather judge it solely on the
basis of the damage it causes to the victim, it is of the utmost importance that the
police do discover the precise individuals of any tribe who act in ways to increase the
overall tension and to punish them in such a way as they deserve as to overlook it or
prematurely close the case would be disastrous to the maintenance of the peace.
          Now let us consider the arguments of racists. Let us consider the argument
“We can do whatever we want to them because we are superior.” Now let us
contemplate the meaning of the word superior. Poetry and art are a matter of taste and
since people do, to a certain extent derive their tastes from those around them in order
to gain respect (though perhaps they might subtly differ from them in order to gain
more respect for being original) it is quite possibly to train your mind to see no talent
in the art of those you are hell-bent on despising. Ofcourse art does to a certain extent
transcend this and good art can appeal to the hardest hearts but then people will tend
to avoid looking at the art of the oppressed or encouraging it. Ultimately the true
measure of superiority is the ability to inflict pain upon the enemy and to place them
in such an abject position that they cannot make the persecutors suffer for it. In other
words, the phrase “We can do whatever we want because we are superior” basically
translates into “We can do whatever we want because we will not suffer for it.”
Which is basically as immoral as it gets as anything can be justified by using that
          Another one is this kind of pseudo-reasonable portrayal of racism “We
recognise and respect the differences between the races and feel that every race should
be allowed to fulfil its full potential apart from each other.” Firstly there is very little
difference between each race and secondly even if there was, by integrating and
working together the strength of one could make up for the weak ness of another and
vica versa, this is one reason why race mixing is good. Ultimately it is tried and tested
knowledge that although the hybrids of different species are generally infertile when
different strains (races) of both plant and animals are bred together the resulting
hybrids are both more fertile and more robust. When the races of man were separate
they weren‟t just evolving different skin colour and hair texture, they were also
developing a different immune system to cope with the specific germs which they
were separately exposed to although this statement is obviously a very vague
generalization I would suppose that people of a multi-racial background would tend to
have a slightly better immune system than those of a mono-racial one. In a world
populated by people that have diverse origins all our genes would be preserved and
the fittest ones from each would ultimately survive anyway, to try to eliminate a fit
gene is a futile and immoral gesture, and to get excited about fighting for the race is to
compromise the success and survival of the species as a whole.
          Obviously people should not be pressurized into race- mixing as it is important
to give people the unimpeded freedom to choose whatever member of the opposite
sex takes their fancy, but the point is it should certainly not be discouraged.
          We have agreed (or at least I have explained) that all forms of intolerance that
allow someone to be punished simply for being born and will result in that same
person being punished and discriminated against regardless of his virtues or
achievements is always wrong. Cultural intolerance is another kettle of fish altogether
for what a blanket religious tolerance truly entails is saying “I shall tolerate and not
complain about any form of behaviour regardless of its consequences as long as a
large enough quantity of people participate in it and thinks its all right to do it.” If this
is true than the murder of an innocent man (such as Jesus) is all right as long as
enough people decide to take a dislike to him. The concept of religious tolerance gives
social inertia a full run of the place and ultimately means that any given culture or
religion that does not tolerate those who do not abide by its principals will eventually
end up spreading across the world and dominating all other forms.
          This is largely because members of the totally tolerant religion will realise that
by practising the aggressive expansionistic religion they will not be punished, while if
they continue to practise the totally tolerant religion they will indeed be punished.
Members of the aggressive expansionistic religion will realise that if they convert to
the totally tolerant religion they will be punished while they will remain unpunished
should they continue to practise their own aggressive expansionistic religion.
          Thus very few religions (certainly in the days of antiquity) are totally tolerant.
But surely gratuitous intolerance against those who disagree with your ideas is a
terrible thing, not only that but in an atmosphere where people are punished simply
for disagreeing with the status quo there will be less new ideas and advancement will
be stumped.
          This has essentially to do with assumption 1. If someone has a new idea and
tells it to another person, that person will tend to agree with it if he feels it will benefit
him to do so. Certainly when you talk about a general principal for running the
country that can only be passed democratically the benefit of the idea can only
materialize if a large quantity of people are in agreement over it. Thus the second
person might tell the idea to a third person and the third person will only accept it if
he feels he can benefit from it, etc., etc., in essence in a society with few limits to
freedom of speech the ideas which the majority will have will be those which the
majority will benefit by. Without tribalism getting in the way (as it always seems to)
freedom of speech would generally benefit mankind. Incidentally, the freedom of
speech and the freedom to own a gun contradict each other to a certain extent.
Whether or not the state will try you for expressing your views makes bugger all
difference if the person next to you decides to shoot you in the face for having them.
In a violent gun toting society people will tend to have views that they believe will not
end up with them getting shot or beaten rather than views that they believe would
benefit mankind or the environment as a whole.
          Next you have to ask the question, are there any exceptions? Well, when you
think about it, all Slovodan Miloservik, Charles Mansion, Adolf Hitler, Joeseph
Stalin, Benito Musselini or Mau Sei Tung and many drug barons ever did was to
practise their freedom of speech its not their fault if a bunch of people (such as the
generals, soldiers or criminals) decide to take them seriously and go around the place
killing people is it? Or is it? The question of how to generally protect the freedom of
speech of the individual while at the same time preventing warmongers or crime-
bosses to get people to do evil things is indeed a tricky one.
          I would say that communication should be divided into five subsections, the
expression of an opinion, the making of a statement to another in private conversation,
verbal abuse, propaganda and verbal coordination. The expression of an opinion and
all things conversed between two people such as the making of a statement in private
conversation whatever it may be must never be punished this at least must be held
sacred provided that all individuals are enjoying the conversation or have the freedom
to leave the room. Perhaps one exception should be made to this, if one person should
lie to another in such a way as to persuade the other to engage in actio ns that might
seriously endanger his life, health or happiness. Such as covering a manhole with a
mat and in conversation persuading him to sit on the mat or claiming to be collecting
in the name of Charity and keeping all the money for yourself in other words fraud.
Although knowingly lying to people is wrong I think the state should only get
involved in the more extreme cases.
         When your talking about freedom of speech you cannot help but wonder
whether someone has the freedom to say things to another that that other might not
want to hear. Some people say meditation is the path to enlightenment I would say
they are wrong, argument is the true path to enlightenment for only through the
arguing of conflicting points of view with each other can the best survive and the
worst succumb to obliteration. The best in a non-violent, non-hierarchical situation
with no cultural taboos, will always be the most adaptive viewpoint. You should not
be able to shut someone up through violence and in a situation where violence is not
an option the only alternative is to replace the offending idea with an even more
adaptive one. Thus society can progress. When it comes to gratuitously and unjustly
insulting someone however perhaps it can be said that in some situations it should be
restricted, but then what of making accusations of someone committing a crime which
they are responsible for. Again if the accuser is knowingly lying then he should be
punished but otherwise he should not.
         We must be wary when we extend the rights o f an individual to engage in a
private conversation to his ability to say whatever he wants to the masses. At the end
of the day the effects of public speaking films and music may be far reaching and
extremely destructive. With mass media you can never trust the audience not to take
something literally as the is always going to be someone who will, indeed, take it
literally and often when people are in a large group they do not fear the consequences
of their actions as there is safety in numbers and they are less likely to suffer for it and
certainly someone who organises a particular action should take some responsibility
for its results. In conclusion, I would say you should not be allowed to tell the masses
to break the law in a democracy, although ofcourse it is perfectly all right to tell the
masses to vote to change the law and knowingly lying to the masses is a very grave
crime indeed. However it is perfectly acceptable to tell the truth to the masses
whatever it may be however in the case of communicating to the masses, it is the
responsibility of the speaker to be reasonably sure that what he says is indeed the
         Free speech is only beneficial to mankind when there is not an excess of
tribalism an ill- feeling between tribes however in this case an absence of free speech
is just as bad this is because tribalism should not be aloud to develop to that extent in
the first place and should it do so no law on speech will help as every truth, every
piece of information, every fact shall only be used to destroy the enemy, the only
thing one can do in such a situation is to try and defuse it and even here, free speech is
probably the best way to do so.
         A the system of morals of a religion or culture is essentially a set of rewards
and punishments to encourage or discourage a particular type of behaviour. Here are a
few rules.




         Thus we can see that it is perfectly all right for people to keep up their culture
by making it fun and encouraging people to participate but it is wrong to punish those
that choose to leave the culture/religion as they have every right to do so. It is not all
right for parents or schools to punish behaviour that is not fundamentally immoral but
instead merely goes against the religion that the parents believe/school endorses. Thus
children have every right not to pray be they sent to a fanatically Christian/ Moslem /
Jewish school or school that teaches some other crazy religion like Scientology.
         Although all religion is stupid and filled with lies the only occasion when it
should not be tolerated is when it is fundamentally immoral and in that case, rather
than sweepingly trying to eliminate the whole religion it is merely the specific
doctrine that should be altered or reinterpreted as so many religions are so fond of
doing, although some of the ways in which doctrines are reinterpreted is quite comical
and often blatantly contradictory to what the man who wrote them meant, it does give
the religion a certain flexibility and can serve to make it more moral in some
instances. Any religion that is fundamentally moral and peaceful should be supported
although perhaps not believed, as there is enough evil in this world to occupy a
lifetime and forces of good no matter how crazy their belief system, should be
supported, but, as believing what you are told even when it conflicts with what you
see is bad thinking practise there is no reason why all people with crazy beliefs should
not be argued with and although we should tolerate these beliefs, we can do so in a
smug patronising way.
         As a rule that must never be broken it is wrong to punish people for harmless
cultural practises. It is true that in the case of language there are of thousands of
different kinds of languages in the world and no one man can be expected to
understand them all so you need one or a few languages which everyone understands
but the development of a few widely spoken languages is a natural process and need
not be hurried on by draconian techniques (infact these techniques will often prove to
be counter-productive as persecution causes tribalism). When there are two peoples
friendly with each other it will be in all of their interests to communicate well with
one another as if one person says to another “I want such and such and if you do this
for me I in exchange will do such and such for you” it is in his interest that the other
person can understand him well so that he will be more likely to do what the original
fellow wants. If on the otherhand the two people are ene mies of each other it is in the
interest of the one not to be understood by the other as you don‟t want the enemy to
catch on to your battle plans so that he may be more easily caught by surprise thus in
such a situation it is in the interest of the each tribe to be fluent in a language that the
other does not understand. To learn a new language is to acquire new knowledge and
that can never be a bad thing. Thus the teaching of a language should never be
suppressed and as people will naturally tend to learn languages that are more widely
known as that will allow them to communicate with a greater number of people the
emergence of a few world languages that are well known by all will happen anyway
in a state of peace, goodwill and beneficial trading relationships between all countries
and if people should chose to hold onto their own traditional language aswell and
teach it in their schools then what‟s the harm in that? In conclusion the best way to
encourage someone to learn your language is to learn their la nguage although it is
important to recognise that it is not everyones duty to dedicate their lives to learning
as many languages as they can as there are many other useful things to become
proficient at such as science, cooking, computer programming, carpe ntry or painting.
Although the development of science is important we must not forget that the wisdom
developed from thousands of years of trial and error is also very important and very
valuable. We should not allow the traditional recipes or knowledge of healing plants
to die out. Neither should we show such contempt in our art for the old painting styles
slowly refined and perfected over the ages for the sake of beauty and to please the
patron and instead hold preference to throwing a bucket of paint on a white sheet of
paper, calling it art and selling it for millions to some idiot. That applies to a certain
extent to furniture, architecture and many other things. That is not to say that we must
limit ourselves to the particular style which our tribe has developed but rather we
should learn from all the ancient styles and combine them in the best possible way
rather than to simply to spit in their faces.
         Conventional science holds many answers and has the capacity to improve our
lives and ultimately solve many of the worlds problems however any technique that
has been developed over thousands of year deserves a certain quantity of attention and
perhaps should be learnt from that is not to say that it will never turn out to be a
useless red-herring but there is none the less much to be learnt from the tried and
tested practises of old and they should not be forgotten. I don‟t believe that the old
and the new are necessarily mutually exclusive for science has itself gradually
developed itself out of philosophy and that should be atleast one indication of the
value of certain traditions.
                         HYGIENE AND ETIQUETTE
         I know I said morality is that which ultimately promotes life health and
happiness but lets not go nuts about health except where it threatens one‟s life. Yes
perhaps strictly speaking not putting your hand over you‟re mouth when you sneeze is
something to be encouraged but getting a cold for a week is not the end of the world, I
think if we develop fanatical hygiene standards and a hatred for each others smell and
touch aswell as the diseases we all carry we will create a society where sick are
avoided rather than looked after and that would truly be an immoral thing, regarding
having a fanatical dedication to etiquette well to punish someone for doing something
that is simply not socially regarded as polite but doesn‟t do any harm is to punish that
which is not immoral and to a certain extent is itself an act of immorality, people are
always going to have some things which get on their nerves and some idea of what is
polite and what is not and disputes will always emerge to a certain extent, all that can
be said is that if people didn‟t try to force others to perform meaningless rituals or if
people performed meaningless rituals without complaining unless they were
fundamentally immoral then we‟d probably all be better off.
         Who cares if you don‟t wash for a week or brush your teeth for a month its not really
going to do any harm. There is one thing that is important when it comes to hygiene and that
is not to spread too many venereal diseases as some of them are real killers, ofcourse this
applies to other dangerous diseases aswell. The next chapter deals with this aswell as other
aspects of sexual ethics.
         Every well established culture or religion contains a moral code of conduct
that deals with when it is right to have sex and when it is not. Some hippies have
abandoned all this and instead say that it is right to have sex whenever you want with
whoever you want. This spreads diseases and often results in neglected miserable
children. However often an excessively rigid code can also result in great injustice
and evil such as parents disowning their children and refusing them their inheritance
for going out with the wrong person and this results in a lot of needless misery aswell.
Aswell as this cultural differences in ways of creating a culture in which everyone is
looked after vary tremendously in their code of sexual ethics this is a cause in many
cases for revulsion in the culture of others and can lead to xenophobia. The aim of this
chapter is too give the maximum flexibility to people while retaining and imposing
restriction upon it where it is fundamentally moral to do so.
         Firstly the concept of what it means to love someone varies tremendously and
there are many subtle nuances in a language to restrict an individual into a certain type
of behaviour. This applies to everything, well outside the reach of propagation. Love
like every word in every language simply evolved because it was a useful concept to
use in order for an individual to express his intent and desires. In a monogamous
culture to say “I love you” may mean “I will not sleep with other women” it may
mean “I want to have children with you” in a polygamous culture it might simply
convey the desire to protect and have children with without any intent of being
faithful to and in some cultures in may not even exist as a word.
         Let us be frank regardless of culture men wish to sleep with many women and
women also wish to sleep with many men and both don‟t want their partners to sleep
with anyone else. Any pretension of positively wishing to remain faithful is nothing
more than the fear of the consequences of doing otherwise. You might say because
nobody positively wants their partner to go around sleeping with other people that
monogamous marriage is best. However you might also argue that because everyone
wants to sleep with everyone they find attractive that free love is best. There is one
major problem with free love and that is the spread of venereal diseases. So in days
gone by it was often considered sinful to have sex outside wedlock. However
nowadays we have medical examinations so rather than considering sex outside
wedlock to be immoral we should instead consider it immoral to have sex without
both partners having a medical examination or without using condoms.
         Regarding the propagation of children it is the responsibility of everyone, man
or woman, to look after the children that they create, to do other wise would be
immoral as neglect would greatly reduce their happiness and in some cases their
chances of survival and their health, again a parent should only punish a child for
immoral activities and should not use punishment to turn him/her into some kind of
slave to do their bidding and obviously not for fun. Only the minimum necessary
severity should be used. However I‟m not sure monogamy is a must. Instead
marriages should be more flexible and encompass a wide variety of different vows to
suit different people though it is important that once those vows are made they should
be kept. The state should not ban polygamy or polyandry. Although monogamy is
probably better than polygamy, polygamy is certainly better than serial monogamy
and people who are indeed inclined to marry someone and then divorce them and
marry someone else would probably do a lot less damage and break a lot less hearts
by openly marrying several people at the same time, what is more whatever children
he has from past marriages need not be abandoned. And there will not be nearly so
much anger, if anything they could all cooperate to do the housework and look after
the children more efficiently.
         Consider the meaning of shallow, it is surely to love someone for their
physical beauty alone. Surely this must be frowned upon as ugly people get unfairly
discriminated against, yet consider the meaning of deep, what is it if not to love
someone for their intelligence and interesting conversation, does that not mean that
boring, stupid people will end up being discriminated against? The reader might now
go “Aha but boring stupid pretty people don‟t deserve to be loved while ugly
intelligent people do!” this is a serious question. Why is it that culture is biased
against stupid pretty women? Well again consider an argument between two women
as to whether it is better for a man to marry a stupid pretty woman or an ugly
intelligent one. The ugly intelligent woman would come up with a thousand reasons
why it is best to marry an ugly intelligent woman and she would be careful not to
complain about looks per say so that the pretty intelligent women could stay on side
and would add to rather than detract from her case. All that is left to defend the side
that it is better for a man to marry a pretty stupid woman is a motley crew of stupid
pretty women and stupid ugly women and these can hardly be expected to put up a
good argument as if they could, they would not be stupid. Any intelligent people on
that side would not be able to present such imaginative argument against marrying
intelligent people as their hearts would not really be in it.
         In the case of men much of the culture is biased towards strength aswell as
intelligence as if you had an argument as to whether it is better to be intelligent and
weak or stupid and strong, the stupid strong people could just hop over and beat the
crap into the intelligent weak people and thus shut them up. The both intelligence and
strength are highly regarded culturally for men.
         It is not right to have a culture that is biased against ugly or weak people nor is
it right to have a culture that is biased against stupidity. But what of personality? Well
you could say that being biased against people with bad personalities is acceptable
because they can just change their personalities. But one must then ask the question
why should they? Why should we live in a world where you have to say a bunch of
things you don‟t even believe to be admired? So should we discriminate against
strong, intelligent and pretty people with nice personalities? Surely not! Instead let us
merely say that in courting there are always going to be winners and losers and we
should not impose cultural restraints upon people as to which members of the oppos ite
sex they wish to marry
         In general the liberty to chose ones partner is a good thing as it generally leads
to a happier relationship thus promoting life, health and happiness for all but although
homosexuality should be legal it should not be encouraged, thus, to a certain extent it
is a bit of an exception, obviously some explanation why is required however before
this can be done we must understand what homosexuality really is.
         Firstly, the our perception of homosexuality as something that is fully
genetically determined cannot be right as there is no way a gene that makes its
possessor repulsed by members of the opposite sex can exist, it simply could not
replicate itself or would be out competed by other genes. It is, however, perfectly
plausible that a gene might evolve to give its possessor the capacity for bisexual
behaviour should such behaviour prove to be adaptive. Garter snakes have some
female mimicking males that give out female pheromones attract other males, mate
with them and when they are spend, go on to mate with the females themselves. Again
certain species of marine crustacean have alpha, beta and gamma males, the alpha
males are the largest they own great harems of females and fight over them, no alpha
male can mate with a female unless he is first prepared to fight with another alpha
male for dominance over the harem. The Beta males are themselves the size of the
females and are accepted into the harem by the alpha and mated with however when
the alpha‟s not looking they sneak in and mate with the females themselves. The
gamma males are the smallest of all, they are smaller than the female and on the
whole, too small to be noticed, they hide in the crevices, wait for an unsuspecting
female to come by, sneak a mating and then rush back into the shadows before the
alpha can find out (Ref. Animal Behaviour). Researchers have found that there are
scenarios when both alpha, beta and gamma males can be the most successful of all at
spreading their genes. Thus the different casts remain.
          I am not ofcourse suggesting that humans have develop bisexual tendencies
for any of these reasons necessarily I am merely making the point that there are
scenario‟s where bisexuality can be considered a fit characteristic but no scenario
where homosexuality can be considered fit for the genes thus genetically speaking
homosexuality in animals probably most likely occurs as a side-effect of some
environmental stimulus interacting with the bisexual gene. In the case of humans I
very strongly suspect that there is not a queer caste and a straight caste. Seeing as
humans have such a massive brain I think it is quite possible that we all have the
behavioural flexibility to engage in such behaviour should we feel it would serve an
adaptive purpose ofcourse that it not to say that some people would not have a greater
genetic tendency to engage in such filthy philanderings than others, at the end of the
day the full complexity of the interactions between the genes and the environment is
impossible to fully describe. But one thing is for sure there is no gene that makes its
possessor repulsed by members of the opposite sex that behaviour can only result
from an unusual environmental interaction or a meme or group of memes(mindform).
                                  THE QUEER MINDFORM
          It is quite conceivable that if the leader of the tribe and his friends have a
monopoly on all the money and all the women that it would be adaptive to get into his
favour. Perhaps mimicking female cues and getting buggered by he or his friends
would be one way to do it. Thus a man might rise through the ranks via this vile
method and eventually receive enough money and land in order to marry a woman an
start his own family using the wealth that he earned through the method already
mentioned to raise their survival chances. It is hard to imagine that a rational man
could mistake another man for a woman however we must remember that it is our
emotions that govern our actions and these provide us with imperfectly designed cues
that have been evolved through a hit and miss method in order to give the individual
constant impulses that usually result his fitness being increased but many exceptions
do exist, drugs and homosexuality (certainly from the point of view of the high
ranking male although he himself may have risen by such practises) being the most
obvious examples.
          Now let us consider one route from bisexuality to homosexuality. If someone
lifts a lot of weights he will grow stronger, if someone plays a lot of chess he may
have a tendency to get better at it. Similarly if someone should court a lot of women
he too would learn how to excel at that too and if someone should learn to court men
then he too would improve. If someone should get good at courting his/her own sex
then he should become acquainted with the etiquette of this practise and if he should
ever try it with the other sex would find himself in a position where he would have no
idea what to do. Thus he might feel tempted to go back to the old tried and trusted
ways of courting his own sex. That is one way that an inherent bisexual tendency
might lead to homosexuality. Thus a society which practises bisexuality may have a
greater tendency to have many homosexual individuals contained in it aswell.
         Bisexuality increases the likelihood of venereal diseases spreading without any
reproductive payoff. It also leads to less attention given to the women and children
and in the case of the spin-off homosexuals no children at all thus the whole viability
of the culture is compromised. Thus should a meme develop that stops it perhaps
onlookers into this straight society would see its success and encourage it in their own
one. Thus the tendency of many societies to develop extreme laws to stop it this
would often come with monogamy as a measure to stop the spread of disease. Now
we move on to a society where all people suspected of Sodomy are thrown off cliffs
or hung or perhaps in a somewhat less sever one thrown in gaol. Persecution brings
about tribalism and in this case the homosexuals should tribalise. As to betray one‟s
fellow members of this queer tribe would surely mean death for all it is quite
conceivable that members might try to get each other to say within the tribe thus
increasing the adaptive loss of leaving.
         During the second world war homosexuals in Germany were ruthlessly killed
to shock and horror of the allies. However even after world war two homosexuality
was still illegal. However with the rise of black power in the sixties where black
people throughout America stood up for their right to equal opportunities the
homosexuals suddenly saw their opportunity by inventing this bullshit concept of “the
gay race” they successfully tagged along and homosexuality became legal. Many
studies have infact proven that there are aspects of the brains of homosexuals that bear
greater resemblance to the brain of a woman than the average straight man. However
other studies have shown that the memory region in the brains of certain birds who
engage in storing and retrieval activities are many times greater than the memory
regions of birds that do not. Thus the behaviour of an individual certainly does have a
physiological effect on the structure of his/her brain. If you put strain on your muscles
they will grow bigger to cope, if you get a certain disease your body will develop anti-
bodies as a response thus it does not seem at all implausible that if your behaviour
puts strain of the womany areas of your brain that they too may grow in order to
handle this new load.
         Many people do infact really believe that homosexuality is entirely determined
by the genes. This is again a result of assumption one, some homosexual thinks “Its
not fair I‟m doing no one any harm and they send me to gaol for it, if black people
deserve equal rights than so do we.” This is how the argument starts and gradually
progresses into laying more and more emphasis on how they are born that way and
deserve equal rights etc., etc., and eventually the government relents and says “all
right! All right! We‟ll legalize sodomy!” The problem here is that there is still a great
cultural bias against homosexuality so these fags decide to manipulate the English
language in order to legitimise and even encourage the dirty deed. Instead of queer
they are “gay” and it is not they that are homosexual but rather others that are
“homophobic” and they start societies and pressure groups in order to promote a
positive gay image. People who act remotely effeminately are considered closet
homosexuals and are actually encouraged to actively bugger people and if you and up
all the lesbian and gay societies, pressure groups and bars the whole thing has about
the political sway of a moderately sized religion.
         Yet this activity has never ceased to be a source by which diseases are spread,
and there are unhealthy side effect such as rectal inflammation and constipation
aswell, bisexuals may also feel pressured to become homosexual or heterosexual in
this monogamous culture and certainly in the case of lesbians the will to bear children
does not go away so they seek to adopt them or get surrogate parents or simply get
someone of the opposite sex to impregnate them and then leave. So now a child must
be brought up in an unnatural situation where there is either no mother figure or no
father figure around. The whole concept of encouraging every type of sexual frivolity
is one which leads to irresponsibility and unsafe sex which will result in the spread of
venereal diseases. Let people engage in homosexuality, let people engage in sexual
frivolity, but lets not actively encourage it. Instead of viewing it as the way you were
born it should be viewed as a bad habit rather like the way we view smoking now
(Although smoking is in some ways worse and should slowly be phased out) yes
homosexuality is a bad habit like smoking and like smoking it should be taxed, I
would say a homosexual should be given and extra 5% gay tax on top of income tax,
however the legal definition of a homosexual should be someone who has done the
dirty deed in the past year. Gay bars should be allowed or else they could not meet
each other and that would simply be restricting the matter to an overly extreme
degree. Regarding gay tax the main aim of this is not really to tax every single
homosexual and there is no need for the police to place great emphasis on it. It‟s
purpose should merely be to encourage those who wish to avoid it not to be too
obvious concerning it or “gay and proud” so to speak, in truth a few homosexuals
quietly and timidly sodomizing each other is no great problem but a culture filled with
the buggers constantly trying to get themselves more representation and power is both
damaging and disturbing. Do we wish to get to a stage where we are like the Greeks
and people must make excuses for being straight? Do we wish to reach the point when
if you see an adult molesting a child and you give out to him for doing so he may
simply turn around and say patronisingly “Oh stop being so paedophobic!” ? Surely
not! A world in which homosexuality is prevalent is a world in which we have strayed
from our Darwinian path, if it is O.K to do nothing and stand by and let people die of
AIDS, to watch children grow up in a world of marriage, divorce and gay dads, to
watch ourselves becoming more sterile and apathetic with every passing day, then
what is the point of technological advancement or any advancement at all for that
matter when this is we call progress? What is the point of working or living for that
matter? Anyway, a 5% tax increase won‟t kill them and who knows, it may cure them.
Oh and by the way homosexuals should be allowed to donate blood as there are more
than enough ways by which it could be screened and tested for disease and it could
end up saving lives although the sexuality of the donor should be marked on the
package and obviously the blood of donors with less risk of having venereal diseases
should be used in preference to those whose risk is greater however it is better for a
man to live and to take a minor risk of getting AIDS then to simply watch him die
thus gays should be allowed to donate blood as there is often a shortage of it and it is
better than nothing.
         It is true that 2-4% of children are born with hereditary diseases and thus it
must be possible that there are some people who simply can‟t help themselves but,
there are many different types of these diseases and the idea that 3% of the population
is genuinely affected by just one disease is pretty low, there is definitely are cultural
factors which affect it too and certainly the rates of homosexuality do vary from time
to time and from place to place depending on how accepted it is, it is wrong to insult
people constantly and make them miserable for being queer, infact it even results in
people being miserable who aren‟t gay at all but merely camp, such a person feeling
that he will never be accepted by anyone except other homosexuals may actually
become homosexual even if he was once attracted to women, I think that a reason
why people are slagged for acting queer is because they fundamentally don‟t want a
homosexual dominated culture to sink in for then their children have a greater chance
of becoming homosexual and their fitness is reduced. I think a gay tax with the
definition of a homosexual being someone who has done the dirty deed in the past
year would lead to people feeling less threatened by such a culture setting in and
would not feel the need to make homosexuals miserable and if such people who are
unavoidably homosexual exist then a 5% tax won‟t do them much harm, they won‟t
need as much money as heterosexuals as they won‟t have a family to feed and it might
lead to less informal discrimination against them as they would be contributing more
to public services.
         AIDS is truly a terrible disease that now affects hundreds of millions of
people, AIDS itself kills people however the virus responsible for it (The human
immuno virus) may lie dormant in the system for years and with modern treatment
may never turn into AIDS this treatment, however, is very expensive and often the
countries that most suffer from AIDS are those least able to afford it. The treatment
itself can lead to quite a poor quality of life as the drugs themselves can give many
adverse symptoms. Another problem is that people are often uneasy in the company
of those with HIV, this is foolish as it can only really be transmitted via sex and
ofcourse blood but then how are you going to get someone else‟s blood into your
system anyway. The best way to prevent its spread is to get all people tested on a
regular basis, there should be major government programs to allow everyone to get
themselves tested as cheaply and quickly after they have engaged in behaviour that
might put themselves at risk. How to create a culture where people ask for each others
medical certificates before doing it is another matter. Perhaps the governments should
pass a law saying that in every film containing a sex scene the actors should ask for
each others medical certificates prior to the act. The main problem with getting tested
is that if you do find out you have HIV people are less inclined to want to have sex
with you and also perhaps you might find that you feel guilty giving someone else
HIV. The answer to this I suppose would be to start a HIV positive dateline after all as
long as people have similar strains of the disease they can‟t make each other more
sick and some prostitutes in the Philippines actually benefit from being constantly
bombarded with every conceivable strain of the virus, this might make people a little
less anxious not to get tested as they would not lose out as much socially and since
there are actually pills that can be taken that give an extremely high chance of the
baby being born HIV negative with a certain level of cultural meticulousness put to
practise we might be able to significantly reduce the number of people with AIDS
within a few generations.
         As mentioned before this is another form of hereditary intolerance and should
not be practised so perhaps this is a suitable chapter to elaborate on the issue. In the
days of old sexism was rife, this is because without a suitable and well developed
justice system the most violent people tend to lay down the principles for the culture
and those principals usually just so happen to be the principals which they themselves
would most benefit by. So because men are physically stronger than women the social
orders of old tended to favour the strongest men who were the best at fighting.
         Yet do men in general really even benefit from living in this kind of world?
Firstly, the skilled work force is cut in half as women who are quite well capable of
working are forced not to and the only way to maintain such unfair laws is to live in a
world where violence and force reigns supreme. This again suppresses creativity. In
the case of manual labour in many oppressive cultures women are forced to do the
bulk of it even when men are more capable. The children (even the boys) suffer from
seeing their mother abused and mistreated, and obviously in a world where some men
have large harems of women, others will have none at all. To argue about whether
men are better than women is rather like arguing whether the right half or the left half
of the body is more important for no other two groups of people will ever rely on each
other more than men and women.
         This is not to say that any kind of ridiculous man-hating feminism is to be
encouraged either and in many cases women may feel positively pressured to go out
and get a job. At the end of the day people should be entitled to do what they want
and should not feel obliged to either stay at home or get a job because they think it is
what they should be, rather it should simply be left to the preference of the individual.
         It is perhaps true that in sexist societies the division of labour has been so
arranged as to maximise the output of children, however they lose out economically,
and with adequate childcare facilities the non-sexist countries can keep up especially
since people will not be restricted from housework if they so choose and as sexist
societies may see that our society is more pleasant to live in hopefully the rate at
which they may be converted from their sexist ways will exceed the rate at which they
are being produced.
         Regarding abortion I would not consider myself pro-abortion but I would
consider myself pro-choice. To abort a child can indeed be a traumatic experience by
all accounts, but the state does not have the right to throw women who have had
abortions in gaol. Certainly abortions should be granted before the six weeks, O.K the
embryo probably has a tiny amount of sentience but so does a worm and we stick
them on hooks and feed them to fish. To ban abortion is realistically speaking to
create an unfair society where it is far easier for men to run away from their children
than women. At the end of the day the state should be equipped to provide single
mothers with the means necessary to look after there children and it should be
mandatory for women who want abortions to go to counselling before getting them
but if after the counselling the woman decides she still wants an abortion the
counsellor does not have the right to turn around and say “Well fuck you your having
the baby anyway whether you like it or not and if you try to get an abortion we‟ll
throw you in the slammer for ten years!”
         Regarding other forms of sexual depravity, paedophilia is evil as it scars
people for life and should be treated very seriously (As it now is, but since I disagree
with some laws I think I should vocally agree with others) bestiality should be lega l as
if your allowed to eat animals you should be allowed to fuck them. Though
homosexual bestiality should carry the usual 5% tax rate as it is important to be
consistent Prostitution probably should not be banned as if licenses are given to
practise it the prostitutes can be tested thus reducing the spread of venereal diseases.
Prostitution should not, however be encouraged as a business and prostitutes should
have to pay 75% income tax. Homosexual prostitution should be banned as it is too
filthy for words and now on to a another topic that is covered by many religions that
of crime and punishment.
         In tolerance and intolerance what should be tolerated and what should not be
tolerated was discussed, but once you decide what should not be tolerated and what
forms of behaviour should not be encouraged a new question must come to mind;
what shall we do about it? It is easy to say that we should all be nice to each other but
a far harder question is; When somebody decides not to be nice and instead to be
positively fiendish to someone else what should be done about it? In a world where
good is not divinely rewarded and evil is divinely punished and where feuds are not
won by the person who necessarily has the moral highground but instead to he who is
the best fighter and diplomat it is absolutely essential that the law should to a certain
extent, reward fundamental morality and punish fundamental immorality for if it does
not, as I explained earlier with human nature, these two concepts have absolutely no
meaning whatsoever.
         As humans tend to look after themselves the law will always tend to be written
in such a way as to benefit the people that write it and ofcourse those who have power
and influence (are in a position to reward or punish) over the people who write it.
Hence it is considered more serious to rob a bank or forge money that to beat
someone over the head and mug them. The more an individual should interfere with
the vested interests who wield the power in a given regime, the greater his
punishment, thus murderers are often given life imprisonment while spies can be
executed. Ofcourse (especially in a democracy) if an individual should do something
so terrible as to outrage enough people to cry for justice in unison he will receive a
very large punishment as the people who write the law don‟t want to be seen as too
obviously having double standards. Although most of the laws are some loose
approximation of what they should be in order to maximise fundamental morality and
generally keep the peace there are also numerous flaws in them, some should be more
lax while other should be stricter. When taking into account how strict a given law
should be we should not centre and limit ourselves so much as to think whether the
wrong done was deserving of the punishment although we should consider how much
suffering and misery the criminal caused and how much he shall suffer in gaol we
should mainly think would the result of this particular punishment be beneficial to
humanity? is there a cheaper way of achieving the same result? and also how much
incentive is there to commit said crime in the first place (for if there is a great
incentive the punishment too may have to be equal great.)
         As a general rule crimes that lead to the death of people should carry the
greatest punishment, followed by crimes that are to do with an assault on the body,
followed by the unlawful invasion of a mans house, followed by general robbery and
with everything else at the end.
                        CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
         Some say capital punishment is wrong yet how can it be that a man who has
conducted a robbery at gunpoint is surrounded by the police and decides to hold his
own rather than surrender be considered O.K to kill while someone who has
meticulously planned to murder many innocents and carried them all out in cold blood
can be considered to have the right to live? Can you possibly imagine a whole series
of policemen rushing up to an armed man with handcuffs and trying to put them on
him as they are shot down one by one? Surely not! In such a situation the only thing
to do is to shoot him down, for when the two are in direct conflict the life of the
majority must outweigh the life of the minority. Yet it would be extremely
inconsistent to let a cold-blooded killer live in the lap of luxury in an open prison
where he can watch TV and quietly smile and fantasise over the crimes he committed
in the past while shooting down someone who simply got himself into a corner. I‟m
not saying the man who gets himself into a corner should live but rather that the cold-
blooded killer should die. This may prove to deter murder it may not. In America
where capital punishment is part of the law the murder rate is very high indeed (equal
to that of Europe during the medieval period) but then in America there is a huge class
difference and every citizen has the right to bear fire arms so one has to ask the
question is the high murder rate the result of capital punishment or is capital
punishment a response to the high murder rate? One thing is for sure though, to
knowingly kill innocent man is to forfeit your right to live and hanging someone is a
lot cheaper than giving them room and board and guarding them for years and years
and years also when people see a man being publicly hung they will know better than
to do what he did, although hanging people on the street might provide an unpleasant
spectacle for those that do not wish to watch, there should be some theatre which
people may go to see the execution if they so please. After all it is pretty futile saying
that a man has the right to privacy after forfeiting his right to life.
                                 DRUGS CONTINUED
         Of all the social problems that currently plague us drugs must surely be the
most deadly. In all except the most violent of countries, they are responsible for more
deaths than murder and while the governments seem to be capable of controlling most
things to a tolerable degree, in the case of drugs they fall miserably short. One of the
most deadly and sinister things about these substances is the false air of tolerance they
give out once they have infected a society to a sufficiently heavy degree. In the 80‟s
there was a great fear of drugs and a great loathing of those that dealt in them. Now
the fear is all but gone and now we seem to realise that drugs aren‟t so bad after all
and that the dealers are just normal people trying to earn a living. Yet people fall dead
around us be it from heart attacks, cancer or overdoses of the sinister substances
themselves, but then I suppose that‟s life and there‟s nothing you can do about it. The
suicide rate mysteriously starts to rise and even though statistics prove that drug abuse
and suicide is linked and many suspect that the psychological effects they have are
often subtly responsible, that‟s life and theirs nothing we can do about it. Yet why are
is culture so insistent that there is indeed nothing that can be done, I would not for one
moment presume that everyone is addicted to drugs, but those who use them
occasionally have their mind altered to the point that the drugs have made them happy
and they want them to stay, thus even the occasional user has become a vested interest
for the drugs themselves. Let us not be so naïve as to presume that conversation is a
random process, whenever drugs should crop up in a conversation a user will almost
without exception defend their use to a certain extent if not by saying they should be
legalised then by saying that the laws that restrict their use should be relaxed and bit
more….. and a bit more …..and a bit more. Those who are friends with someone who
should even occasionally use drugs would have a tendency to defend their friends or
at least be a bit less opposed to them and will generally say something like “Oh well, I
suppose people are entitled to use them if they want to.” So the entire culture
gradually becomes more and more tolerant to the presence of the toxic substances and
events such as people dying of overdoses are no longer viewed as horrific tragedies
that must not be repeated but instead as simply another part of life which is depressing
anyway or so they all say (or at least so the people say who have had their brains
drained of all natural joy and emotion by these vile things) and that the person who
died should have been more careful I mean I smoke the odd joint, occasionally take
the odd pill of ecstasy inject myself with the odd bit of heroine but I would never be
so stupid as to overdose myself I know how far I can go. Some users will read up
meticulously on the effects of drugs and will understand them sufficiently so as not to
overdose themselves, they may think they have outsmarted the drug but even they can
never outrun its long-term effects. Some say they would rather die now than grow old
and pathetic but it is far better to be old and pathetic after living a proud, healthy
working life than to be young and pathetic now.
          So you see the actions of the dealer are not only responsible for sucking the
life out of their customers be it from over-doses, cancer, diseases or whatever aswell
as their health which cannot be denied. They are responsible for sucking the life out of
the entire culture, a widespread defeatist attitude is one major side effect of the drug
culture and a lack of available group activities is another aswell as a lack of
enthusiasm. Whatever those goddamn weed-smoking hippies bitch about, drugs are
the apotheosis of consumerism as the concept which surrounds it is the idea that it is
possible to consume happiness and how can they bitch about the problems of having a
culture where everything is disposable and can be thrown away after using once, for
what do you call cigarette ash, what does one do with a joint of hash or a needle of
heroine after using it if not to dispose of it?
          Those who support the drug culture wish to banish all aspects of a paternalistic
society, to banish all aspects of a society which cares about whether its members die
or not. Such a world would indeed be a sad and pathetic one where the sufferings and
self- inflicted miseries of a given individual stir nothing in the hearts of those around
who watch him slowly die where those who care, where those who wish to stop this
needless suffering may only flounder about amid a sea of apathy. They speak of
freedom? What freedom does the man who is addicted have when his only choice is to
ingest more of the toxins or to face the withdrawl symptoms? What true freedom
would any lone person have but to be a spectator in this new world and watch the
others slowly die around him, where the only amenities, the only sources of organised
enjoyment are the pubs and drughouses ? After all, all that we truly are is a single pair
of hands and legs aswell as a head. If we hold these things at face value they are
surely useful for little more than locomotion and nutrition and to stand and watch as
the sins of the world are played out before our eyes over and over again. The only
means to organise is by a system of reward and punishment and why should any crime
seem so bad when all must be outweighed by the misery, sickness and death which
men would inflict upon themselves through the use of drugs?
          If we are truly committed to stopping this cancer, this plague upon society we
must ask ourselves what action must necessarily be taken in order to stop it. Where is
the Achilles heel of this odious mindform? Sofar it seems that a great deal of attention
is put into getting the drug barons into gaol. However once one goes into gaol the
hundreds and hundreds of small time dealers don‟t just disappear they simply find a
new supplier, become part of a new cartel and the problem continues. It is surely in
the small time dealer himself that the weakness lies. For it is he that must find a
suitable consumer from the public and it is he who must meet new people. If there
were no small time dealers then drugs would cease to be available, so it is they would
must be concentrated on. Death to all those who make profit from the drug trade!
Death to all those who profit from the wasting away of other. Anyone be it producer,
distributor, trafficker or administrator, who has anything to do with acquiring profit
from the drug trade should be hung (and possibly drawn and quartered aswell). By
placing this punishment upon the vile activity, perhaps people will be a little less
enthusiastic to take part in it, the price you would have to pay people in order to work
for you would be somewhat higher and the whole trade would become a little less
profitable for the baron, with less profit coming from the trade, less barons would
decide to invest in it. Often the police offer lighter sentences for dealers that give
information regarding the names of who they work for, instead of saying “If you don‟t
tell us who you work for we‟ll put you in gaol for a long time” they should be able to
say “If you tell us who you work for we‟ll put you in prison for life… if you
          The reason people take drugs has often been attributed to peer pressure this is
exemplified in the scene where the unpopular child comes up to a group of his peers
and asks “Can I join your gang?” where the peers respond “Maybe, how cool are
you?” to with the former responds “I‟m very cool, now can I join?” to which the
leader of the group responds “Sure, you want some of this?” and hands him a joint to
which the young fellow respond “Uh, i- isn‟t that bad for your h- health?” to which the
leader responds “Not if your cool it isn‟t!” and now the young fellow responds “Sure
I‟m cool give that to me, smokes it and starts coughing.” These films to a certain
extent, often misrepresent what actually happens and by doing so, prove ineffective in
deterring many from drug abuse. Perhaps taking drugs and smoking is part of a macho
image and perhaps when people who smoke do get popular through showing their
daring others might follow in their footsteps, the main reason for drug abuse is
different and more subtle, when people see those around them doing something and
enjoying it, whether they try to pressure them into doing it or not, they have a
tendency to try it themselves. When people squabbling over a resource saying stuff
like “Please give me a smoke, aw thanks!” they realise that he who has the smokes,
has the power, yet it would seem pretty lame to bring cigarettes in simply to give them
to others and not to smoke yourself, much better to smoke yourself and then just
happen to be in a position to give them to someone else should they happen to ask and
thus get into a position of favour. Another thing is that many smokers talk an awful lot
about smoking so you have to smoke or take drugs in order to join in on their
         Although referenda are generally a good thing and are in the spirit of
democracy I don‟t think there should be a referendum over the legalisation o f drugs.
The reason why democracy is generally good is because everyone tends to look after
their own interests, and since the brain is adapted to look after the life of the
individual lots of brains will tend to vote in such a way as to look after lots of lives,
however, in a drug saturated society the priority of the mind of the collective is not so
much to help them stay alive but rather to help them acquire more drugs, if you
moved from a non-drug using society to a society where everything is legal, in shock
perhaps you would vote against drugs, but as drugs gradually permeates into society
people gradually take more and more of the tragedies they cause for granted and in
this defeatist so-called liberal culture no one cares anyway it is clear that drugs are
one thing that must be kept out at all cost for was Ulysses wrong to drag his comrades
away from the island of the lotus eaters? Should he have left them there instead of
leading them home to their families? Surely not! If we do not ban drugs now for the
sake of the present generation then we should do it to avoid shame in the eyes of our
ancestors and for the sake of our descendants.
                         THE POWER STRUGGLE
         I mentioned the power struggle when discussing the tribal unit however
perhaps it would now be best to discuss it regarding organised crime. Unlike small
time crime, organised crime would have a certain tendency to make its own laws in
the society in which it infests, laws like “Thou shalt not snitch” or “Thou shalt always
pay protection money to us or thy house shall be burnt down and thy loved ones
killed” although only in the worst of countries such as Columbia, will the police
themselves live in fear, those in power are often bribed which is itself a form of rule
and policemen will surely find arresting them impossible with all witnesses afraid to
talk. Regarding the promotion of life health and happiness, the initial result of
pressing down upon organised crime is often a backlash however it is essential that
organised crime be crushed as early and as soon as possible for when we are dealing
with organised crime and the police- force we are dealing with a power struggle
between the forces of life and death, order and chaos. People speak of freedom verses
authority and indeed it is true that freedom should be promoted where it does not
contradict fundamental morality, but when you talk of the police creating strict laws
against gangsters it is not a question of freedom or authority, it is a question of whose
authority should triumph the authority of the force which is managed and paid for by
those that are democratically elected by the people or the force which represents no
more than the short-term selfish interests of a bunch of greedy criminal despots. If the
law should cease to be enforced, if the law should cease to be respected, if the law
should cease to be abided then the law shall cease to be the law and a new set of
unfair, unspoken barbaric rules shall replace it. In general in a country with an
absence of organised crime, terrorism and drugs cartels and suppliers capital should
probably not be enforced even for murder for as long as the goals aren‟t packed and
the system can cope you may aswell let the odd murderer live for to see people being
hung in this case would probably make matters worse as it is probably best not to
show people being killed as people might start to think that such behaviour is
acceptable. In a society that is already violent on the other hand, things are very
different for the violence and bloody murder is already on the street for people to see,
when there are two violent gangs laying down different rules an individual will
consider first which gang shows the greatest dominance before considering which set
of rules to obey. In this case the law must be the dominant fo rce and it must be
prepare to rip apart organised crime in order to ensure to restore the peace in this case
all those who bring about death to innocent people should be hung publicly, (though
capital punishment should never extend beyond that) and once crime and drugs is
reduced to a more manageable level capital punishment should be stopped.
         We have established that murders and drug dealers should be sent to gaol for
life or hung if the legal system was strained. Rapists and those who physically assault
someone in such a way as to give them permanent injury should get about 10-15
years, to make the sentence any longer would make the offender think “Ah heck if
I‟m caught I „m going to gaol for a long time anyway, I might aswell make sure I
leave not witnesses and thus increase my chance of not getting caught.” Robbing a
museum should be seven years as if an adequate deterrent is not provided we shall
simply lose all our relics one by one. Muggers should receive 5 years in gao l those
who break into peoples houses or shops and hurt them should receive 6-7 years in
gaol, man-slaughter should be 5-10 as it is important for people not to be blasé about
causing death to others, those who break into peoples place of residence without
hurting them should receive 1-2 years in gaol bank-robbers, those who rob shop at
night in a non- violent manner, forgers, embezzlers and tax evaders should receive one
year in gaol. Major sabotage perhaps should be up to two years, but in general
vandals, shop- lifters, pickpockets etc., should receive a few months community
service. Regarding these crimes especially it is not the severity of the punishment that
counts but rather the degree of rigour by which it is enforced, for the potential
criminal does not only think about how bad the punishment is but also how likely he
is to be caught, to punish all perpetrators of the action consistently not only provides a
better deterrent but is also more fair than making a harsh example of a random few.
Drug addicts should be fined a few hundred pounds as a deterrent.
         Regarding sexual harassment and physical assault that leads to temporary
damage people should indeed be protected but as the seriousness of these thing varies
so much from case to case I‟ll leave that for someone else to decide. Regarding
punishments for breaking the rules of the road, they should strongly linked to the
stastical causes for accidents and death.
                                  PROPERTY AND THEFT
         Does the son a rich aristocrat have the fundamental right to live a plusher and
more luxurious life than anyone else? Although its hard to morally justify that he has
more right to live in his nice mansion than anyone else, if someone else took it from
him and lived in it instead than the very action of stealing it from him would make
him a less worthy person to own it. For in a world where thieves and robbers can take
the riches of aristocrats, instead of living in a world where feckless layabouts are
rewarded we exchange this, instead for a world where ruthless villains are rewarded.
Property and ownership are arbitrary concepts, but was can be said is that the struggle
of someone who has no property to acquire property is, in general a bloody one
indeed therefore there has to be some agreed upon legal system which decide s who
owns what in order to put to rest such tiresome, destructive disputes that are
ultimately fundamentally immoral to rest as quickly as possible. The idea of
commonly held property will not work either because all that will happen is an
unofficial ownership system will develop as it is in our nature to try and get the edge
over each other fitness-wise. If you had common houses where no one owned
anything some people would always end up watching what they want on TV while
others would not, some people would always get the lions share of the food and more
bed space or sofa space than others simply because we constantly strive to outdo each
other in fitness. People often think it is terrible that some people can live in mansions
while others are left starving on the street. That is true, but the outrage should lie in
the fact that people are left to starve on the street and not in the fact that people live in
mansions. And besides, aristocrats provide employment for gardeners and servants
and the like. The government does not have the right to arbitrarily freeze and
confiscate the lands of law biding upper class people as people need some kind of
security in life. But that is not to say that aristocrats are entitled to think that they have
some God given right to be richer than everyone else and to evade tax whenever the
want, deliberate tax evasion is a serious offence and a breach of the law. Although the
whole idea of revolution is repulsive we should slowly move into becoming a society
where people are not rewarded for being born into wealth but rather are rewarded for
working hard, defending what is right and helping others in otherwords we should
move towards a true meritocracy.
                         SUICIDE AND DRUG ADDICTION
         Suicide is a terrible thing, if death is horrible the surely self- inflicted death
must be the most horrific of all. Yet it is not just the victim who is affected but his
family and friends, in a broader sense in the same way that people who are bored or
depressed look to other passing the time by abusing drugs and destroying their bodies
and decide to try it out for themselves people who are miserable or don‟t know what
to do look to others in the same position as them for guidance and if they see them
topping themselves they might just think that perhaps they have got the right idea.
Thus suicide is bad and should not be legal, when I say it should not be legal, I don‟t
mean they should serve a term in some stinking gaol-cell or should be given the death
penalty (after all that would sort of defeat the purpose) I simply mean the police and
bystanders should have the right to restrain them from doing so and maybe even send
them to counsellors or do what they can to cheer them up and stop feeling suicidal,
only then should the state leave them get back to their lives. Suicide should not be
punished per say as the person who attempts it is obviously not having a whale of a
time anyway. In the case of self mutilation although it is not to be encouraged to
interfere to that extent would be too much as it is important to give people a certain
amount of freedom although perhaps an exception may be made in the most extreme
of cases.
         In some ways drug abuse is a softer version of suicide it involves the
destruction of the body. However to take drugs is also to condo ne the trade which
takes advantage of people and kills them it is also to provide an example that others
might follow as like it or not people are influenced to a certain extent by the actions of
those around them. However, to send someone to gaol simply for damaging his own
body would not be a good idea. The idea of the paternalistic society should surely be
to look after those inside it and sending someone to gaol does them no good. However
the habit should be discouraged as otherwise we‟ll end up living in a world where
everybody‟s doing it, it also costs the health service a fortune, therefore there should
be fines given for the abuse of drugs or toxic substances or maybe community service.
Crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be treated just as
severely as those that are committed while sober, as a major reason why we don‟t
commit crime is the fear of the consequences and if you let drunks off easy then while
someone is drunk they‟ll secretly think to themselves, “Ah who cares, I‟m drunk
people will understand!” and do whatever they want and what is more they will get
drunk more often as this added tolerance of their behaviour provides an added
incentive to drink. I don‟t like the way anti-alcohol campaigns say that one reason not
to drink irresponsibly is for fear of making a Perhaps if people fool of yourself. For
instead that is one reason to drink irresponsibly. were less judgemental over each
others action when sober then perhaps we would not have to poison our bodies in
order not to feel self-conscious. A drug addict is someone who has never acquired a
penny‟s profit from the drug trade anyone else who has drugs is a case for the
         It doesn‟t take a genius to see that the more people have guns, the more people
are going to get shot. Well a blanket ban on guns probably is not necessary but
certainly if someone is licensed to have a gun it should be for a purpose other than
shooting another human and that includes protection, with the exception of hunters
and farmers rifles should not be allowed to be taken outside a rifle club. Not only
should the prospective owner have to prove himself sane he should also have to prove
he has a use for these weapons, collecting working guns should not be allowed only
replicas should be owned. When criminals are carrying out a robbery or a burglary at
least a year should be added to the sentence if they are carrying so much as a penknife
with them with the intention o
f harming anyone who should try to wrestle with them. If they are carrying guns the
sentence should be extended by three to four years. Of course that is not to say that
owning a bread-knife or a penknife should be illegal but rather that it would be a good
idea to empty ones pockets before considering breaking the law or else the sentence
might be extended.
         Unless there is a really high level of crime, the police force should generally
patrol unarmed, only taking up guns to deal with criminals who also have them
otherwise using batons and the like. As doing so goes towards avoiding a gun culture
                          THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
         It is all very well saying which crimes should be punished and how severely
but the question of finding out of exactly who committed them is often easier said
then done. Some say it is better to let one thousand guilty men free than to send one
innocent man to prison. This is a cowardly I-don‟t-care- how- many-people- get-killed-
as-long-as-I-don‟t-have-to take-the-blame- for- it attitude. Ofcourse we should try to
make sure that only guilty people go to prison, ofcourse the entire system should be
arranged so that the minimum number of innocents are imprisoned but referring to the
above statement setting one thousand guilty men free is no small misdemeanour
either. There is no point in having a law if everyone thinks they can get off the hook
even after committing a crime and many innocent will possibly suffer more from
setting one thousand guilty men free then for accidentally putting one of their number
in gaol. In conclusion I would say it is important to have a judicial system which is
more or less innocent until proven guilty, a judicial system where most innocent
people will be screened out, but lets not go nuts, lets get to the point where people can
get away with murder. I would say in the interests of democracy a result of 7-5 should
be enough to secure a conviction. In the case of a capital offence 7-5 should mean life
imprisonment while 12-0 should mean the noose. In the case of 12-0 said person
should not be given more than a year to appeal. If the jury system does not work then
perhaps the continental system of judges would be better either way the best way to
ensure justice is not to make it impossible to convict anyone but rather to improve
evidence gathering and analysing techniques. When it comes to police investigation
the right to privacy is often just the right to commit crime and the same goes for
silence. Ofcourse these things don‟t apply when it comes to the press.
         Rape in prisons is also a very great problem indeed and undoubtedly
contributes to the high suicide rate inside prisons, should said rapist be given a longer
sentence then he will have all the more time to bugger his fellow (relatively) innocent
inmates. The answer to this problem is to set aside a separate prison for rapists,
paedophiles and the most serious sex offenders, anyone who commits rape in the
other prisons should be transferred to this prison while at the same time being given a
longer sentence. That way the rest of the prisons can be kept relatively free of rape.
Ofcourse it is quite likely that in the rapist prison rape would be going on all the time,
but that‟s Okay because anyone who rapes another person deserves to get raped
         Another problem with the legal system is the way rich people can hire
whatever lawyer they want but poor people must make do with a lawyer supplied by
the state. This is another great example of how the law evolves to best protect those
who write it. As it is certainly not a crime to be poor and in the interest of fairness and
justice the private hiring of lawyers to represent you should be banned for any case,
Instead the state should provide a free lawyer for rich and poor alike for all cases.
Perhaps some people might feel some of these policies are too harsh and might
impinge too much on the freedom of the individual, as a last attempt to convince you
they are necessary allow me to tell a little story, a little parable if you will.
         Once upon a there lived in Scandinavia a man called Wotan and one day he
and some of his crew decided to sail to Ireland in order to pillage some monasteries
and slaughter and enslave some monks. However while he was sailing to Ireland a
fierce storm broke out blowing his ship far, far out to sea. For many days and many
nights the brave (though somewhat morally dubious) crewmen saw nought but grey
and black up above and rain all around, the ship was springing leaks, the food supplies
were running out and many of the crewmen had been blown overbo ard and died.
Every night Wotan made one mark on the wall to keep track of the time. On the
thirtieth day they all began to give up hope as the food supplies had completely run
out however on that very day the sky began to clear and just on the horizon the y could
see an island, a gentle breeze picked up and one day later they reached the island. On
the island was a beach with cliffs behind it and etched in one of the cliffs was a cave
he and the remaining crewmen who were but five in number sailed into the cave
during high tide and anchored themselves, when low tide came they foraged for a bit
to fill their empty stomachs and then Wotan told them to remain inside the cave while
he slung his great battleaxe over his shoulder and set out to explore this new la nd.
          After about an hours walk down the beach he men a native, “What island be
this kind sir?”
“This is freedom island, strange traveller where all men are free we have but three
principles in our constitution: liberty, liberty and more liberty!”
“And what peoples be you?”
“We be the freemen.”
“Who is your leader and how may I find him?”
“Our Leader is Sir Stoner Fuckalot he lives in the Pink Palace just follow this path.”
He said pointing “Turn left, left and left again, you can‟t miss it!”
          So Wotan proceeded along the path at the first corner he saw a man raping a
woman, a policemen approached. “You shouldn‟t really be doing that you know.” He
said “I know and I don‟t care!” he replied and tossed the woman aside. “Might I
suggest a light fine?” “Fuck off pig!” said the man. “Yea fuck off pig!” said the
woman “I may be degraded, bruised traumatized and emotionally wounded for life,
but I value my freedom and I suppose this gratuitous degradation is better than living
in a police state!” “Oakaly-doakaly then” and with that the policeman left whistling.
Watching this in disgust Wotan charged out of the bushed and cut the offender in half
“Oh thank you” said the woman my name is Esmarelda. Then Wotan and Esmarelda
turned left and proceeded to the Pink Palace.
          At the next turn to the left he saw a dead old woman and someone standing
over her. “What happened here?” Wotan asked him. “She was robbed and slaughtered
by the Mafia, wow! Those guys are so cool!” With that the proceeded on.
          At the next turn there was a crowd blocking their way, the people in it were
half starved to death and chanting “MORE PAY LESS WORK!” over and over again.
“What‟s all this about?” Wotan asked the leader of the demonstration. “Well last year
we, the union of all workers on the island got our hours reduced from one hour a week
to zero hours a week and are salaries doubled DIDN‟T WE GUYS?” “YEEAAA!”
cheered the crowd in response. “But unfortunately the inflation rate then mysteriously
went up so now we want more pay DON‟T WE?” “YEEAA!” responded the crowd.
Wotan rolled his eyes up to the heavens. “Well anyway let me past!”
“No it‟s a free country!”
With that Wotan charged through the crowd hacking the heads of anyone who got in
his way, the people soon learnt to avoid him, Esmarelda follo wed.
          At last Wotan arrived at the Pink Palace there were no guards at the door and
soon he found his way to the great hall. Immediately the stench of Hash hit his nose.
Through the dense mist from the smoke of every conceivable type of drug he saw
before his eyes an orgy of every conceivable form of filth, homosexuality, bestiality,
paedophilia and ofcourse heterosexual activity if you can call it that for it merely
consisted of a writhing mass of human beings. Sitting on the throne, well actually
sitting on his bum-chum who was sitting one the throne, snorting cocaine and with a
naked baby on both knees, in the mouth of were two joint of Hash, sat Sir Stoner
Fuckalot ruler of Freedom island.
“Good day.” said Wotan coldly.
“Oh Hello.” replied Sir Stoner, bouncing up and dowm in some obscene way.
“May I take your throne?”
“Let me put it this way, give me your throne or I‟ll cut your head off.”
“You can‟t do that! I have the liberty to live! GUARDS!” and with that a motley
assortment of ill- trained individuals slumped in.
“What is the principle on which this country is founded?” asked Wotan sneering.
“Why liberty, liberty and more liberty ofcourse!” replied Sir Stoner indignantly.
“Then do I not have the liberty to hack your head off?”
“Well theoretically speaking you do, I suppose.”
“And do you not have the liberty to give up your throne to me strictly theoretically
“Well again as we can all do whatever we want, theoretically yes.”
Now Wotan raised his axe above his head as if to cut sir stoner in two. “And do you
choose now to give me the kingdom?”
“No! Guards attack him!” with that the three guards approached cautiously with that Wotan
turned like lightning with his shiny axe the guards all backed off. “What are you doing?
You‟re suppose to be protecting me!” “S-s-sorry s-s-sir.” Said the first guard. “Anyway you
don‟t have the right to order us about” said the second “Our constitution clearly says that
everyone has the right to liberty, liberty and more liberty” “Yea” said the third “We choose to
practise our freedom to quietly and honourably back away.” And with that all three guards
legged it. Wotan grinned menacingly at Sir Stoner Fuckalot. “O-on second thought maybe I
will decide to practise my freedom to give you all my titles and the land that I own.” Now
Wotan travelled back to his ship and told his five crewmen Grishnash, Iron-jaw, Whipper
snapper, Bone-breaker and mancruncher that they were now kings of Freedom Island!
                          ONE YEAR LATER……
         Stoner Fuckalot approached Wotan and Esmarelda after a hard days work in the gold
mine. “Its not fair! Why do I have to mine gold all day while you lie in the lap of luxury and
why do I have to give all the gold I mine to you?” Wotan replied calmly “You don‟t have to
give anything to me or mine all day, you may choose to practise your freedom not to. Then
again ofcourse” he said rolling his eyes up into the air “Grishnash may decide to bite your
fingers off one by one, or whipper-snapper may decide to practise his freedom to whip you
for as long as he wants or mancruncher may choose to practise his freedom to slowly peel
your skin off and boil you alive…” as he was saying this all his cronies were approaching
Stoner Fuckalot while growling menacingly. “I don‟t know, do you choose to work all day in
the mine and give me all your gold in exchange for a pittance?” Stoner Fuckalot looked
around nervously and squeaked “Well, given the current situation..” Grishnash roared
menacingly “Yes.”
“Are you sure your doing so out of your own freewill?” Whipper-snapper snapped his whip.
“Yes” he squeaked again.
“That‟s good because I wouldn‟t like to feel I was forcing anyone to do anything against their
will after all you know my motto liberty, liberty and more liberty HO! HO! HO! HO! HO!”
and with that Stoner Fuckalot returned to his backbreaking work down in the mines.
                                  THE MORAL
         Wotan and his friends were evil murderers however one can hardly admire the
irresponsible attitude of Stoner Fuckalot. In conclusion it is often the case that if you become
too liberal and tolerate everything it is only a matter of time until the axe shall swing the other

         In the past four chapters I have discussed how people should treat each other
and to a certain extent which behaviours should be re warded and which should be
punished, by creating a system which is reasonably fair and is hard to cheat we create
a civilisation capable of undertaking great tasks of good to the rest of the world and
securing the long term survival of humanity as a whole the next few chapters shall
mainly be about policies on a larger scale to maximize the benefit that can be acquired
from a given cost. I shall also try to get the reader away from thinking of the economy
purely in terms of money for people and more in terms of the work which people do.
         The first thing necessary to know in the abstract is that people don‟t purely
want to make themselves rich, they want to create an environment where they can
survive and reproduce and where their own survival and the surviva l of their offspring
is secured. Many people see the acquisition of money as a means of securing that end.
Secondly there are three kinds of economic activities people engage in. Activities that
increase the chances of survival of ourselves or our progeny (Doctors, farmers,
scientists, etc.) activities that aren‟t directly related to survival but affect our brains in
a pleasant way which we are willing to pay for (Painters, musicians, pub owners,
drug-dealers, fiction writers) and lastly activities which we give money to either
because it is taken from us or because we fear the result of doing otherwise (burglars,
highway men, pickpockets, protection money, shop- lifters, etc.,) There are many
activities that do not fall neatly into any of these categories but rather lie slightly in
one and slightly in another. I will not pass judgement on any of these things yet but
will instead merely use them as a tool to describe the nature of the economy.
         I think this is in some ways a more useful way of dividing up activities than
primary, secondary and tertiary. As it deals with things that people need, things that
they want and things that they don‟t want. By dividing economic activities into
primary, secondary and tertiary perhaps you can gain greater insight into how to
achieve what you want to achieve but by dividing them into, necessary, pleasant and
annoying activities we can gain greater insight into what we want to achieve in the
first place.
         Let us divide the ways in which people can interact with each other into two
ways, cooperation and competition. In the case of cooperation said person will to aid
the other person in the achievement of his goal while in the case of competition said
person will hinder the other person from achieving his objective. Neither thing is
necessarily good or bad. While cooperation between a large number of different
companies in building a new electricity plant may be good, to allow a cartel to form is
very bad indeed. And while competition between to shops to provide the lowest
wages maybe good, it may also be bad as it forces the workers to work for shit wages
in order outdo the competition and two countries competing for the same patch of
land may lead to many deaths on the battlefield.
         The first thing to assert regarding how the world should be ruled is that it
should be ruled democratically. At the moment however, elections are carried out
badly, there are too many posters put up and what is on them? Pictures of cheesy faces
and moronic super-simplistic slogans “Lots done more to do” what the hell does that
tell your about any of the governments policies? The putting up of these useless
eyesores during elections are costly to the tax-payer, completely uninformative .Like
regarding the Nice Treaty there was one poster that said Yes to women‟s rights, Yes
to workers rights No to Nice and another that said Goodbye UN with a picture of
people shaking hands Hello NATO with a picture of a soldier in a gas mask and a gun
and then the slogan vote no to Nice, others had pictures of little children staring out
and the slogan vote yes to Nice for their sakes, none of these slogans had anything to
do with the Nice Treaty and not only that but the posters were put up in long lines one
after another. I mean atleast everywhere you look there should be at most one poster
saying vote yes and another saying vote no rather than there being the same poster
saying the same thing over and over again. This is an example of people thinking that
if they put up more posters that the others that they are more likely to win. Certainly
in the case of the Nice treaty this proved to be wrong. In general I would say that to
control the costs of election campaigns, thus avoiding the terrible situation in America
where only the super-rich can run for president, that posters should either be banned
altogether or an equal and finite quota of poster should be given to each party and
they should not be allowed to exceed it.
         Regarding all that stuff that is posted through the door, there should be one
magazine given out with a synopsis of the policies of all the competing parties given.
That way you only need one person posting the election magazine to everyone rather
than one man posting all the leaflets with labours policies to everyone, one man
posting all of the Green parties policies to everyone etc., etc., TD visits are a good
thing as they give the party feedback on what the population want and should not be
restricted. And it is the responsibility of the news networks in the interests of fairness
and justice to give each party an equal amount of time to explain their views.
         Every democratic power in the world should stand together to support the
spread of democracy, although they should try and insure that spread is as moral and
painless as possible. However ofcourse two democratic nations are well capable of
fighting with each other so in order to prevent war, a union with one army should be
formed. This union should not be in anyway imperialistic in structure but instead
should have a more federal structure and new members should join because they want
to and see that they will ultimately benefit by it and not because they were conquered.
Any member must also be allowed to leave aswell. The federal structure is also a
good structure because it allows flexibility. Systems and services that are best
undertaken on a large scale can be organised by the union as a whole while services
that are better arranged on a National or local level can be done that way thus
allowing cooperation while avoiding the bureaucracy that exces sive centralisation
may cause. We should never be afraid to devolve a particular function should the
result be a moral one but neither should we be afraid to unite or centralise a particular
function should the result be a moral one. In general to pass a law in a given situation,
all you should need is the support of 51% of the voters, there is one use and one use
alone for the constitution of the nation or union and that is to protect the health and
life of the minority aswell as making sure that they are justly treated and also not to
allow the people to vote in such a way as to renounce the democratic system, this is
not all that anti-democratic keeping in mind that once democracy is got rid of it may
be years or even generations before it can be reinstated although the original
dictator/monarch will probably be reasonably good he will almost certainly pass one
the power to his spoilt son and thus the regime will gradually become more and more
corrupt, if the people of future generations could travel back in a time machine and
vote they would undoubtedly vote to keep democracy, so in order to represent the
will of the future generation it may sometimes be necessary to maintain the
democratic system and not allow a referendum against it to be passed.
        In all other cases 51% should be enough to pass a law. For we should not
allow the constitution of the country to serve as the dictatorship of the dead over the
living. Whether a head of the union is a good thing is debatable. It is probably best
only if the level of tribalism in its members is extremely low otherwise the head of the
union may simply represent the country which he came from to a disproportionately
high level creating resentment and causing the union to fragment.
        This is just to give a taster of what is to come, all these things shall be dealt
with in greater depths in the next chapters.
                         THE PERFECT POLITICAL PARTY
        Unfortunately, with politics, as with much else in life the filthy hand of
tribalism gets in the way of things even in democracy. So you get one party that
supports the environment and seriously thinks about bugger all else, one party that
supports rich people companies strict laws and doesn‟t give a shit about poor people
and one party that cares about the poor but is so militant and angry with the rich that it
may infact be to the detriment of the country as a whole and this party may be so
angry with the corruption of the police and the system in general that it is prepared to
turn a blind eye on crime when the criminals themselves are as if not more ruthless
and profiteering as corporate interests, with all this tribal conflict emerges the division
between the left and the right and with all the stupid labels people wear to show which
tribe they are a member of, oh I‟m a Communist, I‟m a Capitalist, I‟m a Socialist, I‟m
a Fascist, I‟m a Liberal. And always limiting their thought to the label they have
chosen, I believe this greatly inhibits the emergence of good well balanced policies. It
is indeed true that there are central parties that cannot be described as particularly left-
wing or right-wing and they are generally the ones that grow to a significant size and
they are also the ones that end up doing a better job than all these crazy radicals,
however the problem with these centre parties is they have few principals and little
zeal or spine. People who enter into them, enter into them in order to get elected and
not so much in order to achieve a goal and these central parties will generally do
whatever they think will get them voted in which is generally to satisfy the interests of
those with the most sway over them.
        Central parties have flexibility while fanatical parties have back-bone and
perseverance. How can you combine these to things to make a political party that is
both flexible and willing to make compromises when it has to while at the same time
having some overall purpose, the overall ambition and vision needed to drive a
country forward in the proper direction and most importantly what is the proper
        The answer is simple the perfect political party simply says “We aim to
ultimately promote life, heath and happiness in this country” and then list the policies
which they believe will best achieve that ultimate goal and beside these main policies
give a reason why they think it will best achieve that aim. It is true that several of such
parties may emerge and these parties might disagree on how best to achieve it but at
least they will have some common ground which they share and that will make
negotiation a lot easier. Also should a given policy prove not to work in mid-term
they can always change it or modify it slightly without looking so foolish for they can
simply say “The following policy has not helped us to achieve life, health and
happiness therefore we will change it to this new policy which we think would work
better because of the following reasons.” There may be several political parties with
ideas acceptable to the union though ofcourse should a political parties emerge that
has ideas that are unacceptable to the union the country can bugger off and start its
own union.

         This chapter will mainly deal with securing the future survival of mankind and
of life, nature and the beauty of the many ecosystems which exist upon this Earth.
However before it is possible to do this we must solve mankind‟s problems the reason
for this lies in the nature of our brain. People are more than capable of denying the
existence of a problem should the response involve a loss of fitness on their part. Thus
before we can acquire the necessary backing for a massive space effort or an effort to
clean up the environment there must contain also within this ideology, a means of
dealing with our social problems or else the self-obsessed minds of most people will
tend concentrate of them and ignore the impending doom on our planet.
         Mankind‟s capacity for finding out about the physical and biological world ,
his engineering capacity and his ability to solve specific problem are limitless given
enough funding, enough support and enough time. However there is a finite number
of humans, a finite quantity of money and often a finite amount of time so despite the
fact that modern science has advance beyond all reasonable expectations there is still
the question of how much funding do we give to each problem and the economic
feasibility of a given endeavour. This comes down to the most annoying of
disciplines, that of economics, the science of greed and while real scientists are
generally objective, rational, kind, generous, well- meaning people with the best
interests of mankind at heart economists are evil penny-pinching misers who only
care about hiring more economists, giving themselves salary rises and defending the
interests of those that pay them money, in otherwords acting as mere pawns to the
interests of big businessmen who, in general care mainly about their own wallets
         Back in the bygone days the upper classes had a simple policy towards
obtaining control over the proletariat, they would simply get a big army, force them to
produce food and give the most food to themselves and the people who helped
maintain control over the army, over the religion to a certain extent and to those that
served them hand and foot. As people need food to survive by controlling the
distribution of food you can control who receives food, what they need to do in order
to get it and as people always try to survive by doing what they have to do in order to
get food the upper classes thus obtain, to a certain extent, control over the actions of
the people. But why couldn‟t the people just run away and go somewhere else?
Because everywhere where there was food there was an upper class controlling its
distribution and where there was no food it was very hard to impossible to survive,
thus you had to yield to atleast one upper class in order to obtain food and in general
if you are going to live in a society you may aswell know the language and thus
wealth was measured mainly by the amount of fertile land capable of producing large
quantities of food you had control over. Another reason for this is the more food you
can produce, the greater the army you can maintain.
          Gradually as time progressed and farming techniques became less labour
intensive and food was produced more easily the emphasis on wealth drifted more
towards the capacity to produce goods and materials. This was the industrial
revolution. Here the workers still worked for food but instead of making food
themselves they made goods, the rich people sell these goods to the aristocrats that
owns the lands, by paying for these goods the aristocrats obtain a higher quality of life
but they also lose some power and influence, the farm- workers too buy goods as do
the factory-workers and the middle class, in this advanced time the nation has
developed with a police force and an army to prevent foul play so these capitalist fat
cats don‟t have to maintain an army but instead can venture their money in order to
make more money or wallowing in the lap of luxury. However the police- force and
the army aren‟t all that unbiased for if your nice to these fat-cats then they‟ll pay you
money, which is what you need for food and stuff and if you annoy them, then as they
have most of the control in parliament and the like they can fiddle things around and
make things very awkward for you.
                          THE MECHANISED ECONOMY
          In the mechanised economy there are few primary workers but there are a lso
not all that many people working in secondary activities either! Production remains
high because these days machines do all the work in industry (except in sweat-shops
in the third world) and people mainly manage the machines, in general the production
cycle has evolved so that you end up having to pay the minimum amount of workers
to make a given product this is ofcourse a balancing act between paying a few skilled
workers or lots of unskilled workers and in many industries the balance is leaning
strongly towards hiring a few skilled workers. This means that now you need only a
fraction of the total population of the world to make everything we could ever want or
need so what does everyone else do? Well they either work at tertiary activities or
they pretend to work at tertiary activities.
          Yes even during the industrial revolution the office worker was beginning to
become established, the worker in the insurance company, the clerk in the law firm
and the like. But since company owners acquired the ability to float their earnings on
the stock market these office workers really came into a world of their own, as with
all administration to a certain extend some of them have quite a lot of influence over
their own salaries. The shareholders are suppose to get the profit however the
managers only give the shareholders a measly dividend the rest of the profit goes into
constructive things like expanding the business, giving themselves higher salaries and
placing more money in the company fund which allows the to go on flights to
Australia, Taiwan or Thailand for free, it also allows them to get free lunches in
expensive restaurants and to buy comfy-chairs and decorations for their offices, and
ofcourse some dribble of this profit goes to hire a few new skilled workers to produce
a little bit more stuff. It is in the interests of these people to make themselves quite
numerous and tiered so that when someone asks the president “Why are you being
paid so much?” he can respond “I‟m only being a little bit more than the vice
president.” And when he asks the Vice President why he‟s being paid so much he can
respond “I‟m only being paid a little bit more than the assistant Vice President” and
when he asks the same question to the assistant Vice president he responds that he
only paid a bit more than the Supreme sales manager who only paid a bit more than
the executive sales manager whose only paid a bit more than the assistant executive
sales manager whose only paid a bit more than the manager of the personnel manager
whose only paid a bit more than the assistant manager of the personnel manager
whose only paid a bit more than the personnel manager whose only paid a bit more
than the secretarial manager whose only paid a bit more than the salesmen who are
only paid a bit more than the secretaries and when you ask the secretaries why they
are being paid so much they burst into tears and say “But I‟m only being paid tupence
ha‟penny a month governor” and then the questioner comes back to the President and
says “Ah it all makes so much sense now.” And leaves the President with his
enormous income.
         Another reason why there are so many office workers is because people are
constantly hiring assistant to lighten their load. But then when they see that their load
is too light they fear that they might make themselves redundant and end up getting
fired so they invent new things to do, new useless tasks to show everyone that they are
not slacking and are infact working and thus are in line for a promotion. But then
these new useless tasks become annoying and boring so they employ people to help
them accomplish this new useless task, but then they end up doing next to no work so
they have to invent more work for themselves to do in order to look busy but then
they find that too becomes annoying and tiresome and the cycle continues.
         The same happens in the civil service and in fact the same sort of thing
happens in any situation where a group of people are responsible for hiring and firing
themselves, another thing is, no one is allowed to comment how useless the job of
their fellow office workers really are for fear that their fellow office workers will
complain how useless their own job is.
         Another reason there are so many office workers is due to competition. In the
medieval ages if you were a Cornish peasant and you asked a knight what was his
function, he would reply “Why to protect you from the evil knights of Devon!” and if
you were a peasant in Devon and you asked a knight what his function was he would
reply “Why to protect you from the evil knights of Cornwall!” our brave peasant
might reply to the knight “Yet if there were no knights at all everyone could work on
the harvest and there would be more food for all.” To which the knight would
probably reply “Why you ungrateful swine! I sweat and strain to protect us from our
enemies and all I ask is half your harvest and a big manor house where I and the other
nobles can throw parties all day and you bombard me with this impractical nonsense!
Off with your head!!!” and with that the brave peasants head would fall to the ground.
The same kind of thing happens in areas dominated by mobsters and on a global scale
in the case of the official militaries of various nations. For example George W Bush is
aggravating Saddam Hussein and trying to declare war on Iraq because the more
Saddam shouts the more the American voters become afraid and look to a strong
leader to protect them, a strong leader like George W Bush, Saddam Hussein on the
other hand is aggravating America and the countries around him so that the Iraqi
people will become scared and look to a strong leader for protection, a strong leader
like Saddam Hussein, so even though these two people hate each others guts, in a way
they are helping each other to remain in power.
         Similarly if you asked a worker for an advertising department what his
function was he would say “Why to sell more products than the competition!” yet in
this case the advertising company may well work for the competition aswell, but
anyway their being paid, so who cares? In this case if no competing companies paid
for advertisements the consumers would buy all their products anyway simply
because they needed them. If one paid for advertising he would sell more products
than everyone else, yet if all pay for advertising they all sell about the same amount of
products but they don‟t get as much of the profit because the advertising company
takes a big bite out of all of their profits respectively. It can be argued however that
because advertisements aren‟t allowed to openly lie that it does give the consumer a
better idea of which product is best. And thus create evolution where the best product
survives which could be regarded as positive. It could also be argued that advertising
companies are moving towards commercials that blatantly tell the viewer that the
products they buy define what kind of people they are and this creates a culture where
there is a distinct social pressure to buy certain things like deodorant, make up,
alcohol, Giletter razors, big cars, nice clothes etc., to impress people and for fear of
ridicule. This makes poor people feel bad and when you think how c heap it is to buy
the cheapest clothes you can clearly see the fashion is a mechanism for the bourgeois
to oppress the proletariat as if you are holding an interview for a new job and you
asked the interviewee “How rich are your parents?” and he responded “Actually their
quite poor.” And you responded “This interview is over! Goodbye!” and he found that
he did not get the job you would be looking at a serious law suit. On the other hand if
you subtly observe how expensively dressed the interviewees are and hire the person
who is dressed most expensively you can achieve the same thing much more subtly,
those who have rich parents will dress wealthily because they want the job while
people who come from poorer backgrounds simply won‟t be able to afford to. Fas hion
is also a means for women to subtly detect how much money she can screw out of a
man without coming on to him asking how much he earns and when he says “not very
much actually” saying “Oh I‟m sorry I said I liked you, now I know your poor I‟m not
interested in you at all!” fashion saves this embarrassing situation from developing.
         Another example of competition creating jobs which would be unnecessary if
everyone got along are lawyers. Now there are advertisements on the television and
radio to do with “the accident helpline” and all the rest. Like advertisers who to a
certain extent actually create a culture that demands more products lawyers too write
the law in such a way that people can take out a case for practically anything. This is
indeed better than sorting out your problems with a duel to the death, and it does
create a more safe society where people put up signs out for slippery floors and
provide more safety precautions in places of work so less people get injured so there
are many positive things to be said about lawyers but one can say that although they
are necessary and useful now you would not need so many if so many people did not
commit crimes or have messy divorces or step out in front of cars and then file
lawsuits so you see if things were better organised there would be vast masses of
people free to do other things. Another disturbing aspect of the law is that defence
lawyers often end up getting paid a lot more than prosecutors because private people
facing a long term in gaol are far more interested in not serving it than the state is in
making them serve it as all the state wants is the statistical occurrences of crime to
remain low, thus a rich man will be desperate to find the best lawyer he can possibly
afford while the state is more interested in having a moderately priced prosecutor that
won‟t place too great a burden on the tax-payer while at the same time give them the
impression that justice is being maintained. Thus defence lawyers can end up getting
paid a lot more. Thus there is more competition for being a defence lawyer and the
more intelligent people become the glamorous defence lawyers while those who don‟t
make it into becoming defence lawyer will tend to settle for the more moderately paid
job of state prosecutor. But lawyers not only use the law for cases, they are also
responsible for changing the law and as defence lawyers are on the whole more
qualified than prosecutors they generally have more influence on the law than
prosecutors so not only do they use loopholes in the law to get there clients off but
they also make loopholes in the law that can be used by the next defence lawyer that
comes around. One defence lawyer might be representing a case where the law seems
to be flawed and change the law to make it more fair for that particular case. In a later
case another defence lawyer could use that loophole to serve a blatantly unfair
purpose that will nonetheless win him the case, prosecutors can also change the law,
but not as often because they tend to be less qualified because those who are qualified
enough to be good defence lawyers will tend to do so because of the higher salary,
thus by a process of accumulation the law acquires enough loopholes so that a highly
skilled and competent defence lawyer can win almost any case there is and since all
the competent lawyer represent rich people the practical implication of this is a system
where freedom can be bought.
          So should we fire all these people? No! because at the end of the day all you
would achieve is a bunch of disgruntled unemployed office workers robbing people
for money, breaking stuff and causing trouble. The large amounts of apparently
useless office workers do infact perform an essential role in the economy, they act as
consumers that generate the demand necessary to drive industry forward. This is the
day of your average office worker, he gets in at nine in the morning, sits at his desk,
fills in forms, taps at his computer, sends pieces of paper from point A to point B and
back to point A again, twiddles his thumbs, chats up the secretaries, drinks a cup of
coffee, files more pieces of paper, sends more e- mail, taps a little more on the
computer, has a sandwich, takes a few phone calls, plays a game of free-cell or
minesweeper for a while guiltily looks around and then takes out his gameboy and
plays tetris for a while all the while guiltily trying to look as if he‟s working so as not
to arouse the suspicions of the proletariat, but when he collects his pay check the real
work begins for then he goes to a restaurant and helps some waiters and chefs earn a
living, goes into a shop and buys stuff helping the checkout girls, lorry drivers that
transport the goods to the shop, workers who manage the machines that make the
goods and office workers who are in charge of administrating the workers, the
checkout girls, the lorry drivers, the waiters and the chefs to earn a living, infact if you
fired all the office workers then all the people who work for and service the office
workers would go out of a job and then all the people who work for and service the
people who work for and service the office workers would also go out of a job and
you would be looking at an economic recession. But if their jobs are useless anyway
couldn‟t you spend the money on paying unemployed people instead? No because if
unemployment benefits got too high then all the checkout girls, workers, toilet
cleaners, lorry drivers, chefs, shopkeepers and waiters, would say “Screw this I‟m
quitting and going on the dole!” the price of living would rise and then all the doctors
and plumbers would go on strike because the price of living was so high because you
have to pay shop keepers so much to stay working, also a great deal of the doctors‟
and plumbers‟ wages are going off as tax to pay the tremendous amount of people on
the dole. The only alternative to a bureaucracy filled with office-workers in little
cubical twiddling their thumbs doing unnecessary jobs and getting paid for it, is an
aristocracy where you pay people for blatantly and unquestionably doing nothing
whatsoever having the time of their lives while spending money and keeping the
economy moving. At least if a less well-paid worker asks an office worker “How
come you‟ve got a better job than me?” the office-worker can reply “Because I‟m
more qualified than you.” By having a society where you need arts degrees to get
useless well-paid jobs at least the poorer workers have hope of some day taking a self
education course in “communication skills” or “English” or “tourism” and someday
they themselves may obtain these useless yet well-paid jobs they may also dream of
their children doing well in a world with so many opportunities to lie back and get
paid for screwing other people over. In an aristocracy however it would be even more
ridiculous to say “I‟m more qualified to do nothing than you.” And then lie back and
wallow in luxury. Here wealth is hereditary and society is static, this gives less
opportunities to people in general and this society may be more likely to become
communist and certainly when we talk about English and communication skills office
workers need all the English and communication skills they can get to convince
everyone else of the usefulness of what they do and how important they are.
        There is nothing wrong with having office workers, civil servants and
economists as the alternative is far worse, the problem starts when these people
become bigheaded and start thinking what they do is actually important rather than
merely the fact that they are getting paid. It is a travesty of justice when we hire
“efficiency managers” and “economists” to fire real workers. All the time these
people ask “Why do we have to pay so and so?” “Why do we have to pay for such and
such a service?” “Why do we have to pay all these nurses, I‟m sure the sick can wait
an extra half- hour to be administered to.” Why do we have to pay your fucking wages
Mr. Economist? What do you do that‟s so useful other than firing people who do real
work and hiring office workers in their place and giving yourse lf more money and pay
rises? You fat-cat, self obsessed cooperate pawn!
                        THE RAINBOW EFFECT
        The have been many theories made to try and develop strategies for doing
successful business and in to understand the economy better, hell we‟ve even got
people with PhDs in theoretical physics and mathematics working on it. Yet there is
an upper limit to the amount of information we can know about the economy and how
accurately it may be predicted, this is due to its competitive nature. Imagine one
person developed a theory that predicted the laws of economics so accurately that it
would be possible to develop a strategy that would allow him to buy up the world.
Now imagine that another person reads his theories and they both decide to use this
strategy to buy up the world. This is a mutually exclusive scenario as it is impossible
for two people to buy up everything. Yet if the laws for economics which he
discovered held it should be possible for them to both simultaneously buy up the
world, the answer must be that by the very act of divulging his theory on the strategies
which people use to make money he has altered the laws of economics themselves as
both person A and person B will use their newfound knowledge to develop entirely
new and more successful economic strategies breaking their own laws and as more
people discover the this perfect theory describing the laws of economics the more the
laws themselves will be altered until the time comes when the whole economy has
evolved to the point that the laws are outdated and must be replaced by something
        This means that in many ways, developing a perfect theory of economics is
like chasing a rainbow. Business is a world of winners and losers and a theory that
allows people to win at the expense of others will not work if too many people catch
wind of it thus the financial adviser for the businessman is in many ways like the
medieval knight of old. You only need so many financial advisers in a company or
economists in a country trying to think of devious ways to out manoeuvre the
competition because the economists and financial advisers in the competition are
constantly thinking of devious ways to out manoeuvre you.
        Yet if we don‟t want people doing useless jobs rather we must find more
useful things for them to do instead, because unemployed people are not only useless
but a positive nuisance as many of them resort to crime and vandalism as a means of
passing away the idle hours, yes for every useless office worker which we fire, it is
essential to hire someone else who will do something more useful instead or else the
country will suffer. The problem is it is very hard to run a business which helps poor
people is that every business must make a profit to pay its worker with and it is the
people that are helped by the business that are generally the source of income and
poor people don‟t have much income to give. Another annoying thing is getting
funding for large scale projects that just help lots of people generally like nuclear
fusion programs or building wind power stations, or space programmes or good
transportation and infrastructure aswell as healthcare for poorer people. There is one
way and one way only to achieve all these things…tax. It is true that in a capita list
country with low tax you can always have charity organisations that help poor people,
the problem is you have to hire people to go from door to door to convince rich people
to give money to poor people, you end up getting these people being paid to sit around
tables “brainstorming” about how to organise the next fun charity event, these people
administrate themselves and thus are subject to the same onset of bureaucracy that
every self administering body is subject to, then you have to pay to run comme rcials
on television and put up posters of starving children. At the end of the day you get a
culture with lots of posters of starving people while the money you give is mostly
consumed in the process of convincing the next man to make the next donation. But
then that‟s much better than charging higher taxes thus collecting money by the
already established taxation system without the need of creating a second
bureaucracy, without the need to pay for charity events and infact resulting in the vast
majority of the funding actually reaching the people in need rather then on organising
more events and getting more time on television and hiring more people to convince
people to give money to charity and you know why non- governmental charity
organisation are better than pure and simple bilateral aid and social welfare within the
country? Because people get to feel good about choosing to give the money to charity.
Rather than the tax collector coming up to the rich man and saying “Pay your tax or
we‟ll charge you with tax evasion. This tax will go to help those that are poorer than
you.” The charity worker comes up and says “Oh please kind sir, spare a penny for
the poor, we‟d be ever so grateful” then when our rich friend takes a copper out of his
wallet the charity worker responds “Thank you, thank you so much you‟re ever so
generous, oh how I wish there were more kindly hearts like you around!” and if our
rich friend goes to a major charity event, he will not only be flattered by charity
workers but be seen by his rich friends giving money to charity and the women can
come up to him and say “My God you just donated and entire porsch to be bid for
charity you‟re so kind!” and he can reply “Well I am rolling in money what with
owning half of Saudi Arabia and all I‟m just doing what I can, you know, giving back
to the little people.” Yet when our wealthy philanthropist is all alone in the ballot box,
with no one to watch how he votes we all know he‟s going to vote conservative or
some pseudo-socialist party that won‟t tax his enormous income too much. After all if
he‟s taxed too much he won‟t have so much money to openly give away will he? On
the whole it is probably better to vote for a socialist party and pay your taxes than to
give your money to charity, vote ultra capitalist and then dodge the tiny tax your
given though ofcourse the man who votes socialist and then dodges his tax is the
lowest form of scum and the man who pays his tax and then also gives money to
charity is a king among men.
         Yet at the same time it is important not to go nuts when it comes to taxing rich
people because rich people generally make money via business ventures, and say for
example our rich friend decides that there is a one in five chance of a particular
venture paying off but if it does pay off he will probably get fifteen times more than
the original investment if the government taxes his profit at 75% a potentially
profitable venture is no longer worth taking, thus if a governing body is prepared to
tax wealthy people highly if a venture pays off then they should also be prepared to
give them money in order to reduce the loss if it doesn‟t or else initiative will be
         Now let us move away from the concept of making money and ask the
question “Why be so obsessed with making it in the first place?” Some people may
respond “Because you need money to survive.” Yet you also need oxygen to survive
and we don‟t obsess about breathing, the television is not filled with breathing
programmes giving us tips on how to breath more oxygen than a nyone else and we
don‟t obsess about how much air we have to breath in order to partake in a given
activity. By all means it is important to acquire enough money to survive and maybe
even to attain a reasonably high level of comfort so perhaps we should rephrase the
question as “Why are people so obsessed with making ever more money even beyond
all that they would reasonably require?” Firstly many people feel that money is a
quantitative measure of success. Yet if success is thought of in terms of evolutionary
success this is most certainly not the case. It is true that having lots of money will
enhance your ability to feed and clothe yourself and your family and all else being
equal a man with money has a greater chance of survival than a man without money
but money is certainly not proportional to fitness for there is a greater fitness
difference between someone who earn £200 a month and someone who earns £2000 a
month than between someone who earns £2000 a month and someone who earns
£200,000,000 pounds a month. (At least there is in a monogamous society) This is
basically because there is a certain threshold you reach when you have all the
necessities and after that all the rest (the luxuries) make bugger all difference to your
fitness and when you think about drugs, alcohol and cigars which many rich people
consume out of sheer boredom many of these luxuries have a positively detrimental
affect on our wealthy consumer. And even when you contemplate stuff like paintings
and antique chairs, middle class people can buy replicas that look exactly the same,
yet upper class people must pay hundreds of times more for the original. Again when
you talk about healthy or tasty food middle class can afford tasty food yet upper class
people will pay a hundred times more for food that only tastes slightly better. In many
cases when it comes to the things they buy, they are not actually buying something
better but merely something of the same quality at a more expensive price, basically
upper-class people repeatedly get ripped off by paying a hundred times more money
for goods that are only slightly better. The point here is not the actual enjoyment of
the goods themselves but simply to show everyone else that they can afford to buy
them. A subtle assertion of dominance and superiority to say to those around them
that I have attained a position which you cannot. So they buy hundreds of different
types of clothes more clothes than they could possibly need and the only reason they
need so many is to look better than those around them (this goes for the wearing of
clothes in all classes) infact if we all paid higher taxes and bought cheaper clothes we
would not be one bit less happy, it is not the cheapness of the clothes themselves that
make people feel bad but simply the fact that everyone else is wearing something
more expensive, yet entire industries concentrate on designing “better” clothes,
industries which might instead be focussing on making the manufacturing processes
less polluting or less labour intensive reducing the need for sweat shops in order to
out-do the competition. Yet any industry that does this will not make money because
the clothes they produce might not be as high in quality and anyone who buys them
will be jeered on by those around him for looking unfashionable and the environment
needlessly goes to pot. The same applies with furniture, a mahogany table is no better
at holding dishes on than a table made of pine perhaps it may last a bit longer but then
it costs a lot more aswell the real reason why people buy it is simply to say “Look at
me I can afford a mahogany table!” an because the people around go “Wow!”
mahogany tables are still bought and the rainforest continues to be destroyed. The
same applies to big car or cars in general verses public transport, one of the things
people like to pay the money that they don‟t pay in tax on is cars, yet if they paid
more tax the public transport system could be improved to the point where they would
no longer need to buy cars but instead would only have to occasio nally rent them for
going into country areas which are out of reach of the buses and trains. This would
mean inflicting far less damage upon the environment while at the same time leading
to no reduction in the standard of living as people could still travel wherever they
want. But ofcourse an economist would not see it that way because he measures the
standard of living on the amount of cars which people own. And people who don‟t
own cars all want cars because those who do own cars treat them in a smug,
patronising way and make them feel worthless. Thus society needlessly moves
towards making more pollution. When we think of the ozone layer a major source of
CFC‟s besides fridges were deodorant cans and sprays for insects, yet is it really that
much hassle to buy a fly- swatter instead? When we speak of deodorants people never
used to need such quantities of deodorants until the advertising companies told us that
our smell is intolerable, once upon a time someone could wash with soap and
shamelessly walk out into the outside world yet now he must spend yet more money
that could have been spend on projects to help the homeless or provide better housing
and water in some third world country on buying deodorants, perfume, makeup, hair-
gel, skin moisturiser, hair dye, plastic surgery simply so that she will not be insulted
not be made fun of and not made to feel small by those around her. If we consider the
adaptive advantage for a man to choose the most good- looking woman available we
can clearly see that it will raise his fitness yet there is no adaptive benefit in not
having sex with any woman because he believes that no one is good-looking enough
thus beauty is comparative so even if some was stuck on a desert island with the three
ugliest women in the world he would eventually marry one or more of them if there
was no one else available. So it may certainly be seen that although healthcare and
sanitation do indeed improve our quality of life make up, plastic surgery and a whole
range of other economic activities we spend vast amounts of money on that could
otherwise be spent on taxes have absolutely no effect and if they make the haves feel
“better about themselves” it is only because they make the have-nots feel worse. And
all this make up, all the tools to perform plastic surgery somewhere, all the big-cars,
all the skin- moisturisers and all the hair dye has been manufactured somewhere using
some large-scale industrial process that belches out all sorts of pollutants. Not only
must we take into account the resources needed to manufacture the makeup, hair-dye
etc. but also the resources needed to build the buildings and make the tool to make the
deodorant, big-cars, hair-dye, and also the resources that are needed to make the tool
and components that make the components that make the unnecessary products and
the resources needed to make the components and chemicals that are used to mine the
raw materials aswell as the resources needed to build the oil- tankers and lorries that
are needed to transport the materials needed to make the make-up deodorant cans, etc.
and the resources needed to build the systems that dispose of all this unnecessary junk
that we buy mainly for social status anyway, the extra coal power-stations that must
be build to supply the energy to power the industrial processes that make make- up,
deodorant, big cars etc. and the coal that must be mined to power the power stations
aswell as the fossil fuels that must be burnt to transport the coal to the power station to
supply the power and all to satisfy the whims of millions of image conscious
teenagers who want the best make up to make them look more beautiful than those
around them, who want the nicest smelling perfume and want to by big cars because
the public transport system is so shit and only poor losers use it anyway. And the
products of many of these processes are toxic to many species of wildlife while the
methods of getting at them from their primary resources destroys vast portions of
habitats, and yet people drink wine and beer rather than water when not only does its
production take vast portions of land that could otherwise be left in its primeval state
but also damages the health of the consumer, and why? Because we don‟t want to
seem like a pansy in front of our friends. And if you tell someone else you support
higher taxes they look at you in an odd way not just because higher taxes wouldn‟t
allow them to buy as much materials that could be used to raise their status among
those that they know but also because if they didn‟t show disapproval then those
around them might think that they themselves support higher taxes and they would
lose out big time from that because no one likes people who support higher taxes.
        And don‟t get me started on pocket money for teenagers, we use the money
which we would otherwise have spent on taxes, give it to the whining brat and what
do they spend it on? Violent amoral video games and videos, CD‟s to fill their mind
with rhyming bullshit and drain them of all desire to study or pursue avenues of
higher thought, drugs, guns, alcohol, cigarettes, knives, death I don‟t believe that
violent video games and CD‟s have all that negative an impact on their lives but the
other things mentioned certainly do, the really sad thing is that we channel vast
portions of our economy to produce these things when those same portions could be
used to build better housing, supply cleaner water, improve the public transport
system aswell as the health system and be given as grants to sporting clubs, boating
clubs, hiking clubs or bird-watching and astronomical societies.
        I know what your thinking, “Surely he‟s over exaggerating the amount of
damage that is unnecessarily inflicted upon the environment, every industry that exists
is necessary to us and the species that go extinct do so only because the alternative is
the death of humans or a massive reduction in our quality of life, besides if I start
agreeing with him everyone will think I‟m some kind of weirdo tree-hugger and I
might have to live in such a way that would be slightly less convenient to myself and
besides I work in a power-station or a clothes store and if people took what he said
seriously I might go out of a job as business would diminish. Imagine if I voted for
higher taxes and told my kids to get the bus rather than driving them, then I‟d be a
really unpopular dad and they might get mugged or killed” Yet one reason for the
high crime rate is because we are given this thirst for money and materials by society,
thus someone who is unemployed might be laughed at and called a loser by the very
people who are concerned about the rising crime for having bad dress sense and not
owning a car.
        Oh how easy it is to blame the “evil corporations” and “the system” for all our
problems while the innocent average Joe needlessly suffers. Yes how easy it is to
complain about rubbish dumps being built in our neighbourhood and then continue to
buy things with shiny packages and disposable paintbrushes and new gadgets while
throwing the old ones away, how easy it is too complain about how the government
doesn‟t care about the poor in the same breath as complaining about the latest rise in
taxes, how easy it is to complain about the evil faceless corporations building a new
power plant in some ideal location while at the same time leaving on the lights and
throwing away aluminium cans which take loads of electricity to produce rather than
recycling them. It is wrong to call these evil corporations faceless for they do indeed
have a face its just not one we care to mention or look at as it is the same face we see
in the mirror every day. Wind-power costs 7 pence per unit, power from fossil fuels
and nuclear energy costs 5 pence per unit, we could afford to pay seven pence per unit
and still survive, it is simply because when we choose an e lectric supplier we always
choose the cheapest and in the case of state subsidised or public electric suppliers they
always give you electricity mainly from fossil fuels and nuclear sources simply
because every time we vote for a government we always vote for the one that will tax
us the least. Thus when the people in the government start trying to replace fossil fuel
and nuclear energy with wind power they have to raise taxes and the moment they
raise taxes, even slightly they are out elected by someone who promises to lower them
and thus has to make cutbacks and supply the maximum electricity at the cheapest
price and who votes for them? YOU DO!!! Also even though wind energy is much
more environmentally friendly people don‟t want them built because they don‟t look
nice. Some claim that birds might fly into the windmills and die this is just a stupid
excuse that a bunch of moaning mingebags make, I suppose one way of promoting
wind power might be to bring in artists to paint the turbines with colours that are a
little bit more interesting than white but then there would probably be other fuckers
who would complain about that aswell.
          Yet in this day and age where culture no only does not admire acts of charity
and selflessness but positively condemns them as “commytalk” where the filthiest
greediest people are looked upon with admiration if not as role models than as
amusing characters. This is social inertia, a phenomenon where for every reformer, for
everyone who wants to change things for the better there is a vested interest to stop
him and bring him down. I can assure you that the only way for reform to be brought
about is for people to make a few sacrifices and not even very big ones aswell, if a
man can die for his country then surely we can reuse our p lastic bags, take the bus
instead of the car and place our bottles in the bottle-bank and recycle our cans and
tolerate slightly higher taxes for the sake of the future of the world.
          Many years ago some fuckhead called Adam Smith said that the government
should not interfere in any way whatsoever with private enterprise and that instead if
they just lay back everything would be hunky-dory that industries themselves would
supply the people with everything they could possibly demand and all in the name of
profit he used the metaphor of letting the waters find their own level to communicate
the fact that everything would work out just fine through no intervention whatsoever.
This is crap. The major flaw in all this is that demand is not just everybody who wants
a particular item but rather everyone who wants a particular item and has enough
money to buy it. Some guy in a shanty town in Lima can de mand a Mercedes Benz
until he‟s blue in the face but no private enterprise will supply it to him. This means in
the just sit back and let things sort themselves out economy it is more likely that the
peasant will be recruited for peanuts to build the car to supply some guy who is rich
yet previously could afford to buy said car as previously the workers that built it were
getting paid too much and what‟s with this waters finding their own level crap, do we
really want the waters to always find their own level? And if we do then why do we
build hydroelectric dams, dikes and canal locks? One things for sure if the
government doesn‟t intervene by placing preference on companies who
manufacturing processes emit less carbon dioxide or intervene by taxing people who
build inefficient cars and petrol aswell as subsidising companies that are trying to
develop better hydrogen powered or electrically powered cars and instead let the
“waters of the economy” find their own level then the waters of the oceans too will
find their own level and they‟ll be a good few meters above some of the most
populated areas on Earth.
         My view of the government‟s role is different, I don‟t there is anything
intrinsically wrong with private enterprise and to say everything should be owned by
the state is wrong aswell as it can lead to enormous bureaucracy, I think the
government should take a more active role than sitting back and only intervening in
an emergency aswell, as a stitch in time saves nine. My metaphor for the government
would be a gardener in a park where the park is the country the people who take walks
in it are the inhabitants and the companies are the plants. Quite simply the gardener
should be willing to intervene with the growth of the plants whenever doing so would
make the park more beautiful to walk in. He must always be willing to pull out the
weeds, to prune the hedges and to water and put compost on those little flowers that
are delicate yet beautiful and to feed the birds otherwise the country turns into an
overgrown mess, yes people can survive, but not as pleasantly, in the same way as
you can walk in an overgrown park where everything has got out of hand but it is not
so pleasant to do so. The government should feel that it is its duty to intervene in the
policies of private enterprise not only in an emergency but whenever it is moral to do
                                UNRESTRICTED TRADE
         Restricting trade by placing tariffs upon products from other countries often
leads to trade wars and hampers the economy for all so many would suppor t
completely unrestricted or free trade for everything, however, it is often the case that
the only free thing about free trade is what the worker in some third world back-water
are forced into working for. The root of the problem with totally unrestricted trade lies
with the fact that Joe Bloggs tends to buy that which is cheapest, so the company that
provides such products at the cheapest price tends to do best and outstrip the
competition, the best way to produce goods at a lower price is to pay the peop le that
produce them jackshit thus countries with the least considerate labour laws and the
lowest minimum wages tend to outdo countries with more progressive working
standards. In many cases when people buy the cheapest goods they are infact buying
their own unemployment or lower wages for themselves as the companies which have
high standards are outstripped by ruthless bastards and in desperation the same people
who buy cheap products from other countries who suddenly find the economy
mysteriously taking a turn for the worse vote for a government who will take the
necessary measures needed in order to breath life back into the economy even if it
involves lowering the minimum wage and the like.
         In conclusion I believe it is moral to impose tariffs on imports coming in from
countries that have poorer working conditions, lower minimum wages and spend less
on reducing the pollutants that come out of their factories as in the long term it will
lead to a better world having said that it is wrong to arbitrarily impose tariffs on any
import coming in from another country as all that will achieve is bad trade relations
on a global scale.
                                SOCIAL WELFARE
         If we wish to bring about a considerate society where people care about each
other we must have a certain commitment to providing high quality social welfare,
however the same money can be spent in more efficient or less efficient ways.
However regarding unemployment benefits it would probably be a better idea to
reduce the cost of living via high quality public services rather than simply throwing
money at unemployed people as many of them would tend to spend it on drink while
starving themselves half to death, also in a world where the government is always
eager to hire more workers in public services, and where night courses are readily
available, unemployed people should be able to rapidly find work or they might
choose to pass away the idle hours in some course learning a new skill or craft.
         Health should be free as to charge money for health is to punish people for
having a sickly disposition. This is practically eugenics. If morality is that which
promotes life, health and happiness then a free healthcare system which is readily
available for all is a must. If public healthcare in a given country is run badly and
inefficiently then it be rectified by whatever means are necessary, abandoning it for
private healthcare is not an option for it is extremely immoral as it involves leaving
poor people and people whose operations cost more than their insurance is willing to
pay (the insurance company is, itself a further, unnecessary bureaucracy) out to die.
And when one considers how fickle chance can be and how a drug baron can acquire
vast amounts of wealth while a factory worker can be paid a pittance we can see that
these people most certainly do not deserve to die, though plastic surgery should be a
private enterprise. Euthanasia is a generally a bad thing as it leads to a devaluing of
life however I suppose if people were really unbearably sick they could put
themselves on a list so that if someone was dying for lack of a spare bed someone
who put themselves on the list could be asked to affirm their death wish and then put
down if the family agree so that the new person who needs the place could live, this is
an undesirable situation and one that should one that should only be resorted to if the
health service is under stress and if that is the case more funding should be dedicated
to it.
         One way perhaps, to make the healthcare system more efficient in otherwords
to make sure that as many people are cured per Euro spent on as possible might be to
introduce collective competition in the public sector.For example you might divide
the healthcare system up into for separate sections, one administering over Ulster, one
over Leincester, one over Connaught and one over Munster. At the end of the year the
performance of each section is assessed, for the province which cures the most people
per Euro spent, every employee and administrator in that section of the health service
would receive a10% higher salary than the mean wage, if a consultant usually earns
400,000 a year, if he was in the best performing province, he would receive 440,000 a
year, if a given secretary working in the health service usually earns 20,000 a year,
then if she serving in the best performing province, then she would earn 22,000 a
year. The second best performing province would receive 5% above the mean wage
here our consultant would earn 420,000 euros and our secretary would earn 21,000,
the second worst performing province would get 5% below the mean wage and the
worst performing province would be paid 10% below the mean wage, this should
stimulate innovation from within which hopefully to some extent, would lead to a
gradual increase in efficiency when it comes to the running of the health service.
Precisely how to quantitatively assess how to allocate browny points is a somewhat
complex matter which deserves some thought, but I think such performance
assessments are practical in the case of the health service, as the average survival rate
after an operation, the waiting time for an operation, the life-expectancy after an
operation, the amount of money going into that section, all these things are
quantifiable, regional competition might be effective for some (though not all) other
areas of the public sector. It might be effective when applied similarly to public
transport, it probably wouldn‟t be effective when applied to education as teachers
might dumb down the course so as to say “Oh look everyone in my class received an
A1!” and giving the students questionnaires to fill in on the satisfaction they got from
the course is a bit dodgy aswell as teachers who let their pupils smoke, drink and fight
might end up getting higher salaries than those who could keep order.
         Regional competition certainly should not be applied to the police force as we
don‟t want policemen competitively running around the place seeing who can throw
the most people in gaol.
                          HOUSING AND ARCHITECTURE
         In this case let us take the environment into account for housing estates cover
vast areas that could otherwise have been inhabited by a myriad of wild forest
creatures aswell as creatures from the meadows. It is true that some these creatures
live in housing estates aswell (especially gardens) and that in many cases the land
outside housing estates is used as farmland sprayed with pesticide in which these cute
critters cannot exist in either, but surely there is some third option. The general policy
sofar has been either to build large quantities of houses next to each other in suburban
areas or to build large quantities of flats next to each other in urban areas this
produces a somewhat claustrophobic feel as the inhabitants are surrounded on all
sides by other human beings and since flats are often built as cheaply as possible
simply to empty people from the slums they are often tiny, shitty boxy little things.
Firstly although perhaps the government should build council flats as a way of rapidly
housing people who are otherwise living in unbearable conditions there should be
another dimension to government spending: To build high quality flats at the top
range of the market using tax payers money, selling them to the highest bidder, and
using the money that is paid along with more taxpayers money to build more high
quality flats at the top range of the market and so the cycle continues, because of the
constant influx of taxpayers money the houses don‟t have to be sold at a profit and so
housing prices will drop. This works well for poorer people as they simply inhabit the
houses and flats that the richer people have left and sold at a loss in order to buy,
along with their savings, the high quality government built houses. Thus there is a
constant increase, not only in the availability of housing, but also in its quality and as
the building companies realise that there is a good market for high quality flats they
employ engineers and architects to design such flats, any engineer or architect that can
design big high quality flats at the same standard yet at a marginally lower production
cost will make that building company more successful. Thus not only does the quality
of residences gradually increase but the costs involved in producing high quality
residences gradually goes down as advancement is made in the field.
         Now back to the environment, we‟ve agreed to build lots of high quality flats
at the top of the market, the question now comes how do we arrange them? Stacking
them close together gives a rather claustrophobic feel and generally the land outside
the city, if not used, will be used for agriculture and so the poor little hedgehogs,
stoats, badgers and hares will be shot as vermin and the surplus agricultural produce
which is paid for via subsidising farmers will be stored in giant freezers somewhere
never to be touched until it gets too old and then it is thrown away either that or it is
exported to somewhere where it will put the local farmers over there out of business.
I‟m not saying farmers should not be subsidised for then farms would go to waste and
we would import our food from outside and the economy would thus be drained. I am
saying that we don‟t want to leave the land area that is saved by building flats instead
of houses for agriculture. This is what should be done. You buy a certain quantity of
land, you calculate how many people would be housed if a housing estate was built
there, you house that many people only by building tall high quality flats instead, and
you turn the rest of the area into parkland gardens and woodland. You could build a
children‟s playground on the extra space, aswell as a football pitch or a beer garden,
you would hire a few gardeners to keep the parkland and flower beds up but you
would also leave some woodland and meadow for wildlife, you would also have some
common land, areas where the residents who are interested in horticulture to grow
their own vegetables or flowers if they preferred, on the roofs of the flats you could
have a greenhouse or solar-voltaic cells or solar heating and you might even be able to
fit in the odd windmill to further reduce energy costs. The great thing about wind
power is that unlike solar power the energy collecting area is perpendicular to the
ground so that wind-power over shadows far less plants for a given amount of energy
produced. Also along the walls of the flats you could grow vines while individual
people could grow whatever they want on the balcony and car-parks would be
         This brings me to the question of architecture in general. When we compare
the cathedrals, palaces and coliseums of old with the buildings of today we can see a
distinct drop in aesthetic beauty. Yes certain prize-winning bridges are more striking
and other buildings such as the Sydney opera house are possibly more striking to the
eyes from afar than many buildings which the ancients produced but all of them lack
an intricacy, an attention to detail which the architects of the past once had. When we
see a modern prize-winning building from afar we are amazed and awestruck that
such an interesting shape could be produced on so grand a scale, yet as we approach
all that is left to see is smooth surfaces and corners unlike the grand buildings of old
no modern building produces fascination and interest after a few sightings. The reason
for this is mass production, we can produce one very large shape or lots of little
identical small things very cheaply but it costs a lot more to produce lots small shapes
with each one slightly different from the last. In days gone b y all this work was done
by hand, each individual brick was made by hand and the cost of making one brick or
stone slightly different for aesthetic purposes was negligible so if an architect received
a grant to design a colossal building he felt he may aswell pay attention to the finest of
details as it would lead to everything looking more pleasing to the eye and the
increase in cost would be negligible, thus we see buildings with a different flower
carved in stone at intervals and rows of different paintings. These days it cost enough
to get an artist to stick half a cow in formaldehyde or throw a bucket of paint on a
large white piece of paper, imagine the phenomenal cost of getting skilled artists to
spend months on a single painting, the reason this was done in the olden days was that
building was more labour intensive so it was often almost more expensive to build the
wall than the painting and people were eager to have the valuable wall space filled
with the most exquisite paintings that money could buy.
         The question must now be posed is it possible to mass produce detail and
beauty rather than to continue to show contempt against nature and the past and
produce instead flat surfaces of concrete with very little detail and throwing metal
rods and planks of wood in the middle of parks and calling them art. In my opinion
the best way to mass produce beauty is by using life as a major aesthetic part of
modern architecture, a single flower will produce many seeds and when you plant a
given seed you will more or less know what kind of plant will emerge but each one
will come out slightly differently. Is there any reason why gardens cannot be placed
on the rooftops of factories? Or offices for that matter? Must we really deny nature all
this space in which to exist when the creative architect, subsidised by the government
to cover for any increase cost above its more utilitarian form, is well capable of
designing such structures. Is the any reason why our roads and motorways cannot
have a semi-tubular open framework covering them on which hanging plants or vines
could grow or there could be a grassy verge on every footpath. Yes this would indeed
cost a bit more money, but it would also provide more jobs and might stop all those
needlessly numerous office workers stuck in their cubicles from going mad and
killing everyone, and instead get them out into the fresh air to do real work that would
make the world more beautiful and wildlife- friendly.
                                 PUBLIC TRANSPORT
         Bus and rail should be 100% funded by the tax-payer. Consider the job of the
bus conductor the ticket, inspector these are people we pay to make sure that we are
paying our fares. Consider the cost of building ticket machines or those gates you
have to insert your ticket into before being allowed to pass not to mention the
industries that are paid to produce tickets the waste of paper and cardboard, the waste
of chemicals used to produce the paper and cardboard for the tickets that are used and
then thrown away and quite simply the cues caused by people buying tickets, waiting
to get past the gates by inserting their tickets one after another, showing their tickets
to the inspectors before leaving the station and in the case of the bus it does infact take
a good few minutes for everyone to pay for their individual tickets at each stop and
there are a lot of stops. All this could be avoided with a public transport system that is
100% funded by taxes, the money that would otherwise be used to build ticket
machines could be used to buy engines and the people who would otherwise be ticket
inspectors and ticket sellers could be mechanics and drivers for the trains and buses or
janitors to keep the stations clean and if there was any trouble on a given line you
might have the money to employ a proper policeman to keep his eyes open for crime
rather than someone who is only there to make sure that people pay for their tickets
queuing would be reduced and thus travel time could also be reduced and if bus aras
insists upon only giving change in the form of paper slips then you shouldn‟t have to
go to their headquarters to change it to money, instead you should be allowed to put
the change slip in the same place you put your cash when buying a ticket and it should
be discounted off you fare for that journey.
         But the advantages of 100% tax funded transport don‟t stop there. By making
it absolutely free more people are likely to use it for a given journey, thus in a given
residential area, a greater proportion of the population are likely to use it regularly,
this means there would be a lower critical density of population needed along the
routes to make the service worthwhile and more routes could be feasible. The
effective servicing area of a given station might be further increased by providing
places to park your bicycle at each station aswell as places to rent a bicycle, it might
provide a further incentive to car commuters if the people who lent the bicycles out
were also paid for by the state so that they would only take a deposit for the bicycles
and charge nothing. You could go one step further still and provide everyone with a
free bicycle paid for by their taxes.
         I‟m not so sure the same advantages apply to boats or planes, for a start queues
would not be reduced as much what with the fact that people check for weapons and
drugs aswell as smuggling other things aboard aswell anyway, in the case of planes
getting from point A to point B takes gallons of fuel and there is no real
environmental gain from making it more accessible and if every plane journey was
free people would be queuing up from all over to avail of the facility, this would
provide pressure on the industry to produce loads of planes, place an unacceptable
burden on the taxpayer, and probably make air travel considerably less safe as less
time would be put into checking the individual planes, hence in the case of air travel
and probably sea travel aswell, things are probably best left to private interests.
                         FOREIGN AID AND THE THIRD WORLD
         The fact that we take advantage of many developing countries trade-wise is
another example of how we seem to feel that in order for us to be wealthy and enjoy
ourselves someone else has to suffer. Certain right wing economists fear that if the
developing countries became richer the price of bananas might go up and the “quality
of life” of the citizens in the first world might suffer. It is true that the price of
bananas might indeed go up, but in that case people in the developed nations would
simply buy more apples which would become bigger business to grow and infact
provide more jobs in the first world. There are many items of clothing which require
labour intensive methods to produce and can be produced more economically in
sweat-shops in the third world however if the third world was richer and labour prices
rose we would simply by less of those items of clothing and more items of clothing
that could be mainly produced by machine, there would also be an increased pressure
on science and engineering to design production methods that require less labour to
produce a given item of clothing, the same applies to toys and the like, when we speak
of mining perhaps there would be a slight bias towards countries with greater
resources however with better standards of living and the higher labour costs that
come with it, soon poorer countries with less resources would find it economically
feasible to mine them as their value would rise as the cost of production increases in
the countries that have become rich from mining them. Also a major reason why some
people are so fanatically nationalistic and obsessed with keeping the wealth in the
particular area of land in which they were born is because many of these third world
countries have high crime rates and poor public amenities, yet if a major effort was
made to bring them up to the standard of the developing countries then they would no
longer be such unpleasant places to live and in a united world people would not be so
nationalistic as they could simply travel to wherever employment was available. Thus
foreign aid and global justice is to everyone‟s long term advantage as it will
ultimately make vast tracks of land which your average first worlder would consider
to be a shithole, habitable aswell as eliminating areas in which major drug and gun
production takes place which leads to crime in the developed nations.
         Another advantage of creating a fair and unified world would be that the
poorer countries would be less desperate for money as they would not be poor and
their governments would be more inclined to listen if enviro nmentalists asked them to
stop chopping down such and such a forest or to stop killing such and such an animal
as it is on the brink of extinction.
         Again as we speak there is a major problem in the way in which we evaluate
the success of a country, aswell as of an individual in that we are fiercely competitive,
we always hear about the top ten richest countries, the top ten richest men etc., etc.,
and we think that as long as we are still in the top ten or have risen through it that our
governments are doing well, instead as a means of evaluating the success of a country
we should place more emphasis on the murder rates, the average life expectancy, the
number of people that die from disease, rates of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, smoking,
ecological diversity and field record in conservation, scientific progress and
achievements in the space programme and we should not compare ourselves with the
countries around us but rather with past statistics in our own country.
         So this is where unrestricted capitalism has brought us, to a world where
everyone wants to look as rich as possible for the minimum price, where the best paid
jobs are useless jobs in offices where people slowly go mad in cubicles performing
tiresome unnecessary paper-work, where there are far more people working in offices
than our actually needed yet more people are being employed in these activities than
ever before. Where we provide jobs for people in complaints departments so that little
Lucy can complain to her mummy that her new Nike shoes aren‟t properly sowed up
at the soles and her mummy can then ring the complaints department where someone
is being paid to take complains and threaten to get a lawyer to sue the company if she
doesn‟t get compensation for the trauma of the disappointment her daughter suffered
so that a few days later in some Nike factory in Afghanistan Marcus the operating
manager receives a phone call that production is going down and that make 239 was
not properly sowed up. Taking his whip from his belt he gives a random sample of
workers a terrible lashing while shouting “WORK HARDER!!” then he finds the man
who was sowing make 239 and asks “And what were you doing instead of sowing
our poor worker responds with a trembling lip “I-I‟m sorry sir, its just I have arthritis
in all my fingers which are horribly swollen as you can see so it hurts me awful bad
when I sow just give me a day‟s rest I‟ll do everything I can to recover.” To which
Marcus responds “I‟ll give you a rest all right A PERMANENT ONE NOW MOVE
place of labour!” to which the poor worker responds “I don‟t think your being very
fair” to which Marcus responds mockingly “Oh what are you go ing to do about it?
Sue me? AH HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!” and with that throws the poor fellow out
and leaves him to die on the street a few days later.
          Now comes the most important question how does a country become richer or
poorer? Firstly wealth has a lot less to do with the resources or landscape of a country
than some people think, this is obvious if we consider drawing a comparison between
Japan and many of these African countries with diamonds and gemstones. All you
need for a country to prosper is resources and people who are willing and able to work
with them the trick is not necessarily have a vast quantity of resources but instead to
have inside the country, people with the mindset of cooperating and making the best
of what they have. Education is paramount to wealth as without a skilled workforce
the money will gradually slip away, the second important thing you need for real
wealth is cooperation, many of the poorer countries in the world are very tribal
societies where separate tribes either refuse to work together or wage all out war on
each other, all the charity in the world won‟t work so long as people hate each other
and as long as tribalism remains persistent all that good can ever do it mop up after
evil. It is this tribalism that many vested interest subtly take advantage of and
sometimes even seek to maintain. The leaders of many poorer countries don‟t put
nearly enough effort into educating the populace and in cases where they do put a
high priority on education we shall probably soon see an improvement in the
economy. Yet there is another great force that keeps the rich, rich and the poor, poor
the free market and the nature of how we think about money.
          Yes the banks and businesses of the world maintain the charade of money and
value, you probably could not really pin the blame for would poverty on any one
person but instead you might call it the capitalist mindform or the sum of human
greed. Anyway in the world we live in the mindform tries to fool us into believing that
money is proportional to fitness and if you don‟t make money you‟re finished. It
exists not only through the hope of wealth but also through the fear of poverty and
like the boogy man the more we believe it, the more real it becomes and this is what
fucks up economies because it causes us all to believe that a job is only worth doing if
you are getting paid for it and that the only thing worth doing in life is that which
makes you money, so when people stop getting paid, they stop working and emigrate
to somewhere where work is available and many skilled workers in the poorer
countries will leave them for jobs elsewhere. When I said all you need is resources
and people willing to work to prosper I was right, but in this capitalist indoctrinated
money obsessed work the only thing many people are willing to work for is money
and thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Only when a general attitude a
caring and looking out for all humans has truly spread across the world can poverty be
cured, until then no –ism that can be devised will ever sort it out.
         I have already mentioned the environment during this chapter but only in the
context of other things, now let us beg to ask the question, why preserve it. Well,
firstly, a wide range of chemicals with interesting properties that could never have
been predicted otherwise are present in nature and can be used for all sorts of things
from antibiotics to glue, when discussing food there are many species of animals and
plants out there which might someday be domesticated and used to provide a wider
range of foods to eat also there are many genes contained in wildlife that can be used
in order to enhance the crops we already have i.e. making them more resistant to pests
or more robust or to give a larger crop via genetic engineering, but possibly most
important of all nature is beautiful, in a forest there is so much to explore and learn
about the animals and plants. It can clearly be seen then that preserving the
biodiversity of the planet is essential and fundamentally moral as it will indeed lead to
a greater degree of life, health and happiness, every animal every plant is an
opportunity to learn something new, maybe to do with pest control, maybe to do with
health, maybe to acquire the formula of some new and useful chemical or maybe
simply to learn something new and interesting, as natural selection tends to produce
forms which are infinitely complex down to the tiniest detail we can never say we
have learnt all we‟re going to ever learn about a single species let alone a whole
ecosystem. You might argue that the pests themselves which we are trying to control
also come from nature. But the reason that they are pests in the first place is linked to
the very fact that they are robust creatures that are hard to destroy, the same thing
applies to disease, in general creatures that are on the verge of extinction are the very
same creatures which pose the least threat to humanity as in general if they ever
reached a point where they became common enough to become a pest they could
easily be culled back simply because if we‟ve done it before we can do it again.
         As we speak we are living very inefficiently and wastefully, this is because
most modern economies heavily rely on materials in order to spread wealth, an
industry that produces things that are disposable will stay in business longer than an
industry that does not as there is a more constant demand for its products from the
people that have used them up and need new ones. If we mo ve away from a
disposable culture filled with office workers and image conscious people who not
only buy disposable versions of the things which they need but also buy lots of things
that they don‟t need simply as status symbols we will need an entirely ne w means of
spreading the wealth as otherwise it will lead to a massive reduction of jobs and this
will lead to recession and poverty as although theoretically we could organise
ourselves in such a way that people only buy that which they need and workers
produce this bare minimum for all of humanity while the rest of humanity quietly
make daisy chains and feeds the ducks in reality the workers are going to wonder why
it is they are slogging it out all day while everyone else is slacking and they are only
going to give food to those that can pay them. Then all the slackers would starve and
we would be looking at a recession, it is indeed true that conservation work does
provide some jobs but these aren‟t really enough to keep everyone occupied and it
would probably do more harm than good to make billions of people ecologists and
have them all go marching into the countryside trampling on the flowers catching
trillions of animals and tagging them and generally upsetting nature, not that
monitoring the environment is a bad thing, infact it is generally good to get early
warnings of problems, my point is there are only so many people you can employ to
do it before you start doing more harm than good and that number is far too few to fill
the labour gap produced by a less material hungry economy.
         Anyway, lets change the subject from not demanding so many useless thing to
how to produce the same useless thing with less cost to the environment. Infact this
itself would provide more jobs and thus help to fill the hypothetical labour gap. The
government should not expect filthy money obsessed industry to care too much about
limiting pollution, instead it should be willing to either tax industries that produce too
much waste or not allow them to be set up in the first place, give subsidies to
industries that are producing comparatively little pollution per product manufactured,
give monetary awards to engineers that come up with new designs for factories and
facilities that can produce less pollution per product made or pe r watt of electricity
produced or output or whatever and be willing to pay the difference in cost to
companies that choose the more expensive environmentally friendly design over the
cheaper, more polluting design. There should also be monetary awards give n for
better more practical designs for hydrogen powered cars and various products which
are themselves less polluting and tax-breaks given to companies that produce them.
You may say that this would take a toll on the economy and would lead countries that
take these policies up to be out-competed by those that don‟t, but this will not be so
much the case if tariffs are put on products coming in from abroad that are produced
in a more polluting way. Thus we can provided everyone with what they need with a
bit of extra luxury without doing too much damage to the environment, governments
should always be willing to create new wildlife reserves wherever it is feasible to do
so. It would probably also be a good idea to place footpaths through them and hides in
them to maintain public enthusiasm.
         Mahatma Ghandi once said that there was enough on earth to meet all of
man‟s need but not all of man‟s greed. Well when this was first said there was indeed
enough to do just that, as we speak there is still enough to meet all of our needs but if
the population continues to grow there will eventually come a time where the
population of the world exceeds the maximum capability of the planet to feed it. This
is inevitable simply because mankinds ability to increase in number is infinite given
an infinite quantity of time while there is a finite rate at which energy from the sun
falls on the earth, this means that there is an upper limit on the amount of food that
plant and animals are capable of producing and as long as we remain on earth no
amount of scientific progress will allow us to exceed that upper limit, quite how far
we can possibly go before this is reached or what exactly is the maximum population
the planet can sustain is impossible to be sure of especially since we have no idea
what agricultural advances will bring, but one way or another our population will hit it
sooner or later and that is for certain.
         Some hippies and beatnicks get annoyed at advancement, say that it causes a
great deal of pollution and damage to nature and think that we should go back to the
ways our ancestors used to live because they managed to do a lot less damage to the
environment and they got by didn‟t they? At first it seems incomprehensible why t he
people of past ages could exist in harmony with nature while present day man does
whole orders of magnitude more damage than any of his previous ancestors. The fact
is that human beings have always put their own personal lives above all else unless
their culture can somehow tell them to do otherwise, so when a mother sees her child
dying of some disease she will always buy the medicine in order to save his/her live
regardless of any small damage the environment might sustain but with billions of
parents all doing the same thing the problem might become more significant, any
people who have suffered famine will do whatever it takes to make sure it does not
happen again and through out the world we see the members of isolated tribes
gradually taking the medicine from the anthropologists and using mosquito nets and
the like if it should prove to reduce the death rate or increase comfort . The reason we
cannot go back to how we originally lived is because there are too many of us to be
fed by hunter- gathering techniques, there simply isn‟t enough food to be got by that
method, and although organic farming might theoretically be able to feed the world
people will tend to buy the cheaper food so that there will be more money left for
medicine and the like, we should not gratuitously abandon science and try to go back
to the old ways as to attempt it would be like trying to fit a fully grown hen back into
an eggshell, the population of the world is simply too big. Science is the only way
forward although it is extremely important not to be lulled into a false sense of
security by the word progress and it is important to keep tabs on development to make
sure it takes place in the right direction.
         Survival of the fittest does not really mean survival of the strongest or of the
most intelligent, but simply survival of those most capable of surviving, its not some
mysterious mystical process, infact, it‟s childishly simply, those that are inherently
more capable of surviving in a given environment will tend to survive in a given
environment, those that are inherently more capable of reproducing in a given
environment will tend to become more common. Thus in a world where there are
rational and persuasive arguments against having large quantities of children, rational
people will tend to become rarer while those who don‟t listen to rational though but
are instead overcome by the need to breed will become commoner, natural selection
has not stopped with our species it is true that strength or intelligent or even resistance
to disease is not as adaptive as it once was what with healthcare and all but as long as
certain genetically inherited characteristics cause their possessors to breed slightly
more than those that don‟t have them are around natural selection will continue to
take place. It might favour the people who have an inherent tendency to prefer sex
without contraception, it might favour those who get drunk and forget about the whole
thing or it might favour those that don‟t give a shit about their career and fall into the
less well-paid brackets we cannot tell precisely which genes convey an inherently
greater tendency to breed than the others but you can be sure that whatever ones they
are, they will become commoner. I do not look to statistics to confirm this as, at the
end of the day, at the moment the amount people breed is very strongly linked to the
culture and lifestyles of people and not to genes at all but then even in the countries
with the lowest birth-rates there are people with big families, sometimes this might be
due to the environment, sometimes this might be due to genes mostly it will probably
be due to a highly complex combination of the two but, nonetheless even if it is in the
most vaguely statistical way with an impossibly complex explanation those whose
genes for whatever reason make them slightly more likely to choose to have larger
families during their lifetime will tend to become more common than those that don‟t,
although it is true that families have progressively become smaller for the past
hundred years, they have only become really small (two children or less) a matter of
decades ago so evolution has not yet had time to have a marked effect on this trend
but there is every reason to suspect that sooner or later it will.
         But there is also another reason to suppose that the population explosion is
unavoidable and its explanation instead lies with mindforms. Although meme
propagation does not rely on the host itself breeding as strongly it and that is one of
the reasons why there is a decrease in birthrates in many developed countries the fact
that children are the most easily indoctrinated by their parents means that there are
considerable advantages to any mindform such as a religion, which would contain
certain doctrines in it that would tend to give the host a greater chance of deciding to
have a large family as many of the children would also be indoctrinated with this
mindform, what is more a partnership might develop between genes and memes such
that a given gene might have a slightly higher tendency to accept a meme that would
allow it to have bigger families, and not only would the children be indoctrinated, but
they would also contain the genes of their parents that give them a tendency to
become indoctrinated, and thus birthrates may go up again, as things stand what‟s
happening is that countries with cultures that tend to breed more immigrate into
countries with cultures that tend to breed less. It is true that some who immigrate into
the new country take on the culture of the inhabitants and have smaller families than
they would normally have, but others do not while most would fall somewhere in the
middle. The natives themselves might eventually take on certain aspects of the culture
which the immigrants have and have somewhat larger families and again we see
genetic selection play a role as natives which do take on some of those memes for
whatever reason will become commoner while natives that don‟t will tend to become
rarer. Then there is yet another process that would tend to make the population
continue to grow and that is that those who don‟t agree with the rational arguments of
the culture will invent their own arguments for breeding as much as they do and so as
those that breed more become more common memes which encourage propagation
will tend to spread thus continuing the population explosion.
         Looking at it from a different point of view it may be true that perhaps by
having a low birth rate the economy of a country may improve as people have more
time to work and buy stuff which in turn generates more demand, but the people from
countries with bad economies and high birthrates will come in and work and the
people who are in the rich economy will invite them in because they don‟t want to
perform the low paid hard yet necessary work but would rather work hard at high paid
useless jobs and thus maintain the booming economy of their country. In short where
there is food, hungry mouths will come to feed and although the population of the
poorer countries is indeed growing faster than that of richer countries. Statistics from
my CD-ROM atlas show that up to 1995 not a single country in the world had a
population that was declining, not even Japan, any holes in the economy produced by
a low birthrate are rapidly filled up by immigrants and as the economy is growing so
will its population and when we consider the labour that will be required to look after
our aging population, we can see that one way or another the population of the world
will continue to boom.
         If we consider that human activities end up consuming about 2% of the energy
from the sun reaching the ground and take into account that we do live wastefully and
inefficiently the maximum population of the Earth in my opinion, would be unlikely
to exceed 300 billion (it could be a good deal less ofcourse). If you consider that at the
beginning of the twentieth century the population was less than 2 billion and at the
end it was 6 billion it would not be unrealistic to assume that the population might
treble every century. Thus by 2100 it would be 18 billion by 2200 it would be 54
billion, by 2300 it would be 162 billion and by 2400 it would be 486 billion, this is a
vague poorly worked out estimate but I think it would probably be true to say that
before the year 3000 is reached the population will reach the point where there is
simply not enough food on Earth to feed them regardless of scientific progress.
         Although there is a limit to the amount of sunlight that falls on the Earth at any
given time this is only a fraction of the percentage that the sun gives out. If you
consider all the tiny rocks and moons and planets in space you will see that they
contain an almost limitless reserve of resources and living space, all we need is the
technology to mine them and chemical processes to turn them into useful materials, if
you consider the amount of energy that a massive array solar cells in low solar orbit
could collect you will see that we could collect more energy that we would possibly
need in the foreseeable future. This energy might be converted into anti- matter and
shipped to habitats where it is needed or it could simply be transported by a laser
beam and should significant advances in nuclear fusion be made then any piece of
rock containing ice or some other hydrogen containing compound could be habitable
with or without the laser beam of antimatter energy supply. The resources of the solar
system itself are so plentiful that by the time it takes us to have a population so big
that the energy flux from the sun can no longer sustain it (hundreds of thousands to
millions of years) we will almost certainly by then be able to take advantage of
interstellar travel. And the good news is that most of the stars in the galaxy are red
dwarfs which last for 200-300 billion years so you could place loads and loads of
habitats in their habitable zones and they would be good long after the our sun goes
nova. And given 200-300 billion years of scientific advancement who knows what we
might discover or be able to build such as a portal into a younger universe or even
many different younger universes. There‟s such a vast space out there to explore that
it‟s no wonder that we haven‟t been invaded by extra-terrestrial civilisations, they can
probably utilise enough materials and energy from the vast quantities out there that
they would see an invasion as a gratuitous act of malevolence that could serve no
purpose and would simply destroy some of the beauty and amazement which this
universe holds. Once we achieved this level of technological achievement we would
find that there is enough in the universe to satisfy all of man‟s need and all of man
greed with few things left to compete over, war and poverty as we know it would
assuredly be a thing of the past.
         Throughout prehistory and history up to the present day every city every farm
which man has built has destroyed the older lifeforms on Earth in one shape or form,
every patch of land where now stands a building there was once a forest or a meadow
yes, throughout our history we have been nothing but a burden to life and nature on
our planet. Environmentalism is simply damage control, it is not humanity helping
nature but mere reducing the damage it inflicts upon it, yes by taking the environment
into consideration we can greatly reduce the damage a given quantity of people inflict
on the life of our planet but this can only be taken so far for as the population itself
increases so will the damage we do to the ecosystem this is unavoidable past a certain
point, if left unchecked practically all the natural habitats on Earth will be transformed
into farmland to feed our hungry population not only will trillions of trillions of
species go extinct but entire orders and classes will disappear. However the space
programme (assuming the technology has matured) will not only eliminate mankind‟s
need to cover yet more areas of natural beauty with cityscape or farmland it will even
eventually allow our species to leave the Earth and perhaps only leave a small enough
population (10-100 million) to exist in harmony with nature, as caretakers of the
planet while the rest of mankind goes out to explore knew worlds, the space
programme will do more than that, it will allow civilisation to repay its great debt to
life and nature, for atlast we will allow the lifeforms with which we share the planet to
do something that they could never do without civilisation. We will confer upon them
the capacity to exist on other worlds for there is no reason there cannot be gardens,
parks, forests and meadows in our domed habitats and thus life, with the aid of
civilisation may be spread throughout the cosmos, this would be a noble cause indeed
as in time, life would adapt to the different gravity and local conditions of the habitat
in its own unique way and whole knew ecosystems would develop. Some might think
that once the cities have been built with their straight edges and corners that nothing
can remove mans blemish on the land. Nothing could be further from the truth for as
the lichens grow, as the wind and rain erodes, regularity is gradually lost and the
building itself becomes a thing of nature rather than of man as anyone who has seen a
long sunken shipwreck or ruin will agree. The fact that man once made it adds to,
rather than detracting from its wonder. And there is nothing to say that an abandoned
domed colony might someday resemble more a creation of nature rather than one of
man if left alone for long enough so that the forces of randomness and disorder might
be allowed to set in.
         There is ofcourse one major barrier to this future, the tremendous amount of
technological advance needed to accomplish it. However there is nothing to say that
these things cannot be accomplished because of any real physical limitations. At the
end of the day you might presume that the manpower needed for some of these
projects is unattainable yet starting from small beginnings as mechanisation sets in
machines will do most of the work and machines will build the machines and
computer and humans will manage these machines and as the technology becomes
more mature and the population expands creating a greater pool of potential workers
the construction of such things will become cheaper and cheaper until you will be able
to build a massive toroidal shaped habit with a diameter of 100 kilometres for the
price of a housing estate. In consideration of the advances made during the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries I would advise the reader not to underestimate our capacity for
technological advancement, infact we could even have, in the far future a whole series
of stellar system all cooperating with each other on massive projects for although
instantaneous transport is impossible what with the speed of light and all. With
quantum entanglement instantaneous communication is possible between two stellar
systems. All you need is a massive facility half- way between them, firing two very
intense beams of entangled photons towards a receiver in each system, if one of the
receivers polarises a photon in one solar system, the photon in the other solar system
will automatically polarise aswell on great thing about quantum entanglement is that
if one photon is absorbed by the interstellar medium then the other will disappear so
that all the photons that reach the transmitter in one solar system will reach the
receiver in the other. A somewhat more practical means of achieving instantaneous
communication between two solar systems without requiring such a tight or intense
beam would be to have a series of entangled photon beam sources and a relay of
transmitter receivers. Thus one transmitter in one system would polarise a photon but
the relay would not be in the other solar system but merely, perhaps a tenth of a light
year away, the signal would stimulate it to polarise a photon from a second entangled
beam it was receiving from a second facilities the corresponding relay would be a
tenth of a light year closer still to the destination thus a network of limitless range
could be constructed at a fairly high price, admittedly, that would allow instantaneous
communication between loads of different stellar systems allowing for the transfer of
ideas and mutual cooperation uniting humanity still closer together. You might think
that one challenge to the relay idea is the uncertainty principle as if the polarisation
the second relay sent off was an exact copy of the one received by the first and the
third an exact copy of the second the information would gradually be lost, this
problem can be overcome by considering every photon at forty- five degrees away
from the horizontal in either direction to be a zero and every photon at forty- five
degrees in either direction from the vertical to be a one. When a one is received the
relay attempts to polarise the transmitting photon exactly on the vertical or exactly on
the horizontal. The uncertainty principle can be further overcome by sending
information out in triplets or quintuplets so that if a zero is accidentally received
instead of a one it makes no difference so that if 11110 or 11100 is received by the
relay it instead emits 11111 and thus the error is negated.
         Don‟t be fooled by those jargon-splurting bastards who say “Well it all sounds
very nice but it just isn‟t economically feasible at the moment,” all economic
feasibility really entails is just one question; “Are enough people willing to make the
required sacrifices necessary in order to accomplish the task?” If the answer is yes
then the endeavour is economically feasible, if the answer is no then it is not.
Economic feasibility is not attained by piddling around with interest rates fiddling
around with bits of paper, it is attained by going out there and generating enthusiasm
for the project.
         If the problem is completely avoided then the most likely thing that will
happen as the population limit is reached is war. Hungry people are angry people, for
when people are hungry they tend to become more snappish and if someone is eating
something before their eyes they will tend to try and grab it from them. If the entire
globe became hungry then war after war would break out all over it tribes and
alliances would form this war would expand and will several centuries of nuclear
proliferation and the development of evermore deadly biological and chemical
weapons it would almost certainly be the end of the world. During the cold war there
were but two superpowers and it almost came down to nuclear war even then with the
Cuban missile crisis, imagine how hard it would be to avert a nuclear war with ten or
twenty nuclear powers constantly arguing with each other over land while making and
breaking alliances all at the same time always shifting loyalties trying to keep up a
strong image and intimidate each other into submission while terrorists from weird
cults who positively want to destroy the world so that the aliens will take them to their
planet as a reward are collecting money from their followers maybe e ven robbing
money or starting businesses and giving the profits to the cause and then using all this
money to buy biological, chemical and nuclear weapons from countries who need
money and don‟t care how they get it. What is more as technology advances, the price
of these weapons is likely to fall dramatically aswell. Yes hungry people are angry
people and angry people vote for angry leaders so not only are the people on the
ground who are starving liable to get more irrational but the leaders that they vote for
will also become more irrational at the diplomacy table. Thus world war will be
inevitable if it comes down to it. Even if the human race survives it will be pushed
back to the stone age, but not a stone age in a lush fertile planet with a wide variety of
plants and animals but instead a stone age with very little biodiversity where most of
the animals are extinct and where the landscape is covered with decaying buildings
radiation, diseases engineered to be deadly and the residue of chemical weapons.
Even more disturbing is the fact that there maybe no fossil fuels left for they will have
all been used up. When we consider that fossils fuels fuelled the industrial revolution,
were once the only practical source of electricity that allowed computers, particle
accelerators and a whole range of chemical processes that are needed to make
advanced materials and the like we can see that after the great war science might
never be able to retrace its steps and that we will never again have the chance to
acquire the technology needed to travel into space and instead will fester on our planet
like all the other species since the formation of the planet until we eventually go
extinct like all the rest. The population of bacteria on a plate of agar go through four
stages. Settling in(lag phase), exponential growth(log phase), levelling off(stationary
phase) and dying away(decline phase), once upon a time when we were just adapting
our civilisation to the planet we were kept in check by big cats disease and famine, as
technology increases our population is growing exponentially, but if we fail to find
new resources it will stabilise as disease starts to increase again, toxins and pollutants
build up in the planet and we wage war on each other, until eventually the pla net
Earth like a used up petri dish becomes so toxic and hostile to our existence that our
population will go into a declining phase that will result in our extinction or reduction
to a handful of individuals. Yet bacteria are not humans bacteria do not organise
themselves bacteria do not build spacecraft, bacteria cannot actively engage in agar
restoration projects and so we have a far greater chance of survival than those doomed
bacteria yet this can only be the case if we unite to this common goal if we rise up to
the leviathan tasks ahead and stretch our society in every conceivable direction in
order to accomplish them.
         There is, I suppose another alternative, we might all become more
materialistic, image conscious, petty and westernised in which case I would be wrong
about the population explosion being inevitable if it turns out that the capitalist
mindform is so strong, so robust that it can even overcome are deepest most inbuilt
nature and suppress mankind‟s urge to reproduce. There is only one wa y to
accomplish this ofcourse and that is to legalise drugs, nothing else could achieve that
result as only the through active chemical redesigning of our mind could the lifeforce
be suppressed in so many people at the same time, although I don‟t think we can be
overcome this easily I suppose that if enough people did drugs and spread their pro-
drug memes around that gradually more and more people would do take them and
have their minds in turn irrevocably altered pro-drug abuse so that the voices of those
against it are reduced to a whisper that all of mankind could be irrevocably pushed
into the pursuit of personal happiness above all else. Make no mistake with these
principals we would continue to be as wasteful and inefficient as we are today and the
environment would suffer. Selfishness and crime too would proliferate and the will to
live would gradually be overcome through drugs and television. I don‟t think this
would go on forever as sooner or later those that resist it would emerge victorious and
I do not share the widely held view by westerners that our culture is indeed best or
that it will unquestionably continue, I doubt the population explosion will stop and I
think the former case is far more likely.
         Oh how arrogant and vain we middle class first worlders have become as we
smugly look down on those who have large families and say “Oh those stupid poor
people! Haven‟t they heard of family planning? If they had less children then they
would have more money to buy things like fashionable clothes make up and mobile
phones, Oh well! I suppose they don‟t know any better.” Wrong! It is not they who
have not learnt but we who have forgotten our true nature, if you deprive a man of
hunger, thirst, pain, exhaustion and supply him with every one of his bodily needs the
moment he feels them if you make it so that he need never struggle then that man will
forget what he truly is or what he‟s truly here to do. Poor people who struggle every
day are constantly reminded of their lifeforce and thus gain the determination an
strength to persevere and then they wonder what its all for and they seek to leave a
legacy, that is why they have bigger families. It is not they who should be following
our example but rather we who should be following theirs then maybe there would be
less depression, drugs and suicide.
         There is an alternative to this even if the space programme is not fully mature
by the time the population limit is reached and that is gladiatorial combat. Although it
is generally immoral to kill people, if people are going to die anyway they may aswell
provide entertainment for others watching and this way they get a fighting chance to
live, gladiatorial combat would also tend to make the state and policeforce a lot more
popular than a clinically conducted human culling program while achieving the same
objectives and when you think about it, being cut down by a sword or being torn apart
by animals, even if it does take a few hours, is considerably more humane than slowly
starving to death. Also by keeping the population at the point where most people are
fed well enough to survive will also reduce the likelihood of war and a nuclear
apocalypse while maintaining some semblance of social order in the country.
However it must be conducted in a fair and constructive way.
         Here‟s how it would be done all the health services, government housing,
education and public transport would continue to be state run but there would be no
unemployment benefits, those who find that they cannot afford to buy food sign
themselves up for the ring. In every city and town of reasonable size an amphitheatre
would be built. Once they have been signed up for the ring they would be clothed, fed,
looked after and trained on how to use the weapons of the gladiator for two or three
months until the first fight came. Then they would go through a series of tournaments,
once they killed four other gladiators they would be set free and paid a sum of money
worth something in the region of $50,000. If they chose to stay as a master then for
each further tournament they fought in they would be paid whatever people would be
willing to pay them to see them fight, they would, ofcourse, be entitled to refuse at
this stage.
         Considering the fact that unemployed people may find themselves forced to
fight in the ring, it‟s only fair that criminals be sent to the ring however small the
crime they committed was. I think for the really bad crimes such as murder, rape,
drug-dealing, conspiring against the space program or forgetting to put cans in the
recycling bin and other crimes against the environment the punishment should be to
be fed to wild beasts while for the other crimes such as parking on a double- yellow
line upward the punishment should simply be to be signed into the ring along with all
the unemployed people with freedom being granted once said person has killed four
other gladiators. A great advantage of feeding humans to wild beasts is that it keeps
stocks of endangered species such as the big cats up without biting into the already
strained food supply which humans have. I think no matter how much our population
grows we should always leave somewhere between 20% and 40% of the planet in its
natural primeval environment, perhaps forty is a bit much to resort to gladiatorial
combat for but we should certainly not cultivate more that 80% of the land and no
cheating should be allowed like counting the Antarctic as that, no, a great bulk of
rainforest, temperate forest, marshes and grassland should be kept in their original
state. It is certainly moral to leave 20% uncultivated as in the biodiversity in those
areas could contain pest resistant genes or plants that may be cultivated to produce a
significant yield in arid areas or plants and animals that might be cultivated to produce
higher yields or ways of dealing with pests and disease etc., so infact to resort to
gladiatorial combat before obliterating all of nature would, in the long term, save lives
and it would be so entertaining aswell, you could have gladiators on motorbikes
wielding maces and crossbows or you could have your average sword and shield
tournament or nets and spears or people riding on the backs of horses with throwing
knives or on the backs of elephants with a machine gun in each hand. You could have
a tank without a canon whose sole purpose was to run people over or people flying
hang-gliders with flamer-throwers on their backs or car battles where gladiators would
stand on the roofs of cars and hop onto the car roofs of the enemy while cutting the
enemy down with their swords you could even have a handicapped league, after all its
not very fair to leave handicapped unemployed people to be slaughtered by healthy
ones. Although obviously the more healthy the combatant, the bigger the prize which
the winner should receive.
         Gladiatorial combat is ofcourse extremely immoral and a future in which it
exists would indeed be a bleak one although it is probably a better one than a future in
which the number of children which people can have is restricted by law. In order for
the species to retain its vitality there must be a process of birth and death during a
stage in which the population is stationary and to restrict the birth rate would truly be
a crime against our nature. Hopefully however it will never come down to that as the
process of colonising space should be long underway before the population limit is
reached. All these arguments for the space programme are all very well but are
unlikely to convince the man who only sees and cares about the short term advantage
of various actions and endeavours, the next sub section contains reasons why the
space programme is beneficial to an economy even in the short term.
         During war time unemployment levels are reduced to practically nothing and a
war can often pull a country out of an economic recession aswell as lowering crime-
rates. If we could understand how this can be achieved then perhaps we would be able
to maintain a stable prospering economy with full employment and a low crime-rate
without the need for hacking each other to pieces, in the case of war the advantages
our usually out-weighed by the disadvantages by whole orders of magnitude. The
reason full-employment can be achieved in times of war is because the army increases
in size, people see that they are serving a purpose that is useful to them and are
willing to pay them for it. The only limit to the size of the army is the size of the
population, this is because the bigger the army is the more likely the country is to win
the war and everyone in the country wants to win the war as the alternative is being
slaughtered and enslaved by the enemy. Thus even the wealthiest people are more
than willing to pay the wages of the soldiers as if they lose the enemy may well seize
their industries and take them for their own, so now we have a massive body of men
who are being paid rather like the office-workers but while many people moan about
there being too much office workers in times of war noone moans about there being
too much soldiers fighting for their country so everyone wants to hire more soldiers,
the soldiers themselves act as a source of demand and they might wish to live in
houses or use their salaries to buy cars and food thus employing farmers and
manufacturers and lets not forget the incredible demand for new and better weapons
placing an extreme demand on the arms manufacturers ship-builders employing many
workers and placing a great demand on science and engineering and infact during
times of war there is usually a flourish of new scientific discoveries compared with
the more plodding pace which science tends to advance during times of peace. This
fact alone should show us that people don‟t just spontaneously come up with scientific
discoveries but rather come up with them in response to desperately trying to solve a
problem, if noone wants to achieve anything, science will grind to a halt as there will
be no problems out there to think about. Thus the demands of war often lead to an
economic and scientific boom as everyone frenetically works together to slaughter the
enemy before they slaughter us. There is no great mystery to economic recession, it is
simply when everyone decides there is nothing to gain from working together while
economic boom occurs when people decide that they need to work together to
survive. The enigma which many philosophers and people in general are disgusted by
is the idea that if two countries are apathetic to each others existence and leave each
other be that they might both suffer a recession where people die on mass from
starvation and disease whereas if the two same countries decided to arm up to kill
each other, everyone inside those countries would suddenly be better fed as industry
prospered and crime would go down while the standard of the health service might
even increase, why do we need war to do this?
         The fact is we don‟t, any major endeavour which enough people perceive to be
ultimately to their advantage and are willing to pay for will provide employment and
allow the economy as a whole to prosper. If the culture is a highly religious one it
might be the building of churches, mosques or in the extreme case of Egypt pyramids.
Here you might think that it was only the extreme wealth of Egypt during this stage
that allowed it to undertake such a task, on the contrary, it was the building of these
great structures that made Egypt as wealthy as it was for when a traveller came into
Egypt he sees these massive structures and thinks god they must be wealthy to afford
all that! And when he sees all the little decorations made from gold he automatically
attributes greater value to them then he would to then he would to the decorations
from countries outside Egypt thus he is willing to pay more for them. He has not been
ripped off because when he goes abroad and shows his artefact to those far away and
tells them its from Egypt the consumer will think “From the land of the great
pyramids? Oh then it must be worth a lot!” and will pay more handsomely for it. The
act of building pyramid is not infact, a drain of the economy at all either but instead
serves to keep the wealth inside the country, although the Egyptians did have slaves it
is now thought that those who built the pyramids were infact skilled workers by
paying all these skilled workers money the skilled work ers themselves will spend that
money on things like food, housing, decorations for their houses and furniture which
in turn provide employment for farmers, builder, carpenter, craftsmen and artisans and
certainly in the case of the craftsmen and artisans, he who makes the finest product
will be able to sell it for more and as those who make less fine products will get
something because of the huge demand for them this encourages many people to have
a go at that activity and as the consumers are wealthy and discriminating regarding the
finesse of the product there is a huge incentive to make high quality products this in
turn means that outsiders will pay still more for a given Egyptian made item. Ofcourse
much of the economy of Egypt was to do with their overall unity a large gold mines.
         When people complain about high unemployment rates the question must be
posed O.K fine what do you want these people to work at? And in many ways the
space programme could greatly help that (especially in a society which is getting less
product hungry) aswell as contributing to the economy positively in many ways.
Firstly continual investment in the space programme should make the economy in
general more robust against a recession. Many people consider the space program to
be shooting money up into space, it is indeed true that the products themselves go up
into space but the people who make them keep their feet firmly on the ground, and
then they in turn go to the shops and buy things keeping shopkeepers employed etc.
etc. much like the office worker they satisfy the function of creating the demands that
drives the economy forward. And the probes and satellites that are made go on to
supply interesting information about cosmos aswell as potentially useful information
about Earth killing asteroids, a strong space programme will boost sales of popular
science literature and maybe even sales of toy spaceships. Another economic function
which the space programme serves is to build up a large reserve of skilled personnel.
It inspires people to go into science and engineering and also provides an economic
incentive for people to study it as there are lots of comfortable and interesting jobs in
the space programme thus more people will tend to study these subjects. The great
advantage of the space programme as compared to pyramid building is the fact that
there are so many different skills which will be required in it. Physicists to calculate
trajectories for those probes aswell as making faster computing power and calculating
the quantity of radiation in various zones and all sorts of other things, chemists to
build the materials necessary for the construction of more advanced spacecraft with
higher capabilities, engineers to design better hardware and the like and doctors to test
the effects of zero gravity on the human body there are many different tests that can
only be conducted in a zero- g environment which in turn provides more knowledge
for scientists, though ofcourse it is not just people with college degrees who will be
employed by this as more investment in the space program will boost the entire
aerospace industry. The thing is if there are no jobs in a given area, say the computer
industry is slow, then less people will study computers, if there are less jobs available
because the pharmaceutical industry has taken a turn for the worse then less people
will study pharmacy or chemistry. However by placing a constant demand on a wide
variety of skilled disciplines through investing in the space program you can ensure
that regardless of the amount of demand there is for a given product and the effect it
has on a given set of industries or the amount of jobs available for you currently if you
study such and such a subject, there will always be a place for your skills in the space
program thus a great reserve of skilled engineers and scientists can be built up and the
moment the economy picks up in a certain area the salaries for working in these
industries will rise and people will quit their jobs in the space programme and instead
work in these growing sectors. By having a reserve of skilled personnel already
available it will be possible to rapidly incorporate skilled labour into these growing
areas of the economy and allow them to advance without having to try and suddenly
provide incentive for people to study these subjects in university and waiting four
years for the labour demand to be met and when the economy quietens down in these
areas the skilled personnel can simply be reabsorbed into the space programme
without hanging around without a job for too long.
         The space program is also a relatively environmentally friendly way of filling
the labour gap because of its meticulous nature. An individual spacecraft does
ofcourse create far more pollution than an individual car, but then the same amount of
people that work on an individual spacecraft would not produce an individual car,
they would produce tens of thousands of cars and rather than being launched once
they would be driven over and over again. Some say that technology destroys jobs
because now it takes less people to complete a given task, I would rather think that
with technology the same amount of people may instead be employed to accomplish
more tasks, but in order for this to be the case we have to be ambitious and set
ourselves ambitious tasks. Some so people who want to sound all charitable and
benevolent say that the money would be better spent on social welfare, but although it
is important to take the welfare of people into account and to make society reasonably
compassionate what arbitrarily making large cuts in the space programme actually
involves is firing a bunch of scientists, engineers and welders, mechanics, computer
programmers etc. who are perfectly happily launching spacecrafts and finding the
activity interesting and enjoyable and instead pay them for doing nothing, not only in
that cruel but it does not make any economic sense either. Others say that before we
start trying to go into space we should explore the oceans clean up the planet and end
world poverty, well the best way to end world poverty is to provide good jobs for
people and trying to fire people who are happily working at something they enjoy
won‟t help anyone but ofcourse there are plenty of other things besides the space
programme that are important and we should work on all of them at the same time, the
fact is the world is full of people with different interests and rather than forcing
everyone who is interested in conservation, deep-sea exploration and space to work on
getting rid of world poverty from 2000-2010 and then forcing everyone who is
interested in charity, deep-sea exploration and the space programme into cleaning up
the planet between 2010-2020 and then forcing everyone who is interested in charity,
conservation and the space programme to go down in submersibles and explore the
seas between 2020-2030 and then forcing everyone who is interested in charity,
conservation and deep-sea exploration to build spaceships between 2030-2040, in
stead of doing this we should put money into all these things at the same time.
Mankind is at his greatest when he is at his most ambitious and we should aim to
provide a world where there are a wide range of opportunities to suite everyone‟s
interest and not maliciously let one area go to pot. And besides people are not as
productive when they are being forced into doing thing‟s they don‟t like because there
are no opportunities in the areas they are interested in.
         As a rule, the manned space programme tends to cost a lot more than the
unmanned one aswell as yielding less information about the planets and space per
dollar spent on it. Let us be quite frank, the manned space programme is not mainly to
do with learning about space, its main objective is learning how to live and work in
space and if we consider useful information to be information that will ultimately
boost our fitness, then information to do with finding out ways to best live in an
otherwise hostile terrain that is however rich in resources and could potentially satisfy
all our needs for food and living space for the rest of eternity if only we could turn
those resources into habitation. This information must surely be the most useful of all
and if we seriously believe that we might one day live in habitats scattered throughout
the solar system then every piece of information about the solar system is useful so in
that sense the manned space programme justifies the unmanned one by raising the
value of the information that it collects. Though ofcourse the manned spa ce
programme too has scientists up there running experiments in zero gravity and
humans are still more dexterous and flexible than robots in many ways.
         It is important that we don‟t place too much hope in progress in the manned
space programme coming from the private sector as, at the moment space is not really
a place for the tourist but rather it is for the pioneer, the man who is willing to push
himself to the limit in a strange and new frontier. It is I suppose possible that in the
near future there maybe craft that will take people on a parabolic trajectory from one
part of the Earth to another grazing space in the process people would be paying for
several things, the speed of travel, the experience of zero gravity and to see space out
the window this could conceivably be made economic but this is not really pushing
back the boundaries and exploring new worlds and although I would support growth
in this sector it would be a sad thing indeed to see it be restricted to that and nothing
else, the really exciting and important areas of the manned space programme need
government funding or they won‟t be able to develop at all.
         I believe that the next near term objectives of the manned space programme
should be to get a farm of some kind into low Earth orbit possibly attached to the
international space station and generally to either by adding to the international space
station or building a new one to create a space station that is to all intents and
purposes self sufficient without the need for re-supply though you would still service
it and take crewmen up and down and the like, the important thing is the principal of
it and mastering the technology needed to achieve it. In order to stretch mission
duration times without endangering the lives of the astronauts further the space
agencies should replace standard radiation limits with personalised radiation limits. It
is true that the same amount of radiation on a given mission will pass through two
different people but how that translates into a cancer risk depe nds on the body‟s
ability to correct mutations and on the leucocytes capacity to recognise cancerous
cells and eliminate them. Developing the technology to evaluate the ability of a given
individual to deal with cancerous cells or rectify mutations would a llow you to be able
to give personalised radiation limits, not only would this allow you to pick out
astronauts for long duration missions without leading to exposure to an unacceptable
risk to their lives but it would also allow you to find out those who are at greater risk
of developing cancer and not allowing them to remain in space for as long as you
otherwise would using a standard radiation limit system thus not exposing them to an
unacceptable risk either. At around the same time or a bit later I think we should
attempt to colonise the moon. Instead of building some great dome, you should send a
robot down there to dig a deep hole or find some natural cave (though I‟m not sure
how such a thing could form without erosion) under the surface the habitat will be
protected from micrometeorite hits and cosmic radiation so all that is required would
be something to hold in the air and be insulated from the cold, you would need little
more than a plastic bag to hold in the air and materials such as aero- gel have proven to
be very good insulators, this method will give an enormous quantity of living space
for the astronauts for very little payload. The airlock might have to weigh
considerably more. The important thing here is that the exposure of the astronauts to
cosmic radiation would be restricted to surface excursions. For lighting, you would
just stick a couple of solar cells outside the tunnel and attach them to leads the
electricity supplied could be used to grow plants as a food supplement in addition to
the food supplied by rockets from Earth. I think this would be easier than building a
space station at a lagrangian point as the exposure to the astronauts would be less. It
would also be a lot easier than a mission to mars as in order to accomplish that you
would have to be pretty sure you knew what you were talking about when it came to
long duration missions and the astronauts in some mission scenario‟s have to spend
months on the red planet. Also the great thing about colonising the moon it that the
abort option is going to be a lot closer at hand. If something goes wrong when your
halfway to mars your fucked because it will take months to years to get back to Earth,
if something goes wrong on the moon habitat you simply hop back onto the LEM and
you‟re back on Earth in a matter on days. In this day and age I‟m sure there‟s no need
to leave a crewman on the command module as I‟m sure that computers can handle
everything that needs handling. But digging a hole in the moon and sticking a plastic
bag containing people into it is not the limit of my vision no after that we could dig
more holes all over the moon and place more plastic bags inside them! Regarding
supplying the moon it could be done conventionally or it might be cheaper to stick the
supplies aboard a shuttle or the venture star and have them go into low Earth orbit
with them in low Earth orbit they could dock with some kind of orbital transfer
vehicle powered by one of those propulsion methods that are very efficient and long
lasting but only give a low acceleration (such as ion propulsion) the payload and the
orbital transfer vehicle would them transfer to a low lunar orbit over a period of
months or so and then would dock with a lunar lander. Inside the payload would be
enough fuel for the lunar lander to land and they take off and dock a few months later
with a further supply. This might be a bit cheaper then again it might not. An
alternative way to reduce costs might be to have an NTR for an upper stage. Although
nuclear power on a large scale is a bad thing this is because producing tons and tons
of radioactive waste is not worth a few pence off the electricity bill. Where nuclear
energy has advantages to the point that the capabilities of a machine are considerably
boosted such as a nuclear submarine or a nuclear thermal rocket. On the whole we
should not be deterred from using it in small quantities where there are marked
advantages in doing so, such as a substantially cheaper way of getting a given payload
to the moon.
         The long term objectives of the lunar colonisation programme should be to
make the colonies self sufficient and capable of using the resources of the moon itself
in order to expand eventually it may be possible to built a magnetic track on the moon
capable of cheaply accelerating components of spacecraft out to the langrangian
points where they can be put together for manned missions to the rest of the solar
system or you could construct large telescopes on the moon itself with extremely good
resolution on a scale that could not be sent into orbit. There is also helium-3 on the
moon which could be used as a fusion power source.
         As we move into the future our need for educated skilled people can only
increase all these dreams cannot be realised without a large well-trained workforce
which is what the next chapter is concerned with.

         In school and college we learn stuff but what exactly is it that we learn? By
playing a computer game you learn how to play it better yet do we have computer
game class? This chapter will deal with what we do learn and what we should learn.
Here we shall take a top down approach first discussing the nature of the subjects
taught in university and then discussing what should be taught in school for the person
who comes out with a degree must surely be considered the final product and we must
first ascertain the shape of the final product we want before deciding how to make it.
But before we begin it is important to note that although some types of information
may indeed be more useful than other types it is often impossible to be sure whether a
particular piece of information that has been newly found or discovered will or will
not be useful in the future. Sometimes a field that a first seems to be extremely useful
is made obsolete by some new theory or new evidence that has been brought to light
while in other instances little observations and facts that at first may seem irrelevant
may prove to be of the utmost importance, thus the best attitude to take it than the
accurate and careful acquisition of information by observation, study and analysis is
always a worthy pursuit and not one single field of study, however small, should be
totally ignored or devalued. Aswell as not knowing whether a piece of information is
useful or not I would also say that having a culture where people care about what is
really true and are willing to search for evidence to find out if this is so is a good
thing, thus even the most obscure field of academia performs a function if only to
promote the spirit of curiosity and analytical thought, although the method of
gathering evidence or backing up points varies greatly between art and indeed
between the individual subjects in science the pursuit of truth via rational argument
rather than dogma remains invariant throughout the academic subjects and where it
does not then those involved are not true academics. Logic and evidence is the only
non-violent way of resolving an argument, and any society with spirit of curiosity and
respect for the truth will undoubtedly achieve great things, thus it is important to
reemphasise that no field of academia should be stifled. Although at the end of the
day priorities must be made. So now I shall begin by discussing the use of the various
degrees and subjects.
         It is very important that we can all communicate with each other so language
is an important subject to teach, the fact that the most frequently spoken language is
usually the most useful one to learn will mean that for economic reasons the
governments of various countries will usually lean towards placing more emphasis on
teaching people it rather that ones which fewer people can speak this is not a bad
thing for by being able to communicate with each we can more easily cooperate,
understand, sympathise and help each other out. However for historical purposes and
perhaps cultural ones aswell it is important that we, as a species remember how to
speak every language otherwise whole tracts of primary source material and folklore
will be lost forever. It is also important however that we do not suppress the teaching
of a language for example, the best way to learn a language is through total immersion
and for that reason the Gaeltacht expels people who speak English, this is good
because otherwise people simply would not learn Irish and the exercise would be
useless. The case of the scoil lan Gaelige we are faced with a different situation
altogether while the Gaeltacht is only for three weeks children attend the scoil lan
Gaelige for their entire primary schooling yes, they teach English through English and
ofcourse those that come do infact speak English fluently but, they might not come
out with quite the same eloquence that someone who has done all his subjects through
English might have and to make it necessary to pass at ordinary level Irish in order to
get into say, a course in science, mathematics, philosophy or engineering in NUI
colleges is unnecessary, bound to make life harder for a few people who could to all
intents and purposes do well in those courses but who are woeful at Irish and at the
end of the day is a tribal act of hostility against English people. By all means lets
make it fun for people to learn Irish but lets not punish those that don‟t with less job
opportunities, to create an educational system that teaches those that go through it that
they are Irish and different from outsiders can only result in higher levels of
xenophobia and racism. This is merely a case in point.
         It is of great importance that we have an accurate account of what happened in
the past with documented and well founded evidence to support it. Otherwise we open
ourselves up to a 1984 scenario where leaders and various other vested interests have
it in their power to manipulate and reinterpret the past in whichever way suits them.
No archaeological dig must be banned, no truth should be suppressed instead those
who oppose the theories should themselves find more documented evidence and other
theories that better account for the evidence present and explain away any evidence
that apparently contradicts said theory. Probably the most important thing about
history is the way in which it is taught and our interpretation of it. Regardless of any
crimes which nations have committed we should never say that this shows that such
and such a tribe are “an evil people” or “a good people” or “an intelligent people” or
“a warlike people” or “a resourceful people” at the end of the day there are evil
individuals, good individuals, intelligent individuals, aggressive individuals and
resourceful individuals that have become that way through a mixture of genes and of
the environment. But when large collections of people display certain statistical
characteristics it is usually to do with the educational system and culture around at the
time. Humans are neither inherently good or evil, we all individually do what we can
to survive and reproduce, this has never changed and transcends race, religion , nation
and even the species itself as all form of life share this characte ristic with us. The trick
in interpreting history in a useful way is to find out how this inherent tendency of ours
can be channelled by memes to serve the purpose of good or evil.
         War is a significant part of our history, but it is not the only part a great deal of
the history course in primary and secondary school should be to do with helping the
pupils understand the process of discovery and invention, thus the history of science
and technology, be it how the pyramids were built, the designing of the ato m bomb or
the discovery of penicillin should be given a great deal of emphasis after all we don‟t
want to send them all out into the world with no knowledge outside how to hack each
other to pieces with swords. Also in this day of the multicultural society the history
course should be less centred on the nation and should be prepared to teach the history
of every part of the world. After all should we really force someone whose parent are
Chinese to learn and only learn the history of Ireland and if he should fail to learn this
then he will not get the points he needs in the Leaving Certificate to get into college
and further his career? Surely not! History should cover a wide variety of subjects
ranging from all around the world.
                                 RELIGIOUS STUDIES
         This should be a branch of psychology (although the rest of psychology is
indeed useful I can think of no worthwhile comments to make of it) and should be
held at the same importance or significance as disease research or pest control. It
should be concerned with studying religions, sects and cults, dissecting their belief
systems down to the finest detail, finding out how each of these particular mindforms
propagate themselves and in the case of the more dangerous ones taking the necessary
measures to eliminate them or keep them in check, though on the final point it must be
remembered that it should be done as morally and painlessly as possible and should
not be done unless the means assuredly and without a doubt, justify the end, the
general method of doing this should be to infiltrate the potentially dangerous cult or
sect with specialists who subtly go around trying to cause people to question their
faith. In otherwords spreading counter- memes about to reduce the following. I will
not dignify the subject of theology with a section, as it is useless and filled with lies.
And although perhaps there should be some trickle of state funding into theology
religions in general should have to fund themselves through church, mosque,
synagogue collections and the like and should not be funded by the tax-payer unless
certain meditative practices are generally accepted to promote health or that the moral
system is better than any other moral system available and without a doubt,
contributes to reducing the crime rate and generally promotes charitable behaviour,
because believing in one religion often eliminates the possiblity of believing in
another the religion that has demonstrably the most positive affect of all, morally
should get all the taxpayers money and all the rest should rely on donations unless
they affect health for the better.
        The basic memetic structure of the religion-sect-cult is simple it contains
memes that would be of great adaptive significance to the listener if they were true,
this can stimulate strange rituals and behavioural patterns. It contains memes that
warn the listener of the maladaptive repercussion of questioning the accuracy of these
memes or of a potentially adaptive result that would come from not questioning the
accuracy of the memes . It contains memes that instruct the believer to convince
others of the truth and accuracy of the mindform as he will be rewarded for doing so
and some of the worse ones contain memes that instruct the believers to actively
reward those believe the mindform and punish those that don‟t. At this point the
design of the religion-cult-sect is complete and it is ready to propagate itself.
        The chain letter often has a very similar structure. And they are often quite
affective at propagating themselves. This should prove to the reasonably open- minded
person that religions contain no fundamental truth.
        On the whole I would disapprove of any school that teaches religious
education to those that attend it in any sort of context that suggests that the doctrines it
preaches should be taken unquestioningly as fact. Although every school should have
classes which teach those that attend in some form of ethics or code of conduct that is
fundamentally moral each moral should be explained carefully to the children and
questions and debates on them should be openly encouraged.
        Philosophy has its good points and its bad points. Philosophy is infact the only
discipline that is capable of approaching morals from anything like a rational standing
point and that makes it useful and worthwhile and although I am not fully familiar
with logic I would presume it has its uses and might contribute to mathematics or
might do something like promoting a better, faster way of approaching various
problems however there are vast portions of the subject that are quite simply put, a
waste of time. It should be the aim of philosophy to become leaner, clearer and more
modernised in the future, also philosophers should learn things like science, politics
and economics as the primary job of philosophers should be to provide a moral
guiding voice and to discuss the ethical implications of various discoveries and
changes in the law aswell as business practice and they are going to need some
background information if they can hope to do that well. Now let us discuss to
opinions which certain philosophers hold which I don‟t agree with; existentialism and
        Perhaps existentialism is the wrong word but there are a number of
philosophers that believe reality is manufactured in the mind and some even believe
that we cannot trust our senses. This seems unlikely for if reality is indeed merely that
which the mind makes up the how can we ever experience surprise? How can a
scientist run an experiment believing that one outcome will result from it and then
find something completely unexpected in the analysis. Surely if reality is
manufactured in the mind then believing that a particular outcome will be perceived
should be enough to actually perceive such an outcome and such breakthroughs would
never occur.
        Consider how we learn the meaning of a word when we are young. Our
parents point to a cat and say “cat” we repeat the word and associate the animal we
see with a cat. We may later see a dog and say “cat” in which case our parents would
say shaking their heads “No dog” and then we would say “dog” our parents might
later point to something that is blue and say “blue” then we might point to something
that is red and say “blue” to which they would respond “No red” and then we would
say “red” our parents might point to a man running and say “man running” and then
we might point to a man walking and say “man running” to which they would respond
“No man walking”. The basic point is that in order to acquire an understanding of the
meaning of words we must be presented with examples where they do apply and
examples where they don‟t apply.
         Now consider the phrase “Nothing is real” if that is the case then the word real
can have no meaning as there is no example to which it applies. Or atleast the only
true meaning of real is that which nothing is so that the phrase becomes “Nothing is
that which nothing is” this is just plain obvious. If another philosopher should define
real as that which has true substance and then say “nothing is real” then this would
instead translate into “nothing is that which has true substance” but as nothing has
true substance assume nothing is real then the only definition of true substance is that
which nothing has so now the sentence would translate to “nothing is that which has
that which nothing has” which again is obvious.
          If we consider that reality is manufactured in the mind all that involves is
changing the definition of reality to “that which is manufactured in the mind” and so
on and so forth. Essentially the problem with philosophy is that when we come across
words like “intrinsic” and the like and we don‟t fully understand their meaning we
look them up in the dictionary which explains them in terms of simpler words whose
meanings we think we know but in reality don‟t fully understand. The problem with
the reader of philosophy books is that he assumes that the writer knows exactly what
he is talking about which is in reality not always the case. So philosophers spend quite
a long time arguing about the definition of words, this is pretty pointless because
words have no intrinsic definition (Hell even the word “intrinsic” has no intrinsic
definition!) and if you look up the same word in different dictionaries the definitions
they give, although similar will not be identical, the meaning of a word is only that
which everyone else believes its meaning to be, you could argue with my point but
that would only result in us disagree over the meaning of the word “meaning” and if
enough people agree with my interpretation of the word meaning then I would win
according to the initial assumption I have made. So there! The meaning of a word also
changes through time for example will in English means will while will in German
means want, the to words were originally the same but at some point in history the
English people and the German people began to interpret the meaning of what is
roughly the same sound, differently. This occurs in many instances between languages
that are closely related to each other.
         If you wanted to be nice to philosophers you could say that the brain is a
survival organ and all of language stuff with words and grammar is only a means of
creating a model of the world and life that will give us insight into which particular
kind of behaviour is the most adaptive at any given time be it adaptive in the short
term, the long term or the really long term and it simply is not structured in such a
way as to give us insight into these higher realms of thought. If you wanted to be
nasty to philosophers you might say to them that all we are is replicating machines
and that they are examples of particular replicating machines whose minds have
become stuck in a confused bundles of feedback loops which causes said individual to
place chin upon fist and spout random gibberish. At any rate when it comes to
existentialism anyone who really believed that reality was manufactured in the mind
and that believing something else made reality actually change in the corresponding
way whatever you thought and was prepared to put his money where his mouth was
would be a certifiable nutcase, if you don‟t believe me, read this parable.
         Once upon a time there were two philosophers stuck in a traffic jam, one was
called Phil and one was called Ed. They were bitching about Sammy the scientist who
thought that reality was unalterable and that it was not manufactured in the mind.
“Can you believe the shear close mindedness of Samuel? Completely refusing to
accept that reality is merely what you perceive it to be!” said Ed.
“Absolutely” agreed Phil “Its amazing how people can walk about their own
miserable little existence without even beginning to speculate on higher levels of
existence. I mean they think they have proved things in the field of science but have
we really learnt anything? Do we even know what an atom is for that matter, does it
really exist? What colour is it or what is its texture? Everything we perceive is
through or senses so if we cannot directly sense an atom if we cannot pick it up and
smell it, for example then how do we know it exists. At the end of the day we even
don‟t know where the fucking electron are or what velocity they are travelling at so
how can we say that they have any intrinsic substance? And if they don‟t truly exist
then that which is composed of them may not truly exist in which case which includes
the apparatus that‟s used to detect them. Ah the sheer arrogance and closed
mindedness of science.”
“I completely agree with what your saying” said Ed reality is and must be created in
the mind, if I say were going to heaven then by my very believing it I will go to
heaven! If I don‟t see a tree than for all intents and purposes it does not exist. After all
for all I know you could be a figment of my imaginatio n.”
“Or you of mine” pondered Phil.
“Um no I‟m not” said Ed “I think therefore I am”
“Or is it simply me thinking that you are saying I think therefore I am” Phil
“Shut up!” said Ed “I exist you don‟t.”
“Oh well let‟s agree to differ the point is we both acknowledge that the intrinsic value
of reality is only self-substantiated by our perception of it. For example if I look away
from the windscreen the windscreen to all intents and purposes would not exist. If I
looked away from the road the road to all intents and purposes would not exist.”
“And” interjected Ed enthusiastically “If I looked away from the traffic it would not
exist either!”
“Yes exactly now you‟ve got it!” expostulated Phil in glee “Oh I‟m so glad I have
finally found someone of the same mind as myself, someone who is not so weak-
minded as to accept so easily this paper thin charade with we call reality, someone
who is prepared to enlighten himself by seeking a truth beyond this corporeal sham!
Someone who is uh, Ed why are you closing your eyes, I not entirely sure I feel
comfortable will you reving up the car while grinning diabolically

And with that the car speeded with full force into the one in front of it.
      The man in front got out “YOU FUCKING WANKERS!! LOOK WHAT
But Ed was simply humming to himself “If I don‟t believe he exists then he doesn‟t
exist” and with that closed his eyes, put his fingers in his ears and sang “LA! LA! LA!
LA! LA! LA!” The driver in front was fuming “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!
FOR GOD SAKE!! IT‟S WORTH OVER £50,000!!” but Ed kept going “LA! LA!
LA! LA! LA!” Phil tried to excuse him “I‟m sorry he‟s an existentialist” “YOU
FUCKING GOBSHITE!” and with that he pulled Ed out of the car and shouted
fingers out of his ears, stopped singing and replied “Only….THIS!” and with that he
poked the driver in both eyes. “OW! YOU BASTARD! I‟LL GET YOU FOR THIS!”
and then he started chasing Ed who ran away as fast as he could then he found a
traffic cone lying on the ground and started swinging at the driver with it. “JESUS
CHRIST WHAT KIND OF A MANIAC ARE YOU? “ with that the driver backed away
slowly. Ed thought to himself “Oh what the heck! I can do whatever I want and not
suffer for it as long as I don‟t believe I will” and will that he started using the traffic
cone to smash the headlights of every car he could see and pissed on someone‟s
windscreen while laughing hysterically. Then the police came on a motorbike
“Allright sonny its time to take I ride with us!” “No wait” screamed Ed “You don‟t
exist! YOU DON‟T EXIST!” he screamed as he closed his eyes. The police wrestled
with him and eventually had to get him in a helicopter because of the terrible traffic
which took off with him screaming “NNOOO! NNOOO! THINGS AREN‟T
                                 THREE MONTH LATER…..
         Phil entered the padded cell quietly Ed was rocking back and forth in a straight
jacket murmuring things to his imaginary friend Benny. “Hello Ed” said Phil quietly.
“Hello Phil come, sit down and join us for tea.” Said Ed with a twisted grin. “But Ed
there aren‟t any cups and saucers… or teapots for that matter.” “THERE ARE IF WE
SAY THERE ARE!” Ed snapped then he calmed down “Benny‟s just told me the
good news, I‟ve won the nobel prize in literature.” “Well done Ed….um I‟m afraid I
have to go now.” Ed grinned “Why so glum Phil my boy, I have transcended into a
plane of higher existence. You might see me in a straight jacket locked in a padded
cell yet it is you who are shackled, SHACKLED BY THE CHAINS OF REALITY! AH!
left the padded cell echoing with the sounds of insane laughter. Hmm he thought
quietly I think I might decide to change my philosophical stance to realism. Sammy
put a smug, patronising arm around Phil who growled “Not one word Sammy! Not
one word!”
                                         THE MORAL
         Anyone who put their money where their mouth is when it came to
existentialism would be a nutcase. It is no surprise that intelligent people often
contemplate existentialism and are not fully sure about the nature of reality as
schizophrenia is associated with intelligence and a major symptom of schizophrenia is
the inability to distinguish the real from the surreal so just watch out!
         For the sake of argument, presuming that this is just a charade, then whose
doing it? Who would put so much effort into making a universe that is so incredibly
complex that even twentieth century technology could not even find any detectable
discrepancies, the only things with perceptible wills are replicators or constructs of
replicators and what possible purpose could our being fooled serve? Wouldn‟t it be a
lot cheaper and easier simply to give us a lobotomy than to create some massive
virtual reality net and regarding the motivation for the machines in the matrix I would
have though it would be a lot cheaper an easier simply to go down to the shop and buy
a pack of duracel. We must keep in mind, that although art may be a certain
motivation at times when it comes to billions of pounds and years of painstaking
effort aswell as a massive allocation of resources replicators aswell as constructs
generally would lean towards functionality and efficiency.
         This is to do with the idea that there is no God and there are no morals. Oh
Yes! Nihilists never tire of saying that there is no system of morals that is intrinsic to
the fabric of the universe. Well since the word intrinsic is poorly defined in the first
place it is stupid to believe that a set of morals must necessarily be intrinsic to the
fabric of the universe. There is no point in judging something on the basis of a set of
criteria that are ill-defined in the first place. What can be assured is that morality is
essential for survival, for in a world without morals the crime rate and the murder rate
would be through the roof, without morals it would be impossible to settle even the
most trivial of disputes with strangers without coming to fisticuffs, be it who should
be served next in a shop or who gets to go to the toilet next or God knows what else.
As I shall explain in greater detail later, it is the utility of a word that ensures that its
meaning does not deviate too much and the fact that the concept of morality is a
useful one is what makes it exist in a real sense. To invent concepts such as intrinsic
truth or intrinsic meaning to test a concept for its authenticity and the if it is not
authentic to completely disregard it is pointless for it assumes that there is some
intrinsic meaning to the words intrinsic, truth and authenticity. And I don‟t think any
philosopher, no matter how intelligent could give a water tight argument as to why
intrinsic truth is all that is to be pursued (or even that it should be pursued at all) or
that only authentic concepts should be upheld.
         Finally when it comes to those stubborn nihilists that commit crimes and then
gives complex arguments of how morals don‟t truly exist, well all that can be said is
that if they think that there is no reason we can give why they should not inflict
misery, pain and death upon good moral people then good moral upholding people
can say back to the nihilists that there is no reason that they can give as to why we
should not be allowed to inflict misery pain and death upon them and then proceed to
beat the living shit out of them. HA! HA! That will show those arroga nt fuckers!
Though ofcourse I was only referring to a situation where nihilists had actually
committed a crime, after all, everyone is entitled to express an opinion.
         Mathematics is the language of association and precision and is very use ful in
that sense as it allows us to carry assumptions out to their logical conclusion, if 1+1=2
and if 2+2=4 then 1+1+1+1=4. Essentially associating one idea or event with another
is what the brain does through forming connections between neurons. However if we
see white powder and it tastes sweet then we associate sweetness with white powder,
if we taste some other white powder and it tastes salty then the connection of white
powder with a sweet taste is broken or weakened. What mathematics does it is for m
unbreakable links between several statements so that if one statement is false the other
one must be false aswell for if one plus one does not equal two and two plus two does
equal four than one plus one plus one plus one cannot equal four. It is importa nt to
realise that all words are arbitrary and do not necessarily have to carry one meaning,
in the case of mathematics and physics concepts are so intricately linked together that
to decide to redefine one plus one as being equal to something else would mean
unnecessarily changing reams and reams of notation and the concept of a single object
is such a useful one that you would have to use some other word to describe it such as
“bum” and in order to avoid spending too much time writing the whole word over and
over again you would have to develop some new arbitrary symbol for it such as (_|_)
and then you would have to persuade all the mathematicians, physicists, chemists,
biologists, engineers, economists, shopkeepers, primary school teachers, waiters and
people in general to accept the new notation which is just too awkward and pointless
so we see it is none other than mutual adaptive benefit or convenience that gives ideas
in science such rigid meanings while in other areas where precision is not so essent ial
the word‟s spelling sound and even meaning can drift slowly, leading to language
evolution. In the case of science, if scientists were unable to communicate to each
other then they would be able to work aswell or come up with better ideas aswell or
design better products as quickly and people would start to wonder why they were
paying scientists so much to do so little and every individual scientist would end up
getting paid less so you see standardisation and the accurate definition of words in
science and maths is an adjustment to meet the necessity of their jobs thus we have
confirmed that it is the utility of a word that gives it a precise meaning.
         The basic principle of mathematics is to use what you know to find out what
you don‟t. You break a problem whose solution is not yet obvious down into a series
of problems whose solutions you know the answers to and thus you can solve it, for
example in order to find the area of an L-shaped object whose dimensions are given
you break it into two rectangles and as we already know the area of a rectangle is its
length by its height you simply find the area of the two rectangles, add them together
and you have the area of your L. This is a simply example but the basic principle
applies to all forms of mathematics and problem solving in general. A child wants
sweets, he doesn‟t initially know how to get them, he knows they are on the top of the
counter, he knows a stool is to his right, he knows you can move the stool, he knows
you can climb up on the stool and that way get onto the same level as the counter, so
he moves the stool to the patch of floor below where the sweets lie, climbs on top of
the stool and grabs the sweets. This is the basic problem solving process and in order
to find out new things you have to use it in conjunction to careful observation with
your eyes, there are no exceptions to this, the genius is not the person who is
magically struck by an idea from nowhere but rather the person who recognises the
significance of seemingly insignificant yet overwhelmingly obvious(or at least
indisputable) statements and observations. Although the knowledge of how to work a
calculator is ultimately essential aswell as the ability to be able to programme
computers for mathematics and science in general at 3 rd level and in life, the practice
of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing aswell as many other mathematical
operations that can now be done by computer has the positive effect of practising the
logical parts of our brains, proving things even if they have been proved many times
before helps us gain insight into how theories are discovered or worked out and the
whole process of performing mathematical operations outside a computer is generally
healthy for the mind. That is why, rather than making children do maths up to a
certain level without a calculator and then giving them a calculator and letting them
use it to do all the sums after that there should be two subjects of maths in primary
school and secondary school, mathematics and computing and each should have a
separate paper. In mathematics the pupils should not be allowed to use any calculators
at all while in computing they should be allowed to use calculators and computers.
That way children in primary school might be able to become computer literate and
capable when it comes to using calculators without turning into complete morons who
need to take out a calculator in order to work out how big a tip to give the waiter.
         If you are still asking what‟s the point of getting children to do menta l
arithmetic in maths class when we have computers I would have to respond by asking
what‟s the point in getting children to run races in P.E. when we have cars, or what‟s
the point of getting children to paint with a brush when we have computer graphic
         When it comes to C programming and the like, software companies should
make an effort to design simple versions of those programming languages with big
friendly letters which although much less capable with less computing power and
completely impractical for modern scientific purposes are much simpler to use for
training purposes in primary and secondary schools to give children some kind of
grasp of the basic principals of programming there should be a series of such
programmes each slightly more complicated then the last with more power and less
friendly faces and as they progress through primary school and secondary school they
should be slowly moved to more complicated training programmes so that when they
get to university and are confronted with C, C++ and JAVA they have atleast some
idea about what‟s going on. At college level mathematicians help scientists and even
economist to a certain extent while at a the school level the mathematics that is learnt
is used by scientists, engineers and economists and a bunch of other people therefore
the importance of mathematics should not be underestimated.
                          SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
         Science and engineering are two overwhelmingly important subjects however
it is important that we don‟t make a religion out of them for at the end of the day
subjects tell us what we can do and give us the capability to do more things but they
do not tell us what we should do, I believe that issue should be left to philosophers.
Science is essentially the sum of mankinds observations expressed as concisely and
accurately as possible. In some disciplines the equation is a great tool for doing just
that so you could, for example, learn a vast table full of information to do with the
pressure temperature and volume of a given quantity of an ideal gas but that would
take forever, learning PV=nRT gives you exactly the same information and can be
learnt extremely rapidly. The formula is a great way to express a continuum of
information quantitatively and that is why it is so regularly used. Although science is
by far and away the most abstract study of non- human things, the process of deciding
in what areas to gather information in is decidedly human, when we think of how
much we know about the anatomy of a human compared with that of a cockroach, it is
true that our knowledge of cockroach anatomy is significant but we do not know
every pain, every ache or every single minor ailment that a cockroach might suffer,
this is because we don‟t need to know enough to give it prescriptio n tablets for a mild
headache, or physiotherapy so that its back won‟t feel so stiff in future, thus we can
see that even a subject such as science has a tendency to search for information that
will ultimately increase our fitness as a species, or decrease it in the case of nerve gas,
but never the less have some affect on our fitness.
         Despite the great advantages scientific advances have conferred upon us the
layman never tires of criticising the poor scientist, unjustly branding him with words
such nerd, swat, geek and whole barrage of other science hate-lingo. There are two
ways of dealing with a problem should it arise, you can either rationally go about
solving it, or blame someone else for it and take your anger for the problem out on
them through persecuting them. The former is the attitude of the scientist and other
rational thinkers while the latter is the attitude of the true layman, the voice of
ignorance who rather than being ashamed of that fact gleefully wallows in it. Every
problem is taken out on science and although I will not say that some scientists might
not be in part responsible for it they most certainly should not have to shoulder the
whole burden of the blame for it, true, it was the scientist that invented the atomic
bomb but it was the politician who funded him and the layman who dropped it, true it
was the engineer who designed the car, but it is the layman who drove it. Ecologists
may complain about the cars have on the climate but if it was not for the invention of
the jeep they would find it considerably more difficult to go out a find their precious
wildlife and between the concerts when “System of a Down” are singing Science has
failed our world, they are travelling by a private jet from country to country which
emits tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The designing of new
products is done by science and engineering but it is usually in response to some
demand provided by the general public. Science is the yeti‟s paw, it is a means to an
end no more. In many ways the scientist merely serves the function of a genie to grant
the layman whatever wish he might make those wishes are made by spending money
on certain things so rather than it being our responsibility to stop scientific
advancement before it destroys the world it is our responsibility to be very careful for
what we wish for… it just might come true! If the layman should say “Scientist give
me a mode of travelling from A to B faster” then the scientist will respond with a grin
“Here you go master!” and magically make a car appear. What was not specified was
the fact that this car emits greenhouse gases that might eventually flood vast portions
of low- lying land. Should the layman say “Scientist give me a way of feeling happy
whenever I want” the scientist shall respond “Very well master!” and make an ecstasy
pill appear, what he the layman hasn‟t bother to ask him is will it do him any damage
taking it or if there is any chance of him dropping dead, so he takes it and dies of a
heart attack. Another layman might say “Scientist I really hate those fuckers over
there make me something that will kill them all!” and then the scientist will look a bit
perplexed and interject “But that‟s wrong you can‟t just kill people mercilessly!” to
which the layman will shout “Do it or I will refuse to pay you money and leave you
out in the desert to starve!” to which the scientist will respond shakily “Very well
master.” And create an intercontinental ballistic missile with a thermonuclear
warhead. But what the layman wasn‟t counting on was that the fuckers he hated had
their own scientists who made their own ballistic missiles which came raining down
upon him and killed him.
         The layman then crawls timidly out of his shelter and shouts “Look what
you‟ve done you fucking nerd! Why did you do it? WHY??!!!” to which the scientists
responds “Because you asked me to master.” to which the layman responds “But
why? Why didn‟t you just say no?” To which the scientist responds “Because you‟re
the master, master.”
         It is not entirely accurate to say that the scientist is unable to warn the layman
of the consequences of the wishes he makes before performing them but first the
layman must say “Scientist warn me of any of the detrimental consequences of my
wish before performing it and ask me if I‟m sure I want it.” To which the scientist will
respond merrily “Yes master! Making this wish could lead to a safer and happier life
for all. Are you sure you want it done?” To which the layman will respond “Ofcourse
I‟m sure now do it!”
         If it was truly just a matter of saying these wishes there would be no problems
in the world whatsoever but it isn‟t. In order to accomplish things we must be willing
to dedicate money towards attaining them. Here we see only too clearly what people
really cares about and it isn‟t world poverty, it isn‟t the environment, it is one simple
thing… themselves. The direction which science has taken isn‟t anything to do with
some mystical evil nature which all scientists possess, it is simply a reflection on all
of mankind for scientists themselves like anyone else need a paycheck to buy food to
feed their families and if building nuclear warheads is the only way to accomplish this
then that is what they shall do. The old image of the scientist who pursued truth
simply for the sake of doing so is vanishing, this is largely because in the olden days
scientists were often wealthy landowners who could already earn enough to keep
themselves fed whereas nowadays scientist are simply intelligent people who come
from all backgrounds and if they don‟t get a job of some kind they‟ll starve. The
layman must be careful when he buys a product, makes a donation or votes for a
political party for these are the only three ways in which he can really change the
world, all those little conversations he has with his/her friends count for nothing if the
layman will not take care of these three things.
         It is indeed true that companies and businesses are playing an increasingly
important role in scientific progress but private investment can only bring an already
well developed technology to maturity and use it for a myriad of applications it fact
private enterprise is very good at meticulously squeezing out every conceivable
advantageous use of some new technology. It other words private investment is good
for low investment high profit projects(there are two reasons for this, the first is that
human nature has evolved to be such that people seek to maximize their own fitness
and there is nothing fit about losing vast portions of money for something that will
bring you no individual gain, but the second is even more inescapable and that is that
idealists who would be prepared to donate vast amounts of money for the good of
humanity tend not to acquire vast amounts of money in the first place), when it comes
to high investment low profit projects however, private investment falls flat on its
face, the most obvious one is public transport where when a private company buys a
train line there is always the temptation to cut corners and to outdo the competition
even if the long-term result of this is more accidents and more deaths, another
example is nuclear fusion, a technology which could potentially solve all our energy
needs with little to no pollution but which will take approximately 50 more years of
development in order to accomplish no private investor would dream of supporting
this as they would be long dead before any benefit was reaped and yet another is the
manned space programme (I‟m talking about the really exciting missions like to Mars
and the like) again although private interests are indeed paying for satellites to be
launched they are not a the cutting edge of that kind of technology and although they
might pay for such things after they have been developed will are unlikely to fund any
substantial portion of their development, for this you need state funding. That is not to
say that private enterprise is not capable of accomplishing this but the state must first
give it the monetary incentive to do so as the gardener fertilises the weak ye t beautiful
         If we are to feed, house, doctor and clothe our ever increasing population
aswell as taking care of the environment aswell as make sure that the space
programme is ready when the population limit is reached we are going to need a high
amount of skilled personnel in engineering, science and medicine in order to
accomplish this the educational system must be able to cope with this demand I think
the main reason that many people are hostile towards the scientific fields in general is
because they don‟t have a good grasp of them thus if the educational system could
give children an understanding of such things then not only would there be a greater
pool of skilled personnel but there would be less hostility toward science in general. It
is true that some people have a greater natural ability in these fields but probably a
better education in science would mean that those who would otherwise be reasonably
good at it would have genius ideas while those who would otherwise be poor at it
might become reasonably good obviously even with a better educational system in
place there would always be people who could not do it but they would be fewer in
         There should be a two pronged approach to science during primary schooling
and secondary schooling, one should be from the bottom up, to introduce the idea of
weight, length, breath, height, temperature, velocity, density etc., but there should also
be the top down approach in giving the small children the gist of the atomic model,
quantization, probability clouds, chaos (though ofcourse chaos will not seem as
surprising to little children as it is only surprising if you have some preconception that
the universe is entirely deterministic), DNA along with geography, ecology etc. and
experiments and tours to areas of natural interest should be a major part of the
schooling experience after all if you can fill their heads with shit like who Abraham‟s
son was or the story of Cane and Abel then you can surely give them the gist of these
complex ideas so that when they come to study them in more detail it won‟t come as
so much of a surprise you could also give them blocks to play with and show them
how various contraptions work and the various parts inside machines and the like.
                                 LOGIC AND EMOTIONS
         In startrek Dr. Spock is portrayed as the logical one while the others are
somewhat more emotional, in this and many other programs there seems to be this
idea that the logical and the emotional are two conflicting perceptions of the world.
This could not be farther from the truth for at the end of the day it is are emotions that
supply us with the will, while rational though provides us with the way. When Dr.
Spock says the logical course of action is such and such, he is not strictly speaking,
correct, what he should say is, assuming we want to survive the logical course of
action would be to do such and such. Without emotions, logic would have no goal to
pursue and without a goal to pursue there would be no problems to solve and without
problems to solve there would be no point in having a logical mind in the first place.
On the otherhand without logic the emotional person is reduced to a whining baby,
always wanting something yet never in any way doing anything to attain it and what is
more, often demanding two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Everyone
needs emotions two provide the will to do things, that if nothing more, will help pass
the time and the logic needed to achieve them and to prioritise them and realise when
two goals are mutually exclusive. Only too often these two characteristics are
separated into two different people and the logical one is reduced to a mere tool for
the more emotionally developed individual, the scientist feels he is pursuing some
higher plane of thought when in reality he designs a chemical weapon that will kill
millions. While the whining businessman so often tells scientists to engage in
activities that will ultimately serve no higher purpose than to make a profit.
                         BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
         These are, in some ways very useful subjects they are, after all necessary to
run the country. But we must also recognise their limitations. In the case of science
the goals are abstract impersonal and ultimately the scientist will not benefit from one
truth more than another thus the brain is less biased when it comes to theorising and at
the end of the day the theory that is best supported by experimental evidence is the
theory which will gain the scientist the most fame and recognition. Business and
economics are a very different kettle of fish altogether for theories on economics will
have a major impact on how the money is distributed and if an economist should
come up with a theory that giving more money to economists would be more
beneficial to everyone he will benefit considerably more than if he came up with a
theory that said that slightly less economists should be employed and the ones that are
should be paid less. Also the people who tend to pay economists are businessmen and
politicians and the people who tend to finance the politicians are businessmen so it is
in the economists interests to argue that its is adaptive to give him and his kind raise
after raise and that he is absolutely necessary to the country so that his job might
become evermore secure the best way to do that is to guard the interests of those who
pay him i.e. big business. Any economist who comes up with a theory that would
make his kind seem redundant or break that sacred relationship with the economist
and the businessman would be frowned upon by his fellow economists who would do
everything they could, use every word from that arsenal of jargon they have at their
disposal to disprove it or say that it is impractical or isn‟t “economically feasible.”
         It is therefore in the interest of someone who is going to hire a new
accountant/economist etc., to hire him from a university that teaches them well, in
other words a university that teaches them in such a way as to give them the best
possible opportunity to aid the business and help it to make a profit and won‟t have
any crazy ideas about doing altruistic things that might lead the business to suffer or
else the employer himself might suffer. Thus courses in economics that teach the
students to look after the interests of big business and economists tend to end up with
more of their students finding jobs in the end. As, at the end of the day, people want to
come out of college with jobs and money, more people go to study economics in
colleges with a reputation for making those who come out filthy, stinking, rich. Thus
the reputation of the college improves. Other colleges will see this and seek to copy or
outdo this successful college and so courses in business and economics gradually
evolve to indoctrinate the students into believing that big business is their friend and
that the only really important thing in life is to make money for yourself, your
business and your country (The politicians have a hand in that little doctrine).
         So we live in a world where the bright eyed idealistic student can prance into
college with a hop, skip and a jump saying “I‟m going to study economics so that I
can get a job in politics and then be in a position to end poverty and oppression and
help everyone” however four years later he goes to get his degree with a twitching eye
is a twisted malevolent grin upon his face and as he leaves the gates of college with
his degree, bursts into hysterical fits of insane laughter intend on reeking ruin and
destruction on the world and above all, making lots and lots of money in the process.
         Isaac Newton said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% mental perspiration it
is true that it takes intelligence to work out great theories but it also takes a lot of time.
The average person even if he is genetically capable of coming up with such ideas
will not dedicate the time to it but will spend that same time on more adaptive
pastimes such as socialising, chatting up members of the opposite sex and studying
some career that is likely to make him enough money to comfortably live off. This is
the adaptive brain at work, not trying to further mankind‟s knowledge but instead to
increase the fitness of its possessor. When we talk about the brain of a child, without
enough information to formulate any long-term plan most of these creatures only
really care about what is to their immediate short-term adaptive benefit and that‟s it.
Thus for educational system to be effective although it is to a certain extent, important
to tell the children the eventual use of what they are doing it is a far more important to
make sure that they will find some immediate benefit from what they are learning
aswell, this can be accomplished by a system of rewards and punishment.
          The main function of punishment should be to eliminate or stop the
development of sub-authority structures i.e. bullying, a child who hears that to study
is to his long-term benefit to study as it will ensure greater job opportunities but that it
is to his short-term benefit not to study as to do so might make him unpopular and
eventually might lead to him being physically assaulted and or getting his possessions
robbed will, nine out of ten times choose not to study very much. Thus without the
teachers having control over the class in general the whole educational system is a
farce and a waste of time as all that the children will learn is how to fight, how to lie,
how to take drugs, how to smoke, how to cheat and how to steal. Until recently most
teachers didn‟t even want to hear pupils telling on each other. This is because they
were indoctrinated by their dominant classmates at a younger age not to tell and even
now when they have control over the class they still subliminally think that telling is
wrong. In order for telling to become acceptable in school culture, however, it is
important that the teacher should not over react or else the class will tribalise for fear
of being punished, in general caning is wrong, but in cases where the pupils are
physically assaulting the teacher, or impossible to teach their should be the capacity to
call in a government inspector to decide whether an exception should be made on a
temporary basis.
         Besides punishing behaviour such as drug taking, bullying and the like the
educational system should be organised in a positive way such as giving away treats
to those that get the questions right. Also in order to ensure that there is not to much
jealousy directed towards those who work hardest the others in the class should
benefit from their successes, for example in my old primary school our sixth year
teacher used to give prizes out to those who performed the best in tests, those who
came first got the first pick from a bundle of goodies those who came second got the
second pick etc., etc., also whenever anyone got a scholarship into secondary school
the whole school got a day off homework.
         Also I have a feeling that the adaptive brain of the child will perceive
information such as maths, geography, languages and many other skills as useful if
they are placed in imaginary situations whereby if they solve the problem they live
and if they fail to solve it, they die. It is true that we already do try to show children
that maths is useful by saying “Billy is going to the shop, he has to buy 10 bananas,
each banana costs 70p, how many £5 notes will he need to take with him in order to
buy this number of bananas and how much change will he receive at the end?” these
question are all very well and good and should stay, but they should also be
accompanied by more dramatic question like. “An insane man with a chainsaw is
chasing Billy, the man is 50 meters away when Billy first spotted him, the insane man
is running after Billy at 10m/s while Billy is running away at 8m/s. A)If nothing is
done how much time has Billy got left before he is hacked to pieces? B) At the
moment that Billy spotted him Sally also spotted him in her car 150 meters behind the
man how fast must Sally drive in order to save Billy?” Obviously once they are more
mature the question may be replaced with more practical ones to do with mechanics
and the like.
         The child is, in essence, a psychopath, if it sees that it will benefit from a
particular behaviour it will repeat it, if it sees it will suffer for a particular behaviour it
will avoid it in future and its as simple as that. The teacher who fails to realise this and
thinks that children are inherently nice or nasty will be a poor one indeed. But lets not
be too judgemental upon poor little children, adults are just as ruthless deep down,
they are just better at hiding it that‟s all.
         But all set aside some teachers are simply better than others at teaching, if you
give teachers a salary rise more will apply for the various jobs provided. This means
that you can take the best pick of the interviewees and thus the general standard of
teaching will rise. There is even a nice little feedback effect in that pupils who are
taught by good teachers are more likely to become good teachers themselves as
education is essential to the modern economy (especially since the number of
unskilled jobs are falling) the standard of teaching must not be allowed to fall.
          Speaking of standard although I believe a high standard of education is good I do not
believe that education should be highly standardised. There is no reason why every school
should teach exactly the same thing, or every pupil should be forced to sit exactly the same
exam. Different schools and colleges should be allowed to develop in their own idiosyncratic
way. I‟m not sure all pupils at the age of 18 should be forced to sit the same Leaving
Certificate, rather, individual schools, like individual colleges should be allowed to tailor their
exams to the subjects which they teach. I don‟t think this would lead to a decline in quality of
teaching as colleges want to accept the best pupils that are capable of doing a given course in
order to boost their pass rates while at the same time maintaining a high standard of teaching
so that prospective employers will not laugh at their degree. This will boost their reputation,
they will then begin to see that certain school examinations better assess the ability of the
pupils to enter college than others, schools which have a high standard of teaching and a
rigorous examination system will then enjoy a boost in their reputation.
          Schools which aren‟t very good will then try to improve the system by modifying
their examinations in order to improve the quality of the education they give and will
improve. This kind of competition between schools will most probably boost the overall
quality of education, it is also possible that different schools and universities by being allowed
to develop in a way that is less constrained by the states attempt to enforced uniformity will
find and occupy different educational niches, thus the workforce coming out of the learning
institutions of the country will tend to be more varied. This is good as we are heading towards
an economy that demands specialisation and a workforce with a variety of specialisations
would be able to perform a wide variety of different jobs better than a workforce that comes
out with a single homogenised education. The only standard the government should enforce is
class hours as competition between schools might result in ever increasing class hours and we
don‟t want the poor little fellows to be worked to death.
          You might say that its not fair that one person in one school might have to sit a harder
final exam than a pupil from another school but the colleges will probably catch on soon
enough and it is far better that each exam should reflect the full depth of the pupils education
rather than only reflecting the bits his teacher taught him that overlapped with the state exam

        Without war and hatred, technology would only be for good as there would
simply be no demand for more effective, more destructive weapons. Also a vast
portion of scientific research aswell as engineering genius goes into designing more
destructive devices and weapons, so, not only would world peace help save human
lives for the obvious reason that we would not be killing each other but it would also
save human lives in the sense that a greater portion of the economy could be devoted
to finding cures for diseases, better agricultural methods, methods for producing
wealth while not inflicting so much harm on the environment aswell as building more
effective spacecraft to explore and colonise the solar system. Another advantage of
world peace would be the fact that you are not building vast quantities of machines
and weapons such as tanks or helicopters or aeroplanes only to see them get destroyed
and reduced to junk, this is not only a detrimental to the environment but also kills
humans even after peace has been restored. Then most obvious example is landmines,
another one who be the fact that fishermen in Scandina via have fished up mustard gas
containers dumped after the first world war inhaled the fumes and died or have ended
up severly scared for life. Yes the advantages of world peace would be vast, but there
are many problems that stand in our way namely the fact that the only power powerful
enough to destroy or overthrow a militant power is in general, another militant power.
         Another problem that stands in the way of world peace is the fact that the
tendency to outstrip and out-compete one another is so deeply ingrained in our nature.
The activity of the game is so enjoyable that to remove it would be nothing less than
an act of evil and would either result in an increase of violence or rampant drug abuse
and self-destruction to pass away the idle hours instead yet is often very hard to make
a distinguish the point when a game ceases to be a game and becomes a fight. It is
however very important to do this as fighting should be discouraged while the healthy
competition that comes from playing with on another sho uld be encouraged. Allow
me to roughly derive a definition of when a game ceases to be a game and becomes a
fight from the concept of fundamental morality.
         This definition is not very precise as it is impossible to measure pleasure or
misery with any degree of accuracy but hopefully it will atleast provide some
guidelines as to what forms of competition should be encouraged and what forms
should be discouraged.
         Some say that war is in our nature. This is not true. Survival is in our nature,
war is only something people do when they feel that it is the only way to ensure the
survival of those that they love. In general, in war there are a lot of people who lose
out from it and a few who win out. Those few are often the politicians who can gain
great popularity by driving the populace into a frenzy of fear so that they will look to
the politicians the generals and the army in general for protection. Thus it is essential
to structure the army in such a way that it can be a useful organisation outside
wartime or the military men will always be looking for a fight simply to justify their
         Although tribalism will never completely stop we can hopefully advance to the
point where the tribe is a sports team and not and army. By all means lets have
Soccer, Rugby, Gaelic and Hurling teams to represent our counties, provinces and
countries, but the fundamental fighting unit (army, navy, airforce, etc.,) should not be
that of the nation but instead that of the ideology itself. There is one function and one
function only of an army and that is to be of a sufficient size to overcome any other
army that poses a threat to the people it represents thus in a world where there are
three nations at hostile peace with one another, if two of them joined forces to deter
the third, each one will only have to contribute half the funding that they would have
otherwise had to contribute if they were not allied to each other but instead were in
that same position singly. The rest of the money could be spent on things like social
welfare, health, transport and other more noble, worthwhile causes. The same basic
principle applies to the union, the defending force only has to be big enough to deter
invasion from a threatening power thus with more members contributing to a singly
cohesive force, each individual member will have to contribute significantly less.
         War should not be treated like a punishment within the state as in every case
innocent victims suffer and people die, for example if the leader of one country say a
rather nasty thing about the leader of another country‟s mother this would not be
sufficient grounds for war. As the act of war takes innocent lives it should only be as a
response to the taking of innocent lives. For other generally disapproved of policies
something like a trade embargo is the maximum response acceptable. When we speak
of saving lives this has to mean that war is only acceptable when the evil governor of
one country is actually in the process of taking them. If someone is going around the
place killing people willy nilly you decide to wage war with him and lose, then the
chances are that he will continue to go around the place killing people willy nilly, this
means that due to the war all the people he would have killed, die anyway and a
bunch of dead soldiers are added to the casualty count for good measure, this is
obviously not moral so in order for all out war to be acceptable, there has to be a
reasonable chance of winning it. Even if it is possible to win it, when two super-
powers clash the death toll would be enormous thus the bigger the power, the more
atrocious the act must be to justify war. For example it would have been immoral for
Europe to invade communist China when it invaded Tibet because the result could
well have been a nuclear war, or for that matter Russia as it slaughtered the people of
Chechnya on mass for similar reasons although ofcourse supplying weapons to the
victimised defenders or placing trade sanctions on said countries would indeed be the
right thing to do. On the other hand when a nice pint-sized mini-dictatorship such as
Iraq or Serbia decides to engage in genocidal activities invasion is perfectly moral as
the resulting casualties would be fewer.

         Any country that is in the process of breaking this fundamental rule of war is
fair game for any country or group of countries that cares to invade it. From then on
whether a war should take place is simply a question of how big its army is and how
many innocent people this evil country has taken. There are two kinds of war; a war
where two evil armies (armies who broke the fundamental rule of war) are fighting
each other and a war where a good army is fighting an evil army. There can never be a
war between two good armies because by definition any country who invades a good
country is evil. Thus a war can never break out between two good countries. When
two evil armies are fighting each other the best thing to do is leave them alone unless
in the process of trying to attain the strategic high- ground one of them chooses to
invade a good country in which that particular evil country can be invaded.
         When a good army is fighting with an evil army it is only right to side with the
good country for siding with the evil country is evil. However it is only right to get
involved in even this war if by the process of doing so lives will ultimately be saved.
The good army does not rape women as that serves no real strategic benefit and if
anything will make the enemy more fanatical. A good army that does this becomes
evil, the good army does not bomb areas that do not contain, soldiers, weapons
factorys, weapons laboratories, weapons stockpiles, enemy units, spies, or people who
work in weapons design and manufacture. A good army that repeatedly and
knowingly does this as a means of spreading terror becomes evil. A soldier in the evil
army that desserts or surrenders is good as he obviously did so because of the sheer
revulsion he developed for the acts he was forced to commit and should be placed in a
cushy prison and be treated with respect by the good army, although obviously
caution should be shown when it comes to releasing a potential spy. A soldier from
the good army who desserts or surrenders is evil and obviously did so because of his
greed for the lures of power and money which the evil army placed out for him, or
perhaps he went all yellow and preferred to live himself than to help his comrades in
the war against evil. He should be placed in a dingy cell and treated with the utmost
contempt. The soldier who fights in the evil army is evil as he is overcome by the
thirst for blood and the need to kill the nice good soldiers and should himself be
killed, a soldier who fights in the good army is good as he is only trying to kill these
evil people who thirst for the blood of others and thus is ultimately saving lives. He
should be protected at all costs. In a war between to evil countries, it is better to
emigrate from the country than to join either side although it is very good and brave to
stay as a doctor or a farmer though not as a weapons manufacturer or distributor.
         A major problem is that the bigger a piece of land gets the more people want
to invade it, there is also the chance of nationalism and rebellion, in order to protect
the land you need a big army, but a big army scares everyone else who also begin to
make their armies larger, this leads to a arms race. Some would argue that big armies
promote peace by making the prospect of war so revolting that everyone is afraid of
starting it. This is wrong. It has been proved wrong by history as that is precisely what
happened before the first world war, to a lesser extent during the Punic Wars and
when you consider Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and many other examples during the
cold war you will see that it was not so cold after all and that when two great powers
acquire weapons of mass destruction rather than shaking hands and becoming friends,
they simply engage in a series of localised disputes where lots and lots of people get
killed by where the really bad weapons simply are not used. Thus as the union grows
it will be important to do what can be done to defend it while at the same time avoid
an arms race. Another major problem is finding something for the soldiers to do when
they are not out there slaughtering an enemy, otherwise you will end up with a vast
quantity of soldiers sitting on their arses, with machine guns over their shoulder
twiddling their thumbs and saying “God this is boring! When I joined the army I
thought I was going to get some action, but with tiresome drill after drill after drill I
just wish there was something more interesting to do, can you think of anything?” to
which his companion would shrug and say “Do you want to dominate the world by
force?” to which the first soldier would reply “Yeah all right why not!”
         Firstly, there should be no attempts made to suppress nationalism or a desire to
leave the union. Should the democratic will of the majority of the people in a given
area be to leave then that is what should they should be entitled to do. The aim of the
defenders of the ideology should be to defend the principles and not the lands of the
         Secondly I believe that the best way to avoid an arms race developing while at
the same time protect the people inside against and aggressive and militant foe is to
structure the union in such a way that it can rapidly scale up for war and rapidly scale
down for peace. Many machines of war are used for emergency peace-time
operations, I propose that this be taken a little further and that the machines should be
designed in the development phase for duel peacetime and wartime functions. They
should be given a modular structure so that by taking a few modules out here and
placing a few modules in there a bomber can be converted to a passenger jet, a tank
can be converted into a digger, an APC can be converted into a grocery van or an
aircraft carrier can be converted into a fishing boat. At the end of the day all these
things may not be fully realisable, but where they are then by giving each unit a
peacetime economic function, you can build more units while draining the economy
less. For example, you would use tax-payers money to build a tank-digger, you sell
the digger at say half-price(for obviously a digger designed purely as a digger would
be cheaper) to a private company and you use the money to build another tank-digger
thus you can effectively get two units for the price of one.
          Obviously you are going to need high performance units aswell and a small
quantity of them can be manufactured, but the duel-purpose units could be used to
make up the bulk of the army cheaply. Another policy that could be taken is to design
war- machines that could not be used as duel purpose for they are too specialised and
incorporate components of them (possibly slightly modified) such as an engine here, a
tire there etc. etc. into civilian purpose machines, although these could not be rapidly
reconfigured into wartime machines, it would mean a lot of industry could possess the
latent capacity to manufacture war- machines should the demand for them rise while at
the same time not draining the taxpayers pocket excessively. You might also design
barracks and the like with a duel purpose in mind.
          Thirdly the army should have a duel function, in that aswell as fighting the
defenders themselves should help in the performance of development and emergency
aid. The general function of the defenders of the ideology should be to follow the path
of greatest morality or least immorality available to them at any given time a nd
hopefully nine-out-of-ten times this will be to promote life health and happiness.
From a more political point of view this function may be described as improving and
maintaining the reputation of the ideology and forging good relationships and
alliances with the countries outside. At peacetime the defenders should get three
months holiday, spend three months training for a war, three months training for
various development and emergency aid procedures and three months abroad working
with charities to help relieve poverty, save lives and aid the country in general. The
three months spend training for war should also include training for peace-keeping
missions and ofcourse they should never break the rules of war. In addition to the bulk
of the army there would be a fighting elite who train how to fight and nothing else so
that if the worst should come to the worst if the union was struggling for its very life
they could train the bulk of the soldiers to become more specialised fighters.
          Another problem we face is how to ensure that some general does not just
seize power, turn the defenders of the ideology into a fighting machine and take it on
the rampage, conquering and subjugating whoever he wants. This can be overcome
(or at least the threat can significantly reduced) by making the chain of command a
little less rigid and not indoctrinating soldiers to follow whatever orders they are
given. Obviously they shouldn‟t be trained into thinking they could do whatever they
want but in the training process they should be taught when they have a right to refuse
orders and when they have a right to mutiny against their commanding officers, infact,
they should even be taught that in some situations, it is their moral duty to mutiny, no
matter how high up the order should come from, obviously this might decrease their
fighting capability slightly but that doesn‟t matter as long as they are not in any major
war and the moral benefit from this approach more than makes up for any decreased
fighting capability though ofcourse again if the unfortunate situation comes about that
the union is fighting for its very life this approach could be abandoned. Abandoning
this should not be taken lightly for at the end of the day it is the only way to ensure
that this war machine will crumble apart if it is ordered to take immoral actions from
the top. It is important that the people at the top of the army and the police force are
appointed or at least approved by the head of a democratically elected government,
otherwise they will not represent the interests of the people and once that is lost
justice ceases to exist. Yes it is important that policemen and generals that break the
law are expelled from the army as the moral fibre of these people is essential although
such stringent requirements are not as necessary for soldiers they should be punished
severely by the generals but not necessarily expelled.
        In this day and age we have seen Czechoslovakia separate in the Czech
Republic and Slovakia, we have seen Yugoslavia break into God knows how many
fragments and the crumbling of the Soviet Union. In many cases this splitting of the
mini- nation from the bigger one was the only way because its peoples were being
under-represented, but, as a rule whenever there are boarder lines that mark out
different countries on the map, there are two groups of people who should be getting
along better with each other. In general this is the larger power‟s fault and the ideal
system is not to have a single large nation or a large group of fanatically nationalistic
small nations, but instead to have a large confederation containing member countries
who are all equally represented, where there are different layer of devolution and
centralisation depending on which arrangement is the most moral, where harmless
cultural practises are supported or left to their own devices but where all the members
must share certain principles and moral ideals. I strongly believe that this structure in
general would be a very effective way of uniting a wide variety of different cultures.
There are some cases, however where mini- nationalism should not be supported,
cases in which the mini- nation should decide upon choosing laws that are
fundamentally immoral I am speaking mainly about tax-havens and countries where
drugs are legal and end up getting smuggled into countries where they are not. In the
case of tax- havens, they should be boycotted and placed under a trade embargo, the
assets of millionaires who live there but own factories and the like in other countries
should be seized by whatever state whose lands they are situated in unless they have
been given permission to live there. In the case of drug traffic from countries in which
they are legal, although the countries should be traded with by countries in which
there are illegal, anyone who is responsible for trafficking drugs out of the country
into another country should be punished by the laws of the other country, whatever his
nationality and even if he has never set foot in the country that he is responsible for
trafficking drugs into. If you still believe that the nation is a sacred thing and people
have the right to set whatever laws they want up in it then read this parable.

        One day a bus- load full of fifty children going on a school tour was driving
through Texas, they were suppose to be going on a school tour to a chocolate factory
but instead they stopped outside a large dilapidated wind-swept house in the middle of
nowhere. One child screamed out “Hey! This isn‟t a chocolate factory! I want to go
home!” The driver whose name was Hank said to the two teachers who were
supervising “Right! Billy-bob! Mary- loo! Get the guns out we‟re going to have a
mighty fine supper tonight!” Instantly a Billy-bob pulled out a sniper‟s rifle with laser
sighting and Mary- Loo pulled out an AK-47, “All right kids! Now you‟re gonna stay
absolutely still or Mary-Loo over there is gonna pump more bullets through ya then
ya can count!” And so one by one the children were tied up and taken through the
door and into the great hall of this large dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere,
however once inside they realised that the house was not infact empty at all but
instead filled with fifteen evil- looking people, grinning and smacking their lips. Hank
stepped into the middle of the hall. “Boys and girls, you are now probably wondering
exactly where you are, allow me to satisfy you‟re curiosity, you have now entered the
Republic of Crazyland, allow me to tell you the sacred story of our founding fathers.
Once upon a time about seven years ago infact I went to Harvard to study law but then
I and many of my fellow law students decided that instead of becoming lawyers
WE’D PREFER TO EAT PEOPLE!” This was followed by a low cackling of insane
laughter to which a man called Cedric concurred while laughing “Yeah! Sure thing
Hank! Ain‟t nothing tastes sweeter then a boiled baby!” “Yes Cedric,” Hank
continued “But there was one minor obstacle in our path and it was that the laws of
the United States of America specifically state that eating people is against the law.
But then I and my fellow colleagues came across this interesting piece in its
constitution, the right to self-determination. Well I and my fellow colleagues spent the
next two or three years of our life passing amendment to extent that right beyond that
of the State to encompass any piece of land, no matter how small, provided a
sufficient percentage of the population ratified it, then we bought this piece of obscure
land at the state boundary of Texas and declared it to be the Republic of Crazyland
ofcourse 100% of its citizens concurred and so the bill was pass and two years ago
Crazyland was born as an officially recognised country. Now what say we shove all
the children in the cellar except for little Billy who we will barbecue and serve will
ketchup and chips.” “But,” said Jacob a child from the tour “This just isn‟t right! I
motion we pass a law making it illegal to eat other human beings.” “Oh very well”
said Hank “But that can only be voted upon during the official state meeting which we
shall have tomorrow, this is a democracy after all.”
         During the night Billy wriggled himself loose from the ropes that bound him.
Hopped onto a bicycle a rode towards the nearest town. On arriving, he told the towns
people what was happening and they phoned the police who were further away still.
         Meanwhile in the Republic of Crazyland the citizens were opening an official
state meeting. Hank who was the chairman announced “Hear yee, Here yee! Here
begins the seventh official state meeting of the Republic of Crazyland. Cedric would
you please raise the flag, Cedric who was tittering all the while raised a flag that
depicted a goats head in the middle of a pentagram with two inverted crosses on either
side. “And now let us sing our sacred anthem.” And with that everyone began to sing;
                         Oh there‟s nothing better than a hard boiled baby,
                         Except for a geriatric maybe,
                         People covered in sugar and spice,
                         Human beings taste so nice!
         “And now for the proposition, all in favour of eating these children one by one
raise you hand.” With that all fifteen citizens including the chairman raised their
hands. “All in favour of sending these children home, raise your hand, and with that
all fifty children raised their hands.” “Then the motion is passed we shall begin eating
the children come sundown.” “Hey!” Jacob cried out “We are in the majority! How
come you won?” Hank looked upon him patronisingly “There are many reasons little
Jacob, firstly section 41 paragraph 12 of our constitution clearly states that people
under the age of 18 don‟t have the vote, secondly, section 44 paragraph 31 states that
those who are not citizens of Crazyland don‟t have the vote and finally section 51
paragraph 30 states that any change to our constitution must be approved of by at least
100% of the population. This meeting is now adjourned the children shall be eaten
tomorrow!” But before everyone left the police came along. “Right! Party‟s over!
Come out quietly with your hands up!” With that all fifteen citizens of Crazyland took
out a barrage of weapons including a rocket launcher, as there were only four
policemen they decided to reconnoitre “How come they have so many weapons?” said
one policeman “All citizens of Crazyland have the right to bear arms and by the way,
that includes thermonuclear weapons, Tommy, bring out the bomb!” and with that a
man called Tommy came out with several others, wheeling a large collection of wires
and gismos that had been put together in what looked like a very amateurish way. “It
is our constitutional right to eat children and we intend to do so. You have just
invaded our country NOW GET OUT!” One of the policemen leaned over to the other
and said “I‟m afraid he‟s right chief! I‟ve looked on a new map that has recently been
published and this is infact a separate country. This is outside our jurisdiction lets go,
Hell this is more like a job for the army.” and with that, the squad car left.
         At the point at which the parents heard that the police weren‟t taking action
they decided to inform the press and soon the White House got word of this. “This is a
public relations fiasco!” cried the president Boerge Gush “We can‟t just stand there!
Let‟s declare war on this Crazyland! That ought to boost op inion polls.” “Declare
war?” exclaimed his military advisor cautiously “Are you sure we‟re ready to commit
American ground troops? I mean we don‟t want another Vietnam.” The president
looked perplexed “Yes! I mean No! I mean” he said raising one eyebrow “perhaps we
took a more…..multi- lateral approach.”
         The Prime Minister of England, Fony Bear‟s phone rang. He put his paw on
the receiver and picked it up. Because the people of England love animals so much he
found that by dressing up in a bear-suit and pretending to be a super- intelligent,
talking, cuddly bear he could attract a greater proportion of the vote than he could
otherwise do. “Prime minister Fony Bear.” The voice of Boerge Gush said through the
receiver “A grave new force of darkness has appeared on the world stage, now in this
vital hour, civilisation itself is threatened by the forces of evil and barbarity, do you
and the brave people of Great Britain agree to join us in this most courageous of
crusades?” “Yes! Absolutely!” Fony Bear responded with vigour “A noble choice.”
Said Boerge Gush “Now what we need is a thousand of your troops while
we….um….provide the air support.” At this point Fony put the phone down and
Booboo walked into the room “What‟s happening now Fony Huh? Huh?” “Were
going to war Booboo?” “Yipee! Who with Fony?” “I‟m not entirely sure, but I know
that their evil and barbarous? And you know what? I‟m going to find out! Right now”
“Wow! Fony you‟re so smart!” “That‟s right Booboo I‟m smaaarter than the average
         One week later when three of the children had been eaten a British Force of a
hundred men assembled at different posts around the borders of Crazyland, their
movements synchronised down to the second they attacked. Shooting down everyone
of the fifteen gun toting crazies without a single casualty they realised that the nuclear
bomb was on a countdown. Quickly the bomb expert came in and swiftly but
meticulously inspected the device and deactivated it. Just as they were untying the
children one of them called out “Um, you fellows, I think we‟d better bugger off right
ABOUT TO DROP A FUCKING DAISY CUTTER!!” Quickly everyone scrambled
into their jeeps and drove away from the house as fast as they possibly could, luckily
the guidance system was faulty and the daisy cutter fell five kilometres away
accidentally levelling a small town.

        Bravery is the undertaking of an endeavour that is fundamentally moral
despite the risks to the individual involved, the brave must be honoured and rewarded
or else they will not repeat these actions in future and the whole world shall turn into a
can of weak, easily manipulated worms incapable of distinguishing betwee n right and
wrong and always following the path of least resistance. However the difference
between a hero and a villain is fine indeed, both are prepared to undertake risks, both
wish to alter the world but the it is the villain who wishes to do so for his own benefit
while the hero does so for the benefit of everyone by following the path of greatest
morality, when you think of it, if all the brave people started punishing all the cowards
of the world you would essentially have a situation where violent people were acting
violently towards non-violent people who are simply obsessed with their own
survival, this is in itself an act of evil as it destroys life and makes the world less
pleasant for all while ultimately achieving nothing positive but instead c reating a
warrior culture where everyone has to pretend that they have a death wish and no
conscience. The weak do not exist to feed the strong, people do not exist just to be
dominated, we live in a world where everyone is simply trying to find their own path
through while trying to survive, some find that by threatening others they can increase
their fitness, some culture evolve around praising them simply because everyone who
is not “strong” is too terrified to criticise them.
                           COLLECTIVE VENGEANCE
         This section of the chapter is on a moral note, this has not that much to do with
any major state policy but rather about the generally attitude of people. In the end
mindforms brushed aside, it all comes down to the individual. Punishing individual
people who do wrong is productive because onlookers know that if they commit the
same crime then they will suffer the same consequences, but when it comes to
punishing whole groups of people, the result is not nearly as productive, infact it is not
productive at all. Noone should have to take responsibility for the actions of someone
he does not know. Although those who verbally condone an action or completely and
unconditionally support a group should to a certain extent, take responsibility for their
actions. To punish “them” for what “they” did ultimately entails punishing individuals
who have nothing to do with it and many probably don‟t even condone it. At the end
of the day the whole concept of collective vengeance is nothing better than punishing
individuals for existing. The other thing is, ofcourse that if you blanket blame a whole
group of people than the individuals within the group know that they are going to be
persecuted by members of the vengeful group and thinking they might aswell get
hung for a sheep as a lamb tends to organise into fighting groups to suppress the
vengeful fellows by force. Yes if no one was ever held responsible for the actions of
their forefathers or others who are considered to be in the same tribal group as them
(especially tribal groups which are determined by birth) there would be a lot less war
and conflict in the world, in other words Jack the Ripper‟s son should not be
persecuted and ostracised from society unless he condoned the actions of his father as
that would mean punishing him for being born.
         Two chapters ago I mentioned some of the advantages of the space
programme but there are also other advantages outside the economy that ultimately
aid greatly in promoting world peace. Firstly as said before, it would reduce
unemployment which generally keeps a country less militant secondly it would
provide a really adventure outside going to war for the young men of fighting age to
pursue that would genuinely test their mettle against a hostile environment. The
reason young men like to risk their lives is because women go for men which display
fit characteristics, i.e. characteristics that suggest that they can survive through
adversity and the only honest display of this is to genuinely put yourself through a
trying situation that not all people could survive through and stay alive, war is one
way of achieving this although it is fundamentally immoral, sport is another way to do
it and it keeps people healthy, but space is actually useful in the long term. Another
reason why the space programme can go towards promoting world peace is because
by nature, human are a restless creature, always striving to explore new lands and to
expand into new domains and if their aren‟t any unoccupied domains to expand into
then we as a species get claustrophobic and start to fight among ourselves yet with the
knowledge that the habitable boundary is constantly being stretched farther and
farther back the drive is not to conquer someone else, but to explore this new domain
for new opportunities. And the last reason why the space programme will aid in the
realisation of world peace is because of the sheer effort and cost needed to run it,
people will find that they can achieve far more by working together than work ing
         Well now I have provided a rough sketch of the ideology, its principles and the
problems I hope it will help go towards solving. In the next chapter, the manner
whereby it may grow to the point where the union may become a serio us power to be
considered on the world stage will be discussed as well as the final bits in the
sketching of the founding principles of the union.

        As history has progress tribes have become bigger and bigger, the class is an
example of a group of people blatantly and openly siding together for the purpose of
their own benefit to make sure that they don‟t have to go around giving too much of
their money away to other people. (After all the basic idea of friendship is that you
help your friend out when he is in need, poor people are always in need of money
while rich people can easily afford to give them money, therefore is a rich person
makes too many poor friends then those friends are always going to be stuck for
money or strimped for cash and the rich person will feel obliged to help his poor
friends out and in the process lose money himself, the answer is not to make poor
friends in the first place, hence the class system) While race and nation are attempts to
extend the family unit beyond in its natural bounds but nonetheless nation certainly
works quite well because in involves a large group of people cooperating with each
other and thus benefiting the individual members, the ideology is an attempt to extend
the family unit still further to encompass the whole of the species homo sapiens even
though this is clearly an ambitious goal I think it is possible because the enormous
benefits of doing so will probably be enough of an incentive in the long run for people
to be attracted to it, the greatest benefit is, ofcourse with total human unity there will
be noone left to fight (unless a massive armada of alien spacecraft descends upon us
which is most unlikely) this will allow the economy to be designed to boost our
collective fitness still further. Humanism and communism although moderately
successful in their own way do not take human nature sufficiently into account,
although the ideology is probably not perfect in this respect I believe that in atleast
some ways it is better than the existing regimes. Opinions on tribalism vary, some
support nationalism and patriotism, others oppose it. Opinions are opinions and are
often hard to argue against but at the end of the day all that can really be said is that if
we continue to tribalise into smaller and more insular fragments all we will get for it
is a never ending series of wars (originating from one member of a tribe wronging a
different tribe where all his fellow members support him and all the members of the
tribe that was wronged oppose him and all who support him, thus a war is started) that
will probably eventually destroy the species and drag many other species of animals
and plants down with it.
        The main problem is from getting from point A to point B. I think that the best
way for it to start would be as a charity organisation, for who would suspect an
innocent charity organisation of such far-reaching ambitions? There are many other
advantages to be had in doing so. Firstly, the core group will consist of reasonably
upstanding people which will atleast give it a head start before the onset of the rot of
corruption start to settle in. Secondly what kind of sick government would actively
suppress the growth of an organisation that was going around actively helping people
and thirdly, since people in need tend to be people who are not satisfied with the
existing regime, such a charity organisation can form contacts with such people which
might, at some later stage, vote for us. Also the fact that charity organisations go
around the place helping people means that they are welcomed by a wide variety of
countries which will allow is spread to gain an international dimension.
        Phase two will begin when various countries gain enough support for the
ideology to start various political parties in various countries phase three can only
begin if they start to get an overall majority, if parties representing ideology do not get
elected democratically then that is it, no military takeovers allowed for then it will
become so perverted from its proper course that it would become a force of evil rather
than good and the whole point of the frigging book is to improve peoples lives in
general. Should any faction decide to take a violent anti-democratic approach they
must be ostracised and maybe even fought against by the other members, better to
side with a democratic party that holds completely different principles that to side
with a dictator. Having said that I do believe that the parties that represent the
ideology will gain a majority eventually when people become accustomed to its
nature. This is because of its flexibility, fundamental morality over rules all else and
anything I have said that would not ultimately be fundamentally moral in a given
place at a given time may be ignored, in a world dominated by capitalism, without a
union large enough to be self-sufficient many of the policies I have mentioned simply
will not be economically feasible, however I think a party that places life, health and
happiness at the top of its agenda will appeal to people and get a substantial portion of
the vote while the wiley politicians can think of better and more well-developed
policies to get ever closer to achieving that goal.
                         THE FORMATION OF THE UNION
         This is the forth and final phase of its spread, this is when two or more
countries that both support the ideology join into a union. If this union is to have any
real meaning it must be selective, otherwise it will exist in name only, like the “United
Nations” which in reality is anything but united although I support the principles
which it stands for, by not being selective about who is allowed to join and who isn‟t
it loses any cohesive will to achieve anything as its member nations don‟t all have the
same will, thus there must be high standards that decide whether or not a country can
join the union.
The candidate country must have:

*A state run healthcare system aswell as a state funded or partially state funded public
transport system.

*A high standard of housing and sanitation.

*A high standard of public education.

*Tolerably low levels of general tribal conflict within.

*Tolerably low levels of crime and drugs.

*Does not support the death penalty for any crimes that do not conflict with the life of
the majority

*Does not punish harmless cultural practises

*Tolerably low levels of unemployment and poverty

*A reasonably high minimum wage and generally safe working conditions

*A strong commitment to the environment that has already been demonstrated

*A strong commitment to the exploration and colonisation of space

*A commitment to ultimately eliminate world poverty and support towards the
expansion of the union through peaceful methods.

*A commitment to always abide by the rules of war

*Must accept the definition of fundamental morality, fundamental immorality and the
duty of mankind.

*Must accept the seven founding principles of the union which are more or less laid
out here anyway

*Must be a democracy
          By making it hard rather than easy to join we may benefit from the Tom
Sawyer effect, whereas in the case of the empire, everyone is constantly trying to
leave because they are forced to stay, in the case of the union all its members will try
to stay in case they are forced to leave.
          After this the two countries must unite their armies into one and any further
countries who wish to join and satisfy the criteria above must also unite their military
forces. This single military can later be adjusted in its manner to become the
defenders of the ideology. The greatest problem with the European Union is the word
European, the union of the ideology must not restrict itself to any land mass but
should accept any candidate anywhere on the globe, provided they meet the necessary


        Ultimately, as everyone tends to vote for what is best for them, the politicians
that tend to get elected in such a system are politicians who do what is best for most
people, in every other form of government the leader only relies on the military or a
small upper class elite for his power and thus will tend to orchestrate the system to
serve their needs and his own (though even democratically elected politicians do that)
while ignoring the needs of people who he does not rely on for his power. We should
not be angry that democratically elected politicians are corrupt rather we should be
glad that in this society we have the power to openly say that they are corrupt without
getting our heads chopped off, which would happen in many other systems of
government. Ofcourse voters don‟t get exactly what they vote for, this is partly to do
with the fact that different people vote for conflicting things, partly because the same
individual will want two things that cannot be both accomplished and partly because
of the bureaucracy of the system and the fecklessness of some politicians yes in other
forms of government things get done faster. But the things that get done aren‟t
necessarily the sort of things that we want done. Thus democracy is a must as it
provides a necessary basis for further development.

         Charity will be necessary to bring those outside the union up to scratch,
realistically aid will never really be engaged in on a large scale unless he who donates
will ultimately benefit from his donation, a vast portion of the aid given should be
educating people so that a skilled workforce can be built up. This is the beauty of the
nature of the ideology, by having a non-tribal foundation, soon the charity of one
country to another can be ultimately changed into the mutual cooperation between
two countries that may ultimately lead to their unification. If the poor are ignored and
left to die when they are nice and well-behaved then we have no right to punish them
when they turn criminal, thus without charity, justice cannot exist.
         It is in our nature to repeat what is rewarded and avoid what is punished, if a
behaviour is punished often enough then people will think that those who practice it
deserve what they get even if they are doing something that is fundamentally moral
while if a behaviour is rewarded enough then people who do it will be admired even if
what they are doing is fundamentally immoral. Thus I repeat it is vital that
fundamentally moral behaviours are rewarded while fundamentally immoral ones are
punished, appeasement never truly works as the person who is appeased thinks to
himself, hmm I threatened to do something evil once and got rewarded maybe if I
threaten to do something else that is evil I will be rewarded again! Some people think
that justice and vengeance are one and the same, they are not, while vengeance is a
primal desire to see someone who made you suffer, suffer himself, justice is making
bad consequences befall people who commit fundamentally immoral actions solely
for the purpose of deterring them from doing it again and to deter others who hear of
their fate from doing it. Without justice you can‟t really have massive industry as
people work to be rewarded and if the state is not in a position to reward them then it
cannot persuade them to work.
          It is very important that conservation comes before industry because if you are
going to launch an endeavour to make or create something, it is important that you
take into account what you destroy in the process. Without this taken into
consideration the process of industry becomes a negative act of destruction rather than
an act of creation. At every instance we should be thinking of less damaging ways to
create things of the same value and trying to maintain habitats and stocks. Surely a
crocodile skin purse is not worth the disappearance of an entire species. So before we
go too mad about progress, weigh the value of the progress with that which might end
up being destroyed.
          When I say industry I do not mean building big smoky factories but rather the
fact that we should be willing to work at what we believe to be worthy, fundamentally
moral causes for nothing will get done if people are not willing to role up their sleeves
and do it. This does not have to be secondary industry but rather any job or activity
where something worthwhile is achieved, paying money to a worthy cause also counts
as it is making a sacrifice to encourage an action that is worthwhile. Improvement
cannot happen without industry as for every advance made there is a designer that has
worked to make it.
          This is about flexibility, the willingness to exchange one process or method of
doing something for another, to exchange a product for a better one law for another.
Only through doing this can we meet the demands of a growing population and look
to the future with optimism, innovation is also required to create machines and
devices that allow us to better explore the universe that we live in.
          This is about finding new things out and going to new places just for the hell
of it. It could be underwater, it could be out in space it could be through analysing the
results from an experiment with a particle accelerator, or in could be an ecological or
a geological expedition, not only is improvement necessary for exploration but
exploration is necessary for improvement as it supplies the ideas that drive
improvement forward. I believe we should explore the deep seas but not exploit or
colonise them as it would only result in destroying another ecosystem which we have
no idea about, an by all account this ecosystem is more fragile than the other ones as
the creatures in it have slower lifecycles, that is why I think space is the place to
expand into.
                                  THE PROCESS OF JOINING
          When it comes to creating a union there will be many vested interests who will
oppose it if it is not done right. This is because the leader of a given country and those
around him are hardly going to want to join a union if it will ultimately lead to a loss
of power for themselves. Therefore, we should not be too finickity over the precise
nature of the democratic government (Well as long as there is one man one vote, no
gerrymandering, and no tribal group which is artificially kept under-represented)
basically there should be a grand- high council that makes the main decisions, and it
should be composed of the democratically elected governors of the countries that are
members. When a new country is accepted, although the military should united, there
should be no major attempt to alter the political structure purely for the sake of
homogeny. Every country should have equal representation and no elite group should
have the power to veto anything otherwise its federal structure will gradually become
more imperial in nature with the biggest countries making all the decisions that will
end up being, lets face it, to the advantage of the bigger countries. If a country feels it
is being under represented it can split itself into two countries. My vision is of a union
starting with small to medium- sized countries all over the world with the large
countries only joining it later and then breaking themselves up into smaller units for
better representation.
        Regarding taxation, probably at a first guess one third of the tax paid should
go to the locality (county council and the like) one third to the country and one third
to the union. The proportions can obviously be fiddled about a bit but the main idea is
that you get the best of both worlds. Perhaps if the time comes when all the members
of the union feel sufficiently unified, you might even be able to eve ntually elect a
head of all the union and have a cabinet. The cabinet should be elected by the people
and not appointed by the head and a portion of tax should go towards paying for the
campaigns of various candidates otherwise only super-rich people or those sponsored
by private companies looking for more influence will end up getting elected as head.
There should be an upper limit set on the amount someone can spend on a campaign
and the television should try to give each candidate an equal amount of cove rage.
Once every four years would cost the Earth for campaigning so the term should last
seven years instead and people should be allowed to run for as many terms as they
want because that way good head‟s of the union will last longer than bad head‟s this
means over a given period of time with this system a greater proportion of that time
will be spent under the leadership of a good head. This system is altogether more
democratic than having a bunch of civil servants making all the decisions and
gradually turning the union into an over-centralised second USSR. The union should
not be insular and there should be an outer confederation of candidate countries who
have not yet met the criteria but are getting there and are enthusiastic about joining. A
portion of the union‟s budget should be dedicated towards helping them to meet the
above criteria thereby making them full members. Then the union should have friends
and allies, countries that are not interested in joining but with whom there is some
shared benefit to be had by cooperating with. Be it through trade, scientific projects of
some kind and the like. The union should have an open mind to making friends with
neutrals, then perhaps there maybe a few enemies speckled about the place. Countries
whose attitude to declaring war and killing vast quantities of innocent people is
intolerable. These countries may be declared war upon, or perhaps pro-democratic
guerrillas could be supported in the area, where the country is too big for either, the
union can always resort to the tried and trusted trade embargo however once they
have abandoned their offending policies then no grudge should be held (the idea of
holding a grudge against a whole country full of people is moronic) and relations
should be immediately improved.
         It is quite possible that the powers of the union should gradually become more
corrupt as they become more well-established, however, thankfully because
democracy is such a pivotal point about which the ideology revolves, this will not be
the end of the world, because always new charity organisations and political parties
will form with ideals that more closely resemble the ideology in its less corrupt form
or maybe even are have policies that are a marked improvement from the ones in this
         It is true that new parties will not be able to automatically achieve the position
of head of the union because of the social inertia that will inevitably build up in the
media and the culture and the like, but it is quite conceivable that a localised area that
is becoming less well-represented by the increasingly corrupt union might vote for
them. Then because of the nature of the laws of the union, they will be able to
separate from it and form their own little piece of land that is governed by their own
laws, if onlookers from other areas of the union or from outside see that these new
laws work better than the old ones they may decide to vote for the representatives of
the new party instead of the old thus the new union grows, and the old union must
either bring in reforms to improve itself and make itself more appealing or be replaced
by the new and better union, ofcourse as the old union reforms itself and the new
union begins to abandon some of its more naïve ideas, the time may come when the
two unions may feel they have enough in common to become one again. Ofcourse not
all unions must share the principles of the ideology. There may indeed be federal
capitalist unions, federal communist unions (that are not dictatorships) the ideal would
be to transcend the nation and say that simply any old group of people that can get
along can work side by side together and be coordinate by a single system of
administration, all these unions would be democratic and have a federal structure.
Where even then boundaries of the countries/states which they encompass are
flexible. No political party will not be allowed to sit in parliament in any of these
member countries/states and if any political party that wishes to become independent
from the union and/or join another union should come to power than that segment of
land should be allowed to do just that. Thus the boundaries of the unions are flexible,
according to the whims of the people inside them. This is a very good system because
at present if a radical party comes into power the country shall suffer even if their
policies might theoretically work simply because already established relations with
other countries in the vicinity will be broken while new close relationships are hard to
form simply because of this concept of the nation with immutable boundaries. Other
nations that share the ideals of the break away nation will not help it as much as the
could simply because the people in the breakaway nation is not encompassed by the
“sacred national boundary” of the other nation who shares the same ideals. However
with the union structure, countries that vote to leave the union and join another union
can be rapidly assimilated into the new union, infact the union that they want to join
would probably give them aid in order to get them started and help them change their
economy and policies in a way that is more compatible with the other union.
         It is in the interests of a given union to accept a new member as if being a
member was not beneficial to the given member or the members that accepted the
newbee into the union then said union would simply not have grown to the size that it
did. So assuming that the union is beneficial to all members, why then the more, the
merrier! Thus we can see that what I said is compatible with human nature.
         By giving each union mobile boundaries, you can get the best of both worlds.
Currently in many democratic nations if the people have a change of heart and vote
for a government which has entirely different policies. That government might easily
destroy all the infrastructure which the government that came before it has worked to
build up (a good example here would be Margaret Thatcher and British Rail) and then
if the original government returns it has to painstakingly retrace its steps. With the
union structure things are different. The union will always have roughly the same
ideals. So it will constantly be able to slowly refine and perfect them building on its
past work, yet with mobile boundaries, democracy is preserved as if localised groups
of people have a change of heart they can simply leave the union and join another.
Thus the freedom of the individual to decide which policies he wishes to be governed
by is preserved while the direction and perseverance of the union as a whole in their
ambitions and ideals is not compromised.
         Some anarchists are confused violent people who won‟t accept authority from
anyone and generally like breaking things, stealing things and protesting a lot about
pretty much everything. I don‟t believe every anarchist has really thought out their
ideology very carefully but from what I gather, the ideal of some of the more level-
headed anarchists is very close to that of Greek democracy without any money, where
different people barter for the goods they need and every week they all get together
and organise themselves via a group discussion or something, and decide collectively
what to do and in these meetings there is no group leader or authority figure.
         The problem with anarchy is that it leaves not scope whatsoever for
technological development, or the production of anything on a medium to large scale.
There is no way a society without money or government could, say, manufacture
televisions, computers, pesticides, GM crops, modern housing, prescription
medication or trains. In a world of 6 billion people there is no way you could support
them all under a global anarchist system. In order to running the large institutions and
corporations that manufacture and research lots of thing that are necessary to support
all these people at a reasonable standard of living you need both a financial system
and an authority structure. The large number of employees needed to run a
corporation, numbering in the thousands simply couldn‟t all sit in a circle and decide
to manufacture a television by bartering goods. Imagine if someone in an anarchist
society wanted to discover the charge to mass ratio of an electron. First he would need
to barter for equipment and then he would need to barter for food. And what would he
offer the individuals who he wanted to barter with in exchange for their help? He
would have nothing to give them! So a discovery that could bring great long-term
benefit to humanity would not come about because it is in noone‟s short term interest.
         Anarchy has a huge amount of limitations as a global system of government or
lack thereof, however I see no reason why the union might not issue licenses for the
odd pocket of anarchy to exist here and there. After all there‟s nothing to stop a few
people living in anarchists communes, farming the land, making clay pots, painting,
engaging in carpentry and writing and the like, and every now and again venturing
into the outside world to exchange a poem with a watch-dealer in exchange for a
wristwatch. Or a pot with a pharmacist in exchange for a packet of paracetamol
tablets. It is quite possible that anarchy might be sustained on such a small scale, an if
they caused trouble in the surrounding neighbourhood the commune would simply
have its license revoked.
         It would be interesting to see exactly how such societies based on anarchist
principles would evolve through time aswell as acting as a sponge to suck all the
malcontents out of the union. And those who didn‟t enjoy the life on the commune
would return with new conviction and support for the union.
        Anarchists say that anarchy has never been given a chance, I think we should
give them a chance, on a very localised scale, if nothing else it shouls shut them up.

        It is always a good idea to question the integrity of the system in which you
are brought up in or the morals which you are taught, however, one should never ever
say that things can‟t get any worse then the way that they are now because, invariably
there is always some situation far worse than the one which already exists. This is the
fact which the reactionary overlooks, born thinking that everything is perfect and that
humans are intrinsically good, once realising that all this is wrong, feels betrayed and
lashes back with a vengeance, joining any old movement whatsoever as long as it
promises to bring about something different. The reactionary sees every mainstream
attempt at education to be brainwashing and other human beings to be puppets of the
system. The reactionary welcomes all forms of revolution regardless of the end result.
This is the worst form of reactionary, however, many idealist people support
unrealistic morals and ethics such as believing that all animals should have human
rights or that all forms of money should be abolished. But before we deal with the
specific types of reactionary let us deal with the arguments which radica l minority
factions give against more mainstream thinking.
                          PERSUASION AND MANIPULATION
         Minority factions often like to believe that the majority of people are
brainwashed against their views. Before we can consider whether this is true we must
first consider what brainwashing actually is. The process of brainwashing is simply
the use of a process of reward and punishment to get people thinking a certain way.
Sometimes it also involves subliminal suggestion. People don‟t generally like this
because it turns them into puppets unable to follow the most adaptive path but instead
behaving in a certain way for fear of the consequences of doing otherwise. This is due
to the fact that if the brain associates a particular manor of thinking, speaking or mode
of behaviour with guaranteed punishment (pain, starvation or social exclusion) it will
tend to think it less, speak it less or do it less. This is simply an adaptive characteristic
of our minds. Cults and various totalitarian regimes have recognised this and by
gaining total control over what gets rewarded and what gets punished aswell as actual
torture ofcourse to break particularly uppity individuals, they have managed to
maintain total authority over their followers.
         However in every society a certain system of rewards and punishments must
be used in order to make sure people don‟t wrong each other too much, and in school
people simply would not learn if those who made learning impossible for others were
not punished, in a proper system the people who end up getting punished the most are
those that forcefully try to control the behaviours of others be it through addictive
substances or organised crime. Parents also use this aspect of our nature to teach us to
behave in a certain way, to refer to all these things as brainwashing is surely folly
although the basic principles are the same. Infact the very reactionaries who criticise
others for being conditioned by society often form themselves into small, tightly knit,
cult- like tribes where anyone who says what they don‟t agree with is treated with
hostility. If you include the constant bombardment of various arguments always
biased in the same way as conditioning then everyone is conditioned one way or
another, depending on the tribal unit to which they belong.
         Yet with all this is mind there is clearly a very great need to distinguish
between education and conditioning, for we all need information to survive, the only
question must surely be which information to accept and which to reject. Firstly one
sign of conditioning rather than education is when you are told something, not given
any reason to believe it, and when you ask a question that challenges its validity you
are snapped at rather than reasoned with. Secondly regarding being persuaded into
doing something rather than being manipulated, I would define persuasion as giving
someone the impression that doing something is to their benefit when it is, while
manipulation is giving someone the impression that doing something is to their
benefit (often through lies) when it is not. Thus people who are making lots of money
and obtaining great advantages for themselves by following the established system are
most certainly not brainwashed but simply doing what they see is best for them, and
from the fact that they are successful, they are obviously right.
         If everyone in the world was evil, would it be an act of good to kill them all?
Some reactionaries would say yes. That is why I have developed fundamental
morality, in order to overcome this little paradox while at the same time avoiding
turning into a wishy washy crime and drug infested super liberal ideology. I say no.
This has a particular significance when it comes to selfishness because, if you
consider the phenomenon of the selfish gene then we are all selfish to a greater or
lesser extent. It is important that we have institutions such as the police force and the
press to keep this selfishness in check, but again as selfishness is an inherent part of
our nature, the act of completely eradicating it would not justify the end, especially
taking into account that this end is unattainable. This is another problem with
Christianity, by teaching us to be thoroughly ashamed of every aspect of our nature,
the person brought up in such a society sees all these so-called Christians around him,
senses all the blatant hypocrisy and ends up being sickened by humanity in general.
The best attitude is not to expect too much from humans in the first place and then
you won‟t end up being disappointed or disillusioned. Anyway reactionaries usually
end up becoming far worse and more flawed than the people which they criticise.
         In conclusion, for a human to unconsciously prioritise himself above others is
unavoidable and should be tolerated. The danger arises whe n an individual
consciously and vocally expresses the feeling that he has more right to live and
benefit from the world then another. When this person then feels that all others should
serve him hand and foot and feels he has the right to punish them if they don‟t, such
thinking should be avoided at all costs and such attitudes should not be tolerated.
         Radical political movements often contain many people who are prepared to
get rowdy for the sake of the cause, if a political movement begins to get violent, then
a savage pack mentality starts to develop. Violence is particularly dangerous in a
political movement because its members start to justify it and because they are all in
the same tribe other members will tend to agree with their justifications, because
human morality is strongly influenced on what those around you think is acceptable,
then if one act of violence is justified, then perhaps another is aswell, and another, and
another, and another. The more violence is committed, the more justification memes
will float around the members of the movement. As outsiders begin to see them as
dangerous freaks that are best avoided the members become isolated, this means that
less and less arguments that oppose the justification memes will enter the group so,
without competition the justification memes become more and more concentrated and
the movement becomes more extreme. What started out as a bunch of people with
clear objectives now ends up as nothing more than a cohesive fighting unit that looks
after its own, a miniature army.
         If the motto of the anarchist is “Lets protest and break stuff!” then the motto of
the anti- globalist would be “For the sake of the starving people in the third world, lets
protest and break stuff!” At the end of the day anti- globalisation attracts the same
confused aggressive disillusioned youths as anarchism, the only difference now is
they are standing behind a pseudo- intellectual front. It is indeed true that companies
take advantage of poor people and make them work for shit, but the reason that they
work for shit is that the alternative of unemployment is even worse. To get rid of all
the factories of multi- national companies in the third world would mean that instead
of working for shit wages that are barely enough to get by on they would not work at
all and not have enough to even get by on. Thus instead of getting rid of multi-
national companies we should vote socialist governments that will impose legislation
forcing companies to provide better working conditions. And support companies that
do provide better working conditions.
         At the end of the day there is no method to the madness of the anti-
globalisation movement there are no realistic objectives, just a bunch of angry people
trashing stuff and getting in the way of things and protesting about things which
everyone already disapproves of. Perhaps the act of giving speeches to raise
awareness about the injustice of the world is good but although protest with focuss ed
objectives can bring real change protests without focussed objectives will only
generate hostility towards the movement.
         If there‟s one thing worse then consumerism its anti-consumerism. Some of
the more extreme nutcases don‟t think we should buy anything such as
pharmaceuticals but instead let nature take its course. Anti-consumerists also put up
really corny slogans like the ones in advertisements which say stuff like “Don‟t
consume, live.” At the end of the day the problem lies not with the products
themselves but with the way we view them. The way the things you own are
considered to be a measure of the type of person you are. Herein lies the flaw for
people end up buying useless things just to impress each other, generating need less
pollution and they often end up throwing them away without using them. We should
ofcourse move away from a material based society into an activity based one but
people still need medicine and although far too much packaging is used and people
should put serious thought into minimising the waste created you still need some
packaging to keep out germs. These people never tire of saying that people managed
in the old days fine, well that maybe true but the death rate was also higher in the old
days. Though again we should focus more on recycling and making more non-
disposable reusable things and by the way, money is here to stay, but money is not
really the problem, the problem is what we spend it on.
                                ANIMAL RIGHTS
         This movement has advantages and disadvantages. But before going any
further we must ask ourselves the question should animals have the same rights as
humans? At the end of the day most people would say no because we‟re better than
them. Then you must ask the question what “better” means or what characteristics
make something better or worse. Others might say animals should not have the same
rights as us because they don‟t have souls. This is simply crap, at the end of the day
there is nothing to suggest that humans have souls and if people can take it upon
themselves to presume that we do than what evidence do they base the assumption
that animals don‟t have souls on? The real reason why animals don‟t have human
rights is because you‟re not allowed to eat things with human rights and animals taste
so good with vegetables and potatoes. Also you can‟t squash a human if you see one
buzzing around the kitchen, it would also be a bit of a bother giving all the
unemployed animals of the world social welfare payments and health plans. Thus we
simply don‟t give animals human rights because it would be extremely inconvenient
to do so and besides we‟ve got enough bother dealing with the human population
explosion let alone dealing with the animals population explosion that would arise
from saving the life of every animal that was about to die. Animal rights activists talk
about how we leave the starving masses out to die yet what would they have us feed
them with, gravel? At the end of the day even in order to grow enough vegetables to
feed them you would have to kill all the poor little innocent insects that are also
hungry and are just trying to find something to eat, which we so cruelly brand with the
label of “pest”.
         If you want a half-arsed justification as to why we should be allowed to do
things to animals which we would not do to all but the most immoral of humans it
would be because animals themselves don‟t recognise morality. Surely if a human that
hunts a fox deserves to be sent to prison for life then a fox that hunts a rabbit should
also be brought up in front of the court of law and given a life sentence. Or what about
the way that mother rats eat their babies if there is not enough food around? Perhaps
we should these offenders to prison for life aswell, but wait! How are we going to find
enough evidence to prove in the court of law that they did indeed commit such a vile
offence, the only way to do this is to systematically place CCTV cameras all over the
sewers so that we can find the perpetrators of this crime. Yes, the animal rights
activists will say, but their only following their instincts and doing what‟s in their
nature to do, they don‟t know any better! The only way you can ever teach anyone
better is via a process of reward and punishment and animals can indeed be taught
better just like humans, in circuses and things they can be taught to perform tricks that
they would have never naturally learnt in the wild by giving them a treat when they do
it right and whipping them when they do it wrong. This is essentially how you teach
humans better aswell. If there were no prison sentences or punishments for doing
certain things, then humans would not know any “better” either when it comes to
committing what we would now consider to be crimes. Also when you consider the
population of any animal, it is maintained roughly at equilibrium simply because if it
rises above equilibrium predators will either check it or it will eat more food than can
be sustainably replenished and the surplus will either slowly starve to death or the fact
that they are not eating will reduce their immune system to the point where disease
can infect them and again slowly kill them, when you consider the fact that the
populations of most animals are in equilibrium the fox hunt does not seem such a bad
thing because any surplus foxes that are not killed in the summer will slowly starve to
death or die of cold in the winter. And killing foxes in the summer means that there
won‟t be so many to compete over the scanty food resources around in winter. If you
are still not convinced that killing animals is all right read this parable.
                                 WALLY WORM
         Once upon a time Wally worm crawled out of his to bask in the sun. “Oh how
great life is! I feel happy as a camper today!” unfortunately Billy Blackbird was
waiting for him. Without warning a beak held him fast crushing his internal organs.
Wally worm started haemorrhaging inside but still he struggled to return to his
burrow, his very life hung in the balance, with all five pseudo- hearts pumping like
there was no tomorrow and needles of pain rushed through his ganglion telling him he
was in serious trouble. The tugging and pulling of the blackbird was unbearable, every
time he felt it, it made him nauseous, eventually his entire body started to rip around
the waste as Billy ate the other half, all that was left of his body beyond the fortieth
segment was a long string of intestine. Tired and convulsing with pain he tried to get
out of harms way but Billy grabbed the remainder of his body and swallowed it
whole, as the stomach acid sizzled away the remainder of his consciousness he
wondered what he had ever done to deserve this.
                                 FREDDY FOX
         The freezing winter wind was whirling around Freddy‟s empty stomach to an
unbearable extent. Cramps of hunger filled his starving mind, oh, if only he could find
a rat to eat. In despair he slumped back to his den. There his wife Philadelphia was
waiting for him anxiously. “Freddy,” she said “our eldest born, Philip is dying.”
“Father,” Philip whispered in gasps “Please give me something to eat, I‟m ever so
hungry.” Freddy dropped his head in shame. “I‟m sorry Philip I…I couldn‟t find
anything.” “Father,” whispered Philip “I think….” His body shaking with the bitter
cold coughed and spluttered like the weak laugh of a dying man “I think I might be
dying.” “No Philly!” Freddy said as tears trickled down his cheeks “Don‟t go! I‟ll find
something for us to eat somehow! Everything is going to be all right! I‟m sorry I
couldn‟t find anything for us to eat, I‟m sorry I failed as a provider” “No father, you
haven‟t failed you‟ve always been there for me and that is something I will never
forget, I‟ll always love you even if it is from beyond the grave.” “PHILLY YOU‟RE
NOT GOING TO DIE!” Freddy shouted in desperation. Philly coughed “Goodbye
father.” And then his body went still “PHILLY NO!” Freddy rushed out into the cold
to find a rat to eat, he knew times were hard these days and if he couldn‟t find
something his wife Philadelphia would soon die aswell on and on he marched through
the frozen forest, every step he took felt like torture to his stiffening, starving,
weakening body. Energy was running out fast and he found it hard even to keep his
eyes open, a final icy gust of snow toppled him over, he couldn‟t get up. As he closed
his eyes for the last time he dreamt of the better days when food abounded and he
Philadelphia, Philly and the others in the litter, Philipa and Fin scampered and
frolicked amit the summer forest.
                                 RACHAEL RAT
         Rachael rat scampered along with a stomach full of food ready to feed her
brood with, it was a midsummer day and food was abundant. Suddenly she saw
Freddy Fox behind her. Taken by such surprise, ice ran through her blood as she froze
with fear. This was fatal as the deadly jaws of F reddy clamped around her body as the
razor-sharp teeth penetrated her chest, internal haemorrhaging abounded but that
didn‟t matter for as Freddy brutishly shook her back and forth and back and forth over
and over again her spine snapped and she was paralysed. As the foxes all began to
chew at her vitals and her lifeblood drained away she knew that her litter would
                                 MARY MOSQUITO
         Mary mosquito is the happy tale in the never ending tragedy of life because
Mary kept her stomach full by stucking the blood of a wide number of humans and
spreading disease, fortunately, because she never went hungry, her brood of a
thousand larvae all survived and grew into adults who all went off sucking the blood
of many more humans. Yes Mary thought, life is just and fair.
                          CAROLINE CATERPILLAR
         Caroline caterpillar was unusually large for a caterpillar, twice as large, infact
as all her brothers and sisters. They had all pupated but she remained a caterpillar for
some mysteriously sinister reason. She frequently suffered from aches an pains all
over her and this incredible insatiable hunger. Suddenly to her horror, a white worm
burst up through her back, pangs of pain rivitted up and down her body, this was
followed by another white worm and another and another, as her body was torn apart
from the inside, she realised why she hadn‟t had the chance to become a butterfly. She
had been infected by a parasitic wasp!!! She died the most awful death imaginable as
more and more of the vile creatures burst out of her.
                                 THE MORAL
         You sympathise with a dollop of slime mould if you try hard enough, tragedy
will always happen in nature and animals will always die. Perhaps becoming obsessed
with causing pain to animals and getting a thrill out of it is not a good habit to get into
but the odd fox hunt, bullfight or pheasant shoot won‟t do any harm and should not be

        A major reason why some people become so obsessed with animal rights is
because they see rich treating other human beings as if they were animals and then
going on to be cruel to animals aswell. Some animal rights activists and vegetarians
argue that eating animals ultimately creates a culture where people tend to tolerate and
endorse the most horrendous crimes, they would argue that the meat-eating attitude
that you can take they life of another living creature provided you benefit from it
creates imperialism and war. Yet India has one of the highest proportions of
vegetarians in its population and they have there own nuclear weapons program, hate
Muslims and have a rigid caste system with untouchables at the bottom, people who
are treated worse then animals (especially cows) simply because of who bore them.
Human nature is human nature, in some cases it should be suppressed but the act of
suppressing a facet of our nature often involves punishing or ostracising those who
practise it. The cost of suppressing our urge to eat meat is in no way worth the benefit
of saving the lives of individuals animals whose species reach an equilibrium sooner
or later anyway. Although as mentioned before it is important to preserve the diversity
of nature and make sure whole species don‟t go extinct. Here so of the more fanatical
animal rights activist would disagree again. “Don‟t kill the poor little bunnies in
Australia, its not their fault they were brought there, they were brought their without
being consulted and now they‟re just trying to survive along with the feral cats and
foxes.” Again bunnies die anyway, so do cats and foxes and by supporting this
ludicrous non-interventionist policy you end up with whole species of marsupials
being wiped out never to appear on the planet again, do they deserve that fate?
Ofcourse we cannot blame the pests and vermin for simply trying to feed themselves
but should we blame the farmers who kill them for simply trying to earn a living?
This civilisation we see before us is simply an expression of mankind following his
natural urge to survive, we should not wipe out whole species instead we should work
to preserve them but we should certainly be allowed to kill individual animals that
seriously threaten us or when it is beneficial to do so, always trying to follow the path
that leaves the least scar on nature. After all animals kill us when it is beneficial for
them to do so, back in the stone age the dens of big cats were littered with the bones
of hominids but we should not be vengeful for, at the end of the day, the natural world
is above and beyond our human sense of right and wrong and to try to do otherwise
leads to never-ending cycles of moral convolutions and inconsistencies that end up
achieving absolutely nothing.
         Animal testing should not be carried out for make up or luxury items, but
where it adds significantly to medical research it should be allowed. In this case it is
simply contributing to our survival like farming and the like, animal testing should not
be carried out on apes, an only reluctantly on monkeys intelligent, friendly animals
such as dolphins should also be treated with greater respect.

               THE MEANING OF LIFE
         In this final chapter of the book I will try to make a half-arsed attempt to
justify fundamental morality from a more philosophical point of view than just saying
we may aswell organise ourselves in such a way to maximize our fitness. I leave this
to last because its probably going to be such a twisted convoluted pointless effort. If
we speak in terms of simply surviving ourselves and reproducing there is no real
argument for doing good and avoiding evil. At the end of the day evil people
sometimes get away with their villainy. But, having said that good people probably
have atleast as much of a chance of doing well for themselves as evil ones. It is true
that often the ruthless people end up rich but they need all the money they can get to
hire bodyguards and build alarm systems and fences to protect their wealth, their life
and the lives of their family from robbers and from the enemies they make on the way
up. If you don‟t have enemies, you don‟t need as much money to protect yourself. So
when it comes to survival and reproduction, good and evil are evenly matched and if
anything good might have the lead. I will not be so naïve to say that good people
don‟t suffer, but unlike evil people, when they do atleast there are people out there to
listen and sympathise.
        Viewed from a historical point of view, bad generals, good generals, scientists,
poets and philosophers are all remembered. But over a long time humans have a
tendency always learn from their mistakes and to build upon the knowledge of their
ancestors and to improve upon it. Hence there will always be people trying to make
sure that actions that only go on to promote misery, sickness/injury and death will not
be repeated while actions that go on to promote life, health and happiness are upheld.
If you see the general trend in religion, you will see that speaking from a very general
sense of the word the new religions contain less barbaric or immoral practises than do
the old ones. Reforms in the law also generally are more fundamentally moral than
that which came before them, thus the destruction which every infamous villain
throughout history made is gradually smoothed over and the survivors will only
remember him so as to stop anything like that happening again. On the otherhand the
work of the peaceful scientist philosopher or historian will be not only remembered
but built upon and in that way his work is immortalised. The person who promotes
tribalism will not have such a lasting impact because every tribe grows and fades
away as its members abandon it for a new one. When future generations view and
examine the tribal actions of the past they look upon them with curiosity and although
they may feel a certain sympathy for one side or the other it will not really change the
way that they live and thus has not been immortalised. Vast portions of historical
accounts contain detailed descriptions of the battles of old yet now that the sword, the
horse and the bow and arrow has been replaced by the gun, the tank and the fighter
plane what use can we possibly obtain from learning the details of such battles when
the world has changed so much since. On the whole I believe that works of
intellectuals progress and creation have more lasting effects than those of destruction.
        Ever since the first seed was sown in the ground the human population began
to explode, the more humans that were born the more we needed to work together in
order to stay alive and the more people that were alive the more humans will be born,
the degree of cooperation needed gradually surpasses the family unit and gradually
grows to become the tribe, the nation and hopefully the union. If we cannot organise
ourselves to the extent where a major manned space program becomes a feasible
possibility within the next century or too we probably will not be around as a species
to celebrate the next millennium. In order to cooperate, we need to find common
ground and in order to do this we need to respect the life of every human being,
bearing tribal grudges simply is not an option and nothing will come from it accept
war and death. That is another reason to accept fundamental morality.
        Finally you might ask is there no greater meaning than to promote life health
and happiness for ourselves, surely this is inconsequential in the grand scheme of
things? Firstly there can be no grand scheme for the words “grand” and “scheme”
were developed by the human mind to describe a major plan which influential people
make. Influential people generally use their influence to try to promote life, health and
happiness for themselves and those that they rely on for their power, if you‟re lucky
an influential person will rely on a large quantity of people to maintain power, in
which case his grand scheme really will be to generally promote life, health and
happiness. To assume that there is a grand scheme to the physical universe is a
pathetic attempt to humanise it. Even if their was a grand scheme humans and the
planet Earth are unlikely to play any significant role in it so I think we can presume
we have a free run of the place.
                        CAN IT ALL WORK WITHOUT GOD?
         Yes. The basic mechanism behind the Christian mindform is you have abstract
alpha male whose existence or truth of the bible you cannot question for fear of
punishment. With this meme in place the timid believer is set to except the remaining
memes as gospel. Now you say that this alpha male is all seeing and all hearing. So
you really don‟t want to piss him of for fear of punishment and if you do what he says
your going to get a great reward. Then you say that doing a bunch of socially
responsible things is what he wants you to do and you slip in a meme or two about
spreading the divine word. What it all boils down to is you can convince a large
population of people to be more altruistic by convincing them that they will
individually get rewarded (going to heaven) if they do them and punished (going to
hell) if they do thing that are detrimental to society in general. But ultimately the law
can serve the exact same function. For if something is against the law you will be
individually punished for doing it and by giving out subsidies or incentives to people
who help others you can encourage altruism aswell. However in order to take full
advantage of this everyone of us must be prepared to see the big picture, in
otherwords to play God. We have to think of the consequences of our actions, be it the
way we treat our neighbour, the products we by or the people we vote for, we need to
recognise that if we only take our own needs into consideration when we make our
vote then everyone else will only vote for what is in their personal interests aswell,
although unlike war, noone dies, inconsideration for others does lead to a kind of
conflict that greatly hampers the smooth running of a country and indeed of the world
on an international level. We need to vote for laws that may restrict us from doing that
which we habitually do recognising that they will restrict others aswell, if they are for
the common good. We also need to be prepared to pay higher taxes recognising that
many of the things we use our money to buy are simply status symbols and that we
would be just as well off without them if noone else had status symbols either.
         The Christians might respond to the idea of every human playing God as a bad
thing and question whether we have the right to take on such an awesome
responsibility but in truth we mere mortals would not be suddenly taking it on as
something new but rather we would be transferring it from a bunch of religious
nitwits in the catholic church the Mosque of Islam and the synagogue of Judaism into
the hands of people who have exactly the same intrinsically flawed nature as the
priests and rabbis but unlike them have got atleast some idea of what they are talking
about, people like scientists, economists, politicians philosophers and ofcourse the
general public. You may still think that the idea that good actions are rewarded while
evil ones are always punished is necessary to drive us forward and motivate us to do
good. But this concept has a serious flaw aswell. For if good actions are rewarded,
then aren‟t people who get rewarded (like drug barons who get away with it) always
good? And if the committers of evil always suffer then aren‟t people who suffer (like
poor people in the third) world always evil? This kind of thinking lead the catholic
church into supporting the Nazis while it looked as if they were going to win and
some priests today still believe that people who were born handicapped committed
sins in past lives.
         Christians often ask non-believers “What is the reason for your existence?”
and when the non-believer asks the Christian the same answer the Christian replies
with a smug smile on his face “Ah! The reason for my existence is to serve God!”
although the pseudo-reason for doing this is to “help” the non-believer to recognise
the errors of his way. The real reason is to expand the tribe. By questioning the reason
for said non-believers existence Christian missionary subtly tries to devalue non-
believers life. If there are enough Christians in the vicinity non-believer will find that
they all subtly end up giving him the cold shoulder by constantly speaking about the
kind of subjects which if he entered into and expressed his real opinion on would
cause tremendous offence. In order to be accepted into the tribe and have his life be
given a higher value by its members the non-believer must become a believer and
serve alpha.
         But why must a non-believer who works hard, abides by the law and pays his
taxes have to have the meaning of his life questio ned when its people like him that run
the machinery that feed and clothe the preachers sorry arse, has he not, by doing these
things, earned the right not to have his existence question. Life is its own meaning, it
does not need to justified. We live simply because if our parents did not have the urge
inside them to survive and reproduce then we would not be here. Why is it that the
soldier who goes out and kills innocent people can go to bed feeling like a productive
member of the community or the army manufacturer for that matter while the
harmless beggar who simply sits on the street and begs is so often regarded as a waste
of space. At the end of the day the only thing which even the most virtuous of people
do is to save the lives of other human beings or animals, if the life of a single human
can be said to be worth nothing then so are the lives of a billion. Thus life must be
considered to be its own end if only because no other alternative exists.
                                THE END
                                       John McCone

P.S Smash the mobile phones, remember the victims of their microwaves.

To top