Friday, November 2, 2018

Forgiving Democratic Slavery


November 6, 2018 is "government force rearrangement day" (election day) on the USSA plantation (earth is currently divided into 195 plantations). And so I decided to write a post about forgiving democratic slavery. As I've made known in the past, I'm consistently unimpressed by the level of discourse on the subject of politics in the ACIM community. And it certainly doesn't help matters that the most famous ACIM purveyor comes off as a divisive partisan believer in her own brand of government force. Nonetheless, I'm here for those who want to actually forgive and who want to live life with some semblance of philosophical consistency.

Despite the constant stream of guilt trips trying to bully me to vote, including from "spiritual teachers claiming to be listening to the Holy Spirit," I don't vote. Not because "it's pointless," or "rigged," or because "I don't care," but because voting is democratic slavery; it's a culturally conditioned ruse. Voting is an attempt at forcefully enslaving my neighbor to my own preferences, or often more accurately the preferences of my preferred masters (of which I personally prefer none). No one has that right, even if people imagine they do thanks to conditioning. The majority cannot give consent on behalf of an individual; doing so is a recipe for atrocity. We should strive for all human interaction to be voluntary, not forced. Until humans are ready to accept that simple rule (which most already do most of the time in day-to-day life but not when it comes to government/authority), they'll continue just fighting over force instead of ending it.

Democracy preserves status-quo government force; it's a pendulum that evens out so that the force a given individual wants and supports also comes with force he or she doesn't want. The acceptable midpoint of the pendulum swing varies by society and over time. Too much disequilibrium leads to splitting or forceful preservation of unification. Then the go-nowhere game of force just repeats.

I, of course, have no problem with government or anyone else acting as a defensive force against initiators of force. But since government's defensive force is predicated on illegitimate offensive force, I still don't approve of it. If you are forced to pay for cops or military, then their existence depends on initiation of force. On top of that, being forced to pay for something eliminates the feedback of voluntary transactions. Without people voluntarily paying for a good or service, feedback on pricing and quality disappears. So, for instance, when people are forced to pay for cops, people never really know what cops would be like if people paid for them voluntarily. We'd likely find that most people would only be willing to pay for cops under certain conditions and only if they actually prevented the initiation of force and not just tried to track down people after the fact. All that kind of stuff is part of what is known as "the economic (or socialist) calculation problem." But very few people have much of a clue about economics, including people college educated in economics, since real economics debunks the force-dependent progressive agendas of the education system. But a mind able to grasp economics is alone enough to see through democratic slavery, even without factoring in the immorality and faulty ethics of government force.



Overall, voting reflects a random sampling of the preferences of statists. A random sampling of statists (supporters of government force) is not going to correspond with what I want. I want everyone to have what they want as long as what they want doesn't require initiating force and is thus voluntary. Therefore, what I want cannot be achieved through voting (at least not normal voting). Blue force, red force, green force, pink force...different denominations of the church of force have no appeal when you only support no force.

Just because most people don't have the creativity to imagine a world without attempted monopolies on the initiation of force in society (governments), that doesn't slow me down. I don't have to wait for other people's permission to be free and neither do you if you want. I personally arrange my life around being as free as possible... subject to as little government force as possible... and as free from supporting government force as possible. In that sense, I'm a kind of John Galt (for those who know who is John Galt). I'm on strike against the force perpetuators and perpetrators, making me poison for both the left and right lol. If it isn't voluntary, I won't support it. And that's one way I forgive that which I don't support. I don't get involved.

All forgiveness is really self forgiveness; the only thing to forgive is one's own projections of one's own guilt. Supporting force would make me feel consciously guilty, let alone unconsciously. So, I skip that whole landmine of guilt by not participating in that which is doomed to always fail: force.

The unconscious belief that we initiated force on God (oneness) to make our own universe, and in turn destroyed heaven (oneness), is the foundation of guilt. When you advocate government force, you inevitably tap into that unconscious guilt. And you won't forgive yourself for seemingly using force on God until you stop doubling down on force. That's why politics is such a mess of incessant guilt projection. The people who participate and believe in politics are doubling down on force instead of forgiving it. Government is an attempt at a man-made god of force: an idiot god.

Life in this dualistic universe is messy. You can't even breathe or take a walk without accidentally murdering things. Yet, on the level of human interaction we can realistically strive for a higher ideal than force. We are all seemingly here in this universe because we wanted to split off from our whole self and be different. The advantage to being different is that it allows one to project one's own unconscious guilt onto seemingly different others. Sometimes we see others as having something we are missing and want while other times we see others as having something we have but don't want and thus want to pawn off on another. Either way, when we fail to look at another human as a mirror and instead see another human as external, we get caught up in the ego trap of trying to change others (the world) instead of ourselves. That's the appeal of politics and the appeal of control of the force of government.

I'm not a fan of one size fits 100 people, let alone one size fits 320 million people. In this universe of special relationships, you want decentralization not fake oneness. Fake oneness is achieved by force and never lasts. Government is a tool for fake oneness and so countries are examples of fake oneness. Conversely, voluntary interaction is the closest thing to oneness in human society even though it is decentralized. For instance, even though a lot of people ignorantly project a lot of guilt on capitalism, it is actually a beautiful thing when two or more people come together, overcoming the first law of chaos, in a win-win voluntary transaction that satisfies the subjective preferences of each party. No martyrdom or force required, just win-win, like oneness. That doesn't mean that people don't still harbor guilt in voluntary transactions. For instance, you may agree to pay five dollars for something but you would have rather paid two. You paid five because you voluntarily complied with the wishes of another to close the deal and come together in a net win-win. It's still a far cry from heaven, but a reflection of unification nonetheless. Contrast that with passing a government law that steals money from people by the force of taxation to give it to other people and you start to see the difference between voluntary and forced interaction.

Force is a hotbed for projection and win-lose scenarios. And force inevitably leads to more force. For instance, the force that makes the welfare state and public property possible also makes the force of immigration control necessary. No need for immigration control if there is no public property to squat on uninvited, no free taxpayer funded stuff to attract moochers, and no government force to fight over for control (voting). The political right would love immigrants if they tended to vote right. Instead, they mostly vote left. Hence, the left loves leftist immigrants since they can help in their lust for controlling government force. Petty self interest in the form of selective compassion.

Just think, what if they had a war and no one showed up? There wouldn't be a war. Similarly, what if they had an election and no one showed up? That would mean people chose voluntary interaction instead of government force: freedom instead of masters. I don't see that happening anytime soon; too many forgiveness lesson yet to go collectively. You'd first likely see people become more decentralized and then minarchistic (minimal government) before they gave up on government force altogether. And quite frankly, I'd be perfectly satisfied with a society able to maintain minarchism. Nonetheless, going beyond government/force is bound to happen somewhere eventually, because it really isn't that radical...especially with the help of current technology. It would just require some societal reprogramming. And even if, as I explored in the post Forgiving Personality, personality makes some people wired to support authoritative force, some people isn't all people.

Anyway, I choose forgiveness and innocence. I can't stop people from supporting democratic slavery other than voluntarily. And since I choose forgiveness, people can sling all the guilt they want at me for refusing to participate in democratic slavery, but I'm not going to budge. Guilt trips only work on those who don't forgive. And people can hurl all the derogatory terms (like Nazi or Commie) they want on people who oppose their own preferred types of government force in favor of other kinds of force, but I'm still going to forgive and see the ultimate innocence in every miseducated supporter of force. And I'm going to continue to preserve my own innocence on the conscious level, let alone unconscious, by keeping my hands as clean of government force as I can.

If you want to better understand why I call voting democratic slavery, check this out: https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk


And if you want to better understand why I'm so unsupportive of the initiation of force, this comprehensive audio book does a good job of explaining the subject: https://youtu.be/Kg0zIvxwVaM


Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Forgiving Personality in Politics and Spirituality

The truth is different for everyone, that's the first law of chaos in A Course in Miracles. And one way we know that statement is obviously true is because we all have different personalities. Even similar personalities are still different. At the present time in human history, personality is scientifically measured using the Big Five.

The Big Five personality traits are the following:
Agreeableness: measure of compassion and politeness.
Conscientiousness: measure of industriousness, orderliness, punctuality, dependability.
Extroversion: measure of social enthusiasm.
Neuroticism: measure of negative emotions and volatility.
Openness: measure of intellect openness and creativity.

There are a number of websites where you can take Big 5 personality tests for free. Different tests give slightly different results, but the general ratios are usually similar.

As should come as little surprise, different personality traits make a person more or less attracted to certain ideas in both the political and spiritual realm. People vote and worship their temperament. Lower openness and higher conscientiousness is correlated with stronger conservative views both politically and spiritually. Conversely, higher openness and lower conscientiousness is correlated with stronger liberal views both politically and spiritually. Very agreeable people tend to be more attracted to charitable equity both politically and spiritually. IQ is separate from personality. So there are dumber and smarter people with similar personalities. Things get quite complex and much less linear quite quickly the more factors one takes into account.

For example, there are two main types of contemporary politically correct leftism that appeal to two types of personalities. Politically correct (PC) is a term that describes the strange union of postmodern philosophy and neoMarxism that is embodied in the main ideologies of the contemporary left. Now, of course, most postmodernists and Marxists would certainly reject that assessment but that assessment comes out of the present day results of the dissemination of postmodern philosophy regardless of the original intents of the thinkers lumped into postmodernism. Most people on the left never studied postmodern philosophers like Foucault and Derrida even though they are the people who planted the seeds that have become contemporary PC leftism. I studied and read the postmodernists. I took college classes on them and got A's. But even though I did find some useful grains in the postmodernists that even resonate with ACIM and nonduality, I'm no fan of postmodernism (although I do like Baudrillard). One example of postmodern-compatible-thought in ACIM is that there is no hierarchy of illusions. That's nice to know. But, of course, in practice, you are able to read this blog post over the internet on a screen right now because people sorted out hierarchies of illusion. Another example of a link between postmodernism and ACIM is in how Derrida's work gets deep into the issues surrounding the first law of chaos (unlimited interpretations/perspectives). The problem with Derrida's analysis though is that, in practice, there are a limited number of interpretations of the world that are at least true enough. And knowing those things clearly helps human survival. In many ways, postmodernism is an example of what happens when you confuse levels in ACIM. That's why, despite Marxism's history of catastrophic failures in implementation, postmodernism has resulted in neoMarxism (Derrida was a Marxist.) Postmodernism revitalized Marxism by turning everything into power struggles between oppressed and oppressor, replacing the original, more limited, Marxist concept of poor vs. rich. So postmodern neoMarxism instigates an endless victims victimizers game of oppressed and oppressor that is exploited for objectives of political power. But anyway, I could write a whole pointless book on the delusions and confusions of the bastardized postmodernism power cult of perpetually warring identity groups. But I'd rather not lol. One of my favorite summaries of PC thought is presented in this 1993 comedy sketch from "The Kids in the Hall."


But back to the subject of the two types of contemporary PC leftists. The commonality between the two main groups of contemporary PC leftists is high agreeableness in terms of compassion. The first group, PC egalitarians, arises first and foremost from exposure to ideas emphasizing perceived social inequalities and injustices involving individual differences. So some ideological indoctrination is necessary to get the ball rolling. PC egalitarianism tends to appeal to people who are high in openness, high in agreeableness, and high in verbal intelligence (medium to high IQ). However, politically correct egalitarianism becomes warped by people with different personality traits and so they turn it into politically correct authoritarianism. Politically correct authoritarianism tends to appeal to people who are high in conscientiousness in regards to order, high in agreeableness, and low in verbal intelligence (medium to low IQ). Politically correct authoritarians applaud censorship and punitive justice. There is also a high correlation between PC authoritarianism and people who have a clinically diagnosed mood or anxiety disorder or who have a member of their direct family that does. Interestingly, the same major traits that makes politically correct left wing authoritarianism also make right wing authoritarianism: higher conscientiousness and lower verbal intelligence. Higher conscientious people, in general (independent of IQ), are more prone to disgust, tend to be less open in terms of borders and sexuality, they are more concerned with cleanliness and order, tend to be healthier, and have greater in-group preferences.

(If you want to read a summary of the study from which I got all the above information go here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/ )

The difference between PC and right wing authoritarianism tends to simply revolve around group identity. The authoritarian left is a mother cult stemming from higher agreeableness while the authoritarian right is a father cult stemming from lower agreeableness. In the PC culture of the west, the authoritarianism of white straight males is usually characterized as right wing and so racist, sexist, fascist, etc. Conversely, the authoritarianism of people against the historical western hierarchy is usually characterized as anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-fascist, etc. However, both authoritarian groups have identity politics at their core; both seek to weed out by force some opposing group. Identity politics are abhorrent whether right or left and I usually don't hesitate to let people promoting them know that. It is by no means reasonable to attribute victim or victimizer status to people simply due to group characteristics. If that's not the kind of thing that characterizes racism then there is no reason for the word to even exist.

The similarity of left wing and right wing authoritarianism is an example that shows that groups have much more overlap than individuals. The individual is the ultimate minority regardless of what groups the individual fits within. The fact that right wing authoritarianism is currently painted much more negatively and broadly by western society than left wing authoritarianism makes left wing authoritarianism more insidious. The Oedipal mother authoritarian is every bit as dangerous as the father. You want your parent figures, both male and female, to foster independence, not tyrannical dependence. Because tyrannical dependence is predatory! And predators first stalk and take out the animals identifiable from the herd. You've got to remember, the ego universe is about twisted notions of God. God is the only parental figure with which total dependence is mutually ideal. Don't worship false gods!

Both female (left) and male (right) authoritarianism should be consistently called out by western society as dangerous. But people are afraid to criticize leftist authoritarians because they will invariably be called some derogatory term like racist or sexist if they do, regardless of their race or sex. Look at the treatment of black female conservatives as an example. Since the PC egalitarians have a "protective (Oedipal) mother" personality, they consistently come to the defense of the PC authoritarians, who are perceived as their own distressed, vulnerable infants. Unlike right wing authoritarianism, leftist authoritarianism is still not well studied. Since most academics are leftists, they've naturally concentrated on diagnosing pathology in their rivals, not their supporters and themselves.

Authoritarianism is becoming more prevalent among millennials in the form of extreme intolerance for conflicting views. Many attribute that trend to trends in over-protective parenting (Oedipal mother) and the prevalence of ideological echo chambers emphasized by parents, educators, and media. Things like safe spaces and support of limiting free speech are the post modern neoMarxist authoritarian millennial versions of traditional conscientious conservative emphasis on the protection of person and property through clear borders and boundaries.

Right wing force is mostly projected externally on protecting against "others" while left wing force is mostly projected internally on absorbing "others." Therefore, right wing authoritarians want ordered homogeneity through forceful exclusion while left wing authoritarians want ordered homogeneity through forceful inclusion. Both have an acute pathological desire for worldly homogeneity, which is what happens when you look for oneness in the world. Homogeneity in this universe is death. Don't confuse levels! Pursue oneness in the mind, where it is not only obtainable but also desirable.

The emotion of disgust is important in identifying authoritarian vulnerabilities. Research has shown that authoritarian attitudes are clearly linked to feelings of disgust and that disgust is linked to higher conscientiousness.

In general, people who feel more disgust support stronger protections against the objects and ideas that trigger disgust. The lower in IQ people are, the more willing the disgusted people are to outsource that protection to authoritarianism. The disgust correlation is supported by the "parasite stress hypothesis," which shows that threats to human welfare in the form of disease and famine feed authoritarianism. Disgust is a strong emotion because it has important survival advantages. For instance, the indigenous South and North Americans were catastrophically devastated by disease upon the arrival of Europeans. Which illustrates the value of having a predisposition to being disgusted and repulsed by that which is foreign, unfamiliar, dirty, or polluted. But disgust is also a vulnerability because the disgust link with authoritarianism means that a diabolical person or group left or right could exploit it to gain authoritarian power. The more one is disgusted by something or someone the harsher a person is willing to be in the treatment of that person or thing. Consequently, disgust becomes fuel for supporting the use of government force and thus authoritarianism. So look out for what disgusts you, because eliminating that object of disgust is your ticket to supporting authoritarianism. And also watch out for being disgusted by the disgust of others.

Eye rolling is an expression of disgust. And eye-rolling about one's partner in romantic relationships is a strong indicator of a doomed relationship. So if you can't help but roll your eyes about your romantic partner, that's a bad sign lol.

It is worth noting that strains of authoritarianism are very prevalent in environmentalism. Just the thought that the world would be better off in terms of ecological order if you yourself or other people didn't exist is genocidal. If you ever want to explore the pathologies of psychological projection, simply look at the term "climate denial." The only people I respect on matters of environment and pollution are people who believe in property rights. And since most people believe in taxation, very few actually believe in property rights. Human-made problems are a product of inconsistency (self-contradiction).

Another interesting thing to note about politics and personality is that conservatives are a bit less neurotic than liberals. Liberal males test the highest in neuroticism. Furthermore, conservatives and liberals have the same average amount of agreeableness. However, the agreeableness of liberals is more compassion oriented (bleeding heart) while it's more politeness oriented in conservatives.

Extremes in high agreeableness are a female personality characteristic while extremes in low agreeableness are a male personality characteristic. That makes sense biologically because there are advantages to women (and even some men) being hard-wired for high compassion. High compassion can be exploited by infants, the sick, the wounded, and the downtrodden (and resentful neoMarxists). Conversely, it is also biologically useful for men (and even some women) to be hard-wired for a lack of compassion so they can kill animals for food, fight against threats, and not be taken advantage of. We don't want everyone to have the same personality quirks because not everyone is a helpless infant and not everyone is a threat. Altruism can be just as much of a pathology as callousness can. In the dualistic ego universe, any virtue run to extremes in the world invariably becomes vice.

In the evolved human family dynamic, men produce and women distribute. The archetypal female ethic is one in which everyone gets taken care of through distribution of the resources made possible by a worthy mate (good provider). And that makes sense at the family level (including extended family), which is where that ethic should be implemented to the fullest. That ethic doesn't scale up well though without introducing big problems. The archetypal male ethic is competition for females. So deep down men don't want to help unrelated men compete for females nor do they want to take care of females who provide unrelated men mating opportunities. Men will minimize their effort for securing resources to the extent that there is no advantage to extra effort.

But anyway, as you can see, in the realm of politics, people robotically promote and adopt political ideas that justify their own personality preferences. And the same applies to spirituality. So, for example, a person too low in conscientiousness and too low in openness would have a very hard time getting anywhere with A Course in Miracles. A Course in Miracles requires a certain minimum level of openness and discipline. Similarly, someone low in agreeableness in the form of compassion and low in extroversion would have a very hard time getting very involved in socialistic spiritual ideas and practices like feeding the poor.

In a society of freedom of religion, personality differences leading to spiritual differences isn't that big of a problem. However, since those same personality differences and spiritual differences leak into political differences, the result is a lot of conflict. The realm of politics is people fighting over control of the guns/force of government. Consequently, in the realm of politics, people seek to impose their personality quirks (half-baked preferences) on others using government force, which never really works since force can't change personalities and thus can't change human nature.

Those with the personalities to recognize the dangers of government force in all its incarnations left and right advocate for less government force and less government spoils for people to fight over. But the people without the right personalities and thus ideologies can't quite appreciate such a remedy. Given enough time, half-baked ideas combined with the guns of governments destroy societies. Because most ideas that are appealing to certain personalities don't work in practice long-term or even short-term. Marxist ideas are a good example. People have at least mostly learned to despise discredited right wing authoritarian ideas, but Marxism persists. Despite the 20th century's horrific body count resulting from the implementation of Marxist ideas, there are still people (neoMarxists) who believe such ideas can work. Such people are deluded enough to think that if they were personally in charge, given their superior moral character, Marxist ideas would work. Nope! Sorry folks. If it requires the initiation of force on otherwise peaceful people, it already doesn't work. The socialist calculation problem alone makes Marxism doomed to devastating inefficiency at any scale. Even the modest Marxism (socialism) that exists on the back of contemporary capitalist societies can't consistently stay in budget while maintaining adequate quality; the consequence is ever-growing public debt and persistent calls for more taxation. Marxism is a philosophy of resentment in the guise of compassion; it's much more about hate for the rich than empathy for the poor. Nietzsche recognized that and so was able to foresee the tragedies (body count) of implementing Marxist thought before it was even tried.

Here are two interesting Nietzsche quotes that are worth a read:

"In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a will to negate life; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts off its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstration ad absurdum would not strike me as undesirable, even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives."
"You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy--perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers--erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche Thus Spoke Zarathustra 1883

General incompetence and unconscious guilt makes utopian delusions such as Marxism just that...delusions. But the general lower conscientiousness of liberals as a group compared to conservatives, combined with their higher agreeableness in terms of compassion, makes them still favor lots of Marxist ideas, especially in the form of neoMarxism. It's not like anyone is pro-poverty, it's just that people have different ideas about the most realistic and peaceful ways to reduce it. Capitalism has and continues to raise more and more people out of poverty.

Different personalities have different utility. High openness people start companies (novelty) but high conscientiousness people run them (stability). So diversity in personality is useful for society. Although capitalism is no utopia, it does actually work well relative to its alternatives. And in fact, capitalism's alternatives aren't sustainable at all without riding the back of capitalism. Historically, capitalism has worked well for conscientious people. Capitalism has been more of a crapshoot for lower conscientious people. That plays into why the left favors government forced income redistribution to achieve homogeneity by inclusion. While some of the richest people are liberal due to creative entrepreneurial tendencies favoring large financial rewards, the conservatives don't favor wealth redistribution nearly as much since conscientious people as a whole tend to have more money and work harder for it. In any organization, the most conscientious people do the bulk of the work. In America, there are only three things a person has to be conscientious enough to do to stay out of poverty: 1 - Graduate from high school, 2 - Get married before having children, 3 - Get and keep a full-time job. The bar for conscientiousness, even in the flawed corporatist capitalist system of present day America, is not very high for those who want to live a life vastly better than almost all people in human history. However, as technology continues to advance, capitalism is finding less and less use for lower IQ people. And no amount of education can make low IQ high IQ. IQ has no correlation to morality but it does to economic usefulness.

Since my own personality is shaping this very blog post you are reading right now, it'd be informative if I let you in on my personality details. I've taken Big Five personality tests and the results haven't been surprising. I'm always extremely high in openness (intellectual novelty and creativity), medium high in conscientiousness, low in neuroticism (low in negative emotions), low in extroversion (I'm very introverted), and fairly low in agreeableness. Additionally, I'm high in IQ. IQ is a can of worms politically since science indicates that IQ is around 75% rooted in genetics. Even though I couldn't care less about special bodies in terms of genetics, it is worth noting that I've got a chunk of Ashkenazi Jew in my genes, which is one of the two highest IQ genetic groups, the other being East Asian.

Everyone who knows me knows my most defining characteristic is that I'm hyper creative and intellectually adventurous. There is zero correlation between grades and creativity. And for that reason I didn't go to Harvard lol. Dumb is dumb but there are many ways to be really smart. Creativity is my strong point. But creativity screws up measurement systems because things that can't be contained in a limited box can't be measured. I've taken IQ tests and I tend to run in the 130 range on culturally biased tests. I'm usually about 15 points higher and closer to around 150 on unbiased tests (tests that are visual rather than word oriented). I don't know how much I believe any IQ measurements though. Some days I feel quite smart, other days quite dumb lol.

Creativity is all I care about really. I don't even care about being smart other than that it helps in the implementation of creativity. Creating is the only activity that keeps me happy (other than forgiveness of course). But creativity is a curse because it is very difficult to monetize most creativity. I'm intelligent enough that I could do most jobs in the world with some training. But many of the very well paid jobs and thus desirable jobs require a kind of seriousness that a highly creative mind can't muster consistently. For instance, you probably don't want a creative accountant or creative doctor lol. My creativity even gets in the way of me talking directly about ACIM; I'm usually creatively dancing around the course's ideas to present them in roundabout ways.

If you are not creative, be happy about that lol, because creativity has many downsides--especially for men since the option of being economically unproductive is less viable for men. Even a really good creative idea (novel and useful) still takes marketing and sales to result in profits. And since I'm also very introverted, sales and marketing are particularly unappealing activities for me. But I'm also quite conscientious and so I'm aware of just how impractical and risky it is for me to indulge in creativity. But I can't help it because the risk (financial instability) makes me much less discontent than the lack of freedom to create. I create all kinds of objectively pointless things that never see the light of day let alone ever generate income lol. But it's what I must do to stay consistently content. My books are creations but they are also compromises to make something somewhat marketable. The stuff I really like to create is not very marketable in any practical sense.

My political preferences reflect my personality well. People vote their temperament and the fact that I don't vote reflects mine. My politics are the golden rule. Which is best summed up in the political philosophy of voluntaryism. Voluntaryism is just ordered anarchism: anarchism ordered around the simple rule of no initiation of force (we should strive for all human interaction to be voluntary not coerced). Voluntaryism is full openness (liberalism) and conscientiousness (conservatism). The beauty of voluntaryism is that it lets people be free to limit themselves (sacrifice freedom for security) in whatever ways they want based on their personality preferences...as long as they don't impose those limitations on others through force or threat of force. As far as I'm concerned, people are free to pursue whatever half-baked social ideas they want as long as I'm free to opt out, directly and from effects. The way I assess people's politics is very simple. If a person thinks he or she knows what is best for everyone and is willing to impose that upon everyone by force, then that person is dangerous (which constitutes most people and politicians thus making forgiving it all quite ubiquitous). Sorry, but if a person doesn't have it together enough to recognize the danger and immorality of government force in the hands of anyone, then that person sure doesn't have it together enough to know what is best for everyone. Understanding the golden rule in terms of politics is important going forward, because technology is moving the world in the direction of two main choices: techno voluntaryism or some variety of Orwell's 1984.

My spiritual preferences reflect my personality well too. My God is oneness. And as a super introvert, I'm not concerned about changing the world only changing my mind about the world through forgiveness.

Even though personality is a given in many ways, you don't want to be a slave to it. For example, prisons are filled with people with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Such people would do well to learn how to not be enslaved by their personalities. Low conscientiousness is one of the biggest trouble makers for people.

Since a lot of creative types who do things like write stories that turn into books and movies are low in conscientiousness, there is a common theme in stories where the writers glorify their own personality type. You know the typical story; the irresponsible free-spirit breaking the up-tight conscientious person out of his or her rigidity. The Shawshank Redemption is pretty much my favorite movie partly because it flips around that typical counterproductive and unrealistic story. The Shawshank Redemption glorifies conscientiousness combined with IQ and openness; plus it is anti-authoritarian.

Although, at my core, I'm fairly low in agreeableness, I nonetheless have learned through life how to be polite, kind, and to champion shared interests. And even though I'm very introverted, I can be extroverted if there is a good reason to be. I just can't maintain extroversion very long without becoming drained; I liken it to trying to drive fast in low gear. Also, even though I'm fairly high in conscientiousness, my openness and my IQ make me very anti-authoritarian (anti-initiation of force).

Are you starting to appreciate this personality stuff? Understanding personality is great for forgiveness because it helps keep you from falling prey to the first law of chaos. The world would not be a better place if everyone had my personality and neither would it if everyone had your personality. For one, if everyone was like me there'd basically be no economy lol. Not only do I have very few material wants, I don't want to take on the grueling tasks required to keep the world as it is running. More stuff (especially expensive and complex stuff) more potential problems. And the more rules added on top of that, the less interested I am in playing at all.

The world is complex; it does best when left to self organize so that the novelty builders and stability builders can constantly compete for efficiency. And that makes for a competence hierarchy, which is desirable if you want things to actually work! Competence is the kind of hierarchy we need in society. And much to the dismay of the neoMarxists, competence means accepting hierarchy, heterogeneity, gender differences, and competition. Civilized competition is cooperative because all who play must agree to the rules (namely the golden rule). And common rules are the domain of culture. Good luck interacting with people if you can't even communicate well enough to agree on the social rules. That's why I maintain that things like racism are mostly a phantom compared to culturism. Everyone is a culturist out of necessity due first and foremost to language. Difference in culture is the main thing that fosters division. And culture at the end of a gun by way of government just fosters even more division. Cultural diversity just makes Towers of Babel. It's chaotic enough that we all have different personalities. Realistically, we need enough commonality in any given society so we can at least communicate clearly enough to agree on the rules. If you can understand the game you can get along without understanding the other players.

And, of course, the real game is true forgiveness. True forgiveness is about taking full responsibility for everything you perceive. The reward for taking on that responsibility is healing the mind and thus awakening. ACIM isn't about changing behavior and so it isn't about changing your personality anymore than it is about changing your skin color or height. Those things are all part of your class curriculum. Who you choose as your teacher, ego or Spirit, is what matters. Spirit has an antidote for all personality pathologies, which help facilitate the Characteristics of God's (advanced) Teachers (M-4).

So anyway, forgive when you see people trying to impose their own personalities on others and on things like ACIM. Just like voting, people worship their temperament. So you can find all kinds of formulations of ACIM that appeal to different temperaments. There is no universal personality only a universal experience.
"A teacher of God is anyone who chooses to be one. His qualifications consist solely in this; somehow, somewhere he has made a deliberate choice in which he did not see his interests as apart from someone else’s. Once he has done that, his road is established and his direction is sure." (M-1.1:1-3)
(Note that for those who have read book four in the Undreaming Chronicles, Forgiving the Human Robot, bio-survival relates to extroversion and neuroticism. Emotion relates to agreeableness. Intellect is related to IQ. And morality relates to conscientiousness and openness.)

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Forgiving the Fake Gun Control Debate

I've been wanting to write an article on forgiving the subject of guns for awhile but I've stopped every time I've started. That's because I've learned from experience that portraying guns as innocent leads to getting grief from a lot of people. Because, of course, everyone knows that it's not spiritual not to hate guns (that's a joke by the way). Really, that's just politics not spirituality. Politics is the realm of perception not reality. In the past, whenever I've brought up the gun subject and not projected guilt on guns I've gotten three main responses. One goes something like, "Unlike you savages in America we got rid of most guns where I live and everything is great, Americans should do the same." The second goes something like, "You must not be very spiritual if you don't hate guns." And the third goes something like, "Spiritual people don't need defenses like guns to protect the body because defenses are born of fear of God."

Of course, I have counter arguments to those points. For instance, to the third point I'd say that I agree but until I've reached the point where I don't defend against dehydration by drinking water, or defend against being burned by not directly touching hot things, I'm just going to concentrate on forgiveness rather than what comes after. Nonetheless, rarely am I in the mood to waste time arguing anyway, especially online. Sometimes it's a little fun to argue just to see if I can make a person who prides him or herself as being very spiritual to start projecting guilt on me. But that's not very often.

Forgiving is pretty much impossible to do in any authentic way for as long as you hold on to the ego mindset of "my side is right and innocent and your side is wrong and guilty." The first law of chaos is that the truth is different for everyone in this universe. Once you learn to not fall prey to your own subjective preferences as objective truths, you make a giant step forward in the ability to consistently and easily practice true forgiveness. That doesn't mean you can't hold firm to simple things like 3-2=1 as truth or the Golden Rule. But the stuff people tend to argue about are not as universal and cut and dry as 3-2=1.

I kind of hated guns when I was a kid, just because I was afraid of them. I was taught to be afraid of them. But once I got older and spent some time around guns owned by people I trusted, I lost that fear. Guns found a place in my mind similar to power tools, kitchen knives, and driving cars, all of which come with dangers and advantages. Life in general comes with risk. Consequently, as I got older, guns lost their specialness in my mind and blended in with the long list of risks in life.

But anyway, instead of writing my own piece on forgiving guns, Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams already wrote an article that does just about as good of a job of making the case for forgiving guns, and in particular forgiving the gun debate, as I could have myself. So I'm just going to present that below in italics. It's all about getting past the first law of chaos. In the secular forgiveness language of Scott Adams he calls getting past the first law of chaos the "Persuasion Filter." So read what Scott Adams said and then you can read my final comment on the matter at the end.

The Fake Gun Control Debate 
The most common view of the gun debate in the United States is that one side is sensible and factual — and quite attractive — while the other side is a pile of meat that has been sitting in the sun too long. The main source of disagreement about guns has been narrowed-down to this key question: “Which side is the rotting meat side?” But I think most people agree on the big picture — that one side is completely batsh*t crazy while the other team is brilliant, well-informed, and inexplicably sexy. You’re lucky you’re on the good team! Pity the people on the other side. Losers!  
But that’s not how the Persuasion Filter sees it. The Persuasion Filter sees nothing remotely like rational debate happening on either side. The persuasion filter sees individuals with different risk profiles favoring policies they feel will keep them safer even if it makes someone else less safe.
If you’re new to the concept of the Persuasion Filter, I use the term to explain how a person trained in the art of persuasion sees the world. The main distinction is that trained persuaders see humans as fundamentally irrational, yet hardwired at birth to believe we have common sense.  
The Persuasion Filter describes a world in which no one involved in the gun debate, on either side, is engaged in honest, rational debate. But we sure FEEL as if we’re being honest and rational. And therefore, logically, if the folks on the other side of the issue don’t see things the same way, they must be lying, hallucinating, stupid, or mentally ill. But they sure can’t be thinking as smartly as we are. If they were, they’d be agreeing with us so hard it would hurt. If you look at the gun debate through the Persuasion Filter, you see people who are pursuing their own self-interest as they see it at the expense of other people. But humans can’t say that directly. To do so would make us appear to be bad people in the eyes of society.
For example, anti-gun people know that some people would be safer with guns in the house for self-defense. I know a single mom with two teenage daughters who gunned-down a documented sex offender who broke into her home in the middle of the night. No charges were filed. She was safer with a gun, and she knew it. That’s why she had one. So the anti-gun folks (the most extreme of them anyway) would accept a world in which my friend and her daughters were sexually assaulted in their own home so long as it makes their own risk a bit lower. But they can’t say that. So instead, they point to England and say whatever works there would totally work here. That might be true. But it isn’t rational. There are too many differences to be confident we’d have the same outcome. 
Many pro-gun folks feel safer owning guns. Or they might simply enjoy guns for sporting purposes. They might also prefer gun ownership to lower the risk of a despot taking over, or simply because gun ownership is a freedom granted in the Constitution. But the unspoken part of those preferences includes the knowledge that some number of innocent people, including children, will die because of current gun laws. To be fair, guns will save some people as well. But no doubt about it, some innocent people will die whenever guns are easy to obtain.
We humans can’t say aloud that we prefer our position on guns (either pro or con) even though we know that getting our way will mean certain death to innocent people. So instead, we concoct irrational arguments about how places such as Chicago or Tokyo tell us all we need to know about the effectiveness of gun control. They don’t. 
Personally, I judge my gun risk to be similar to that of my friend who shot the sex offender in her house. As a public figure, my risk is higher than average. So if I want a right to own a gun for self-defense, I have to accept the fact that innocent people will die should the laws of the land go my way. 
One of the reasons I respect advocates on both sides of the gun debate is that we live in a political system that allows (and maybe encourages) people to vote for their self-interest, as they see it, even if the outcome would lead to the death of other citizens. I would prefer an option in which no one ever dies for the preferences of others, but for some types of political decisions, people will die no matter which direction you go. And that means people will vote in a way that makes it less likely they will be the ones dying and more likely it will be some other class of people doing the dying. 
If you see a gun debate in which both sides claim their preferred laws would save lives, you’re watching a fake debate. A real debate would sound more like this: 
Honest Pro-gun argument: “I realize the right to own guns will result in the death of thousands of innocent people. But owning a gun lowers the risk for my family, in my opinion, because of my specific situation, and so I favor gun rights.”
or…
Honest Anti-gun argument: “I realize that some forms of gun control could result in the deaths of people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves, but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.” 
Those are examples of honest opinions about guns. If you can’t say your preferred laws about guns are guaranteed to result in the deaths of innocent people — albeit different classes of people depending on the laws — you aren’t part of a real debate. You’re part of a fake debate that feels real. 
Personally, I’m pro-gun, with a preference for a national no-buy list. I believe my preferences, if they were the law of the land, would make me safer in my situation, while definitely leading to a greater risk of other people dying. I also accept the risk of people ending up on the no-buy list who shouldn’t be there. Some of those people might die because they can’t defend themselves, and I accept that tradeoff for purely selfish reasons because I think it is unlikely I would end up on the no-buy list. 
I also believe gun ownership makes the United States slightly more dictator-proof than it would otherwise be. Private gun owners stand no chance against a professional military, but they wouldn’t be facing a military. They would be kidnapping the family members of anyone involved in the dictator’s overthrow. While it would still be possible for a dictator to take control of the United States, that dictator would end up ruling a country that he or she wouldn’t want to live in. Gun owners would see to that. And that’s worth something. 
For more of my opinions on gun control, see my prior blog post on the topic in which I attempt to be rational but probably fail.

I pretty much agree with everything Scott Adams said in that article. And my personal stance on guns is this: all gun stances suck. The only surefire solution to guns would be worldwide sanity or perhaps some sort of fool proof anti-gun weapon or shield (maybe a sonic weapon that causes bullets to misfire rendering guns useless and dangerous to even have around?). When all stances suck my default preference is for whatever facilitates more freedom because I personally value freedom more than security. The gun debate is about keeping vulnerable bodies safe either by having guns or not having guns. I can lock my body in a safe room where the lock is controlled by me to be more secure, but I can't make my body more free if I'm locked safely in a cage and the lock is controlled by someone else (and since I'm talking to an ACIM audience, yes, I know that perhaps I could teleport out of the cage with mind power but forgiving comes first). That's why all laws beyond the Golden Rule tend to creep me out; they are attempts at locking groups of people safely in the same cage instead of people controlling their own safe cages. But those are just my subjective preferences.

I leave you with this quote from ACIM. Keep in mind that, in terms of defenses, being anti-gun and wanting to use the guns of government (political action is a weapon) to protect against the guns of individuals is the same as being pro-gun and wanting to have guns as individual to defend against other individuals and governments.

"You make what you defend against,
and by your own defense against it is it real and inescapable.
Lay down your arms, and only then do you perceive it false." (Lesson 170)

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Predicting the Future and Forgiving Loser Scripts


Seeing into the future is a major hobby of mine. I'm always on the lookout for people with a knack for forecasting the future because I know from experience that it is indeed possible to tune into information from the future. And having a heads-up about the future is fun and useful. Most predictors of the future are either sub-par psychics or completely full of it. The least believable predictors tend to be the people who claim to have time traveled. Apex TV on Youtube is a good place to go to find phony time travel stories. With time travelers, you'd expect them to have some sort of extraordinary evidence or something to say outside the realm of what one could find in contemporary science fiction, but they rarely do. And the time travelers conveniently have the excuse that they have to be vague to prevent time feedback distortions. That could be true but it ruins the ability to test authenticity.

Over the years, I've weeded out two people who predict the future that I find consistently believable and sufficiently accurate. And I consider those two people my favorite future forecasters.

The first of my two favorite forecasters of the future is the economist Martin Armstrong who forecasts the future based on a computer model he developed called the Economic Confidence Model. The Economic Confidence Model maps cycles of human psychology and behavior as well as other things. Not only is Martin Armstrong's model very interesting and accurate, but his life story involving the model is very interesting. Armstrong had a standoff with the U.S. government over his model that led to him being held in prison for many years simply on contempt of court. A documentary was made about it all and supposedly a Hollywood movie is also in the works about it. Here is a trailer for the documentary about Armstrong.


My other favorite forecaster of the future is Clif High. Back in the 1990s, Clif High started developing a computer system called the Web Bot that mulls through language being used on the internet looking for anomalous words. Clif High's system is based on the idea that all people are psychic and their psychic abilities come out in the words they use. Clif High calls his system Predictive Linguistics. Over the years, Clif High's Web Bot has been refined to become better and better. But in recent history, due to certain parties gaming the Web Bot and thus corrupting some of its output, Clif High has tuned his system to forecast the emerging realm of crypto-currencies. Clif's Web Bot is open to interpretation and Clif's interpretation is usually more hyperbolic than what actually occurs.


Now, even though those two are pretty much my go-to future forecasters, I also enjoy the predictions of others. For example, the future forecasts of the team of Arten and Pursah (Gary Renard) are part of my arsenal of predicting the future. Arten and Pursah are obviously the most insightful when it comes to spirituality. But over the years I've found the predictions of Armstrong and Clif High much more useful than Arten and Pursah. Conversely, I haven't found Armstrong to be very insightful in terms of spirituality, he's good at philosophy though. Clif High on the other hand is quite insightful in the realm of spirituality, but he is still often too dualistic.

When predictions from multiple sources overlap, that's when I start to pay the most attention. And when I really start to pay attention is when predictions not only overlap but are at odds with the ego preferences of the people making the predictions. For that reason, I never take any prognosticator seriously until I know some things about the person, especially his or her political preferences. Because it's a big red flag if politics and predictions overlap too much.

The fact that the predictions of Armstrong and Clif High come from computers rather than their own psychic abilities helps keep their egos from tainting the forecasts too much. That's probably the main reason why they are my favorites, their predictions are computer predictions rather than ego predictions.

Although the script is written and thus so is the future, the script is multiple choice. For that reason, I reject predictions of "loser scripts" no matter who makes them. Loser scripts are predictions of negative preventable things. After all, if something undesirable can be predicted it should usually be avoidable. I accept the necessity of some creative destruction now and then but that's just because destruction that is beneficial is still a winner script.

Back before I got into ACIM, I was a big fan of the writer Robert Anton Wilson who died in 2007. Robert Anton Wilson taught that you should think of the world as a conspiracy not run by others but run by you and your friends, because that's a winner script. If you don't do that, you're living a loser script.

Back when I read The Disappearance of the Universe over thirteen years ago and I read the part about the nuclear terror attack, my reaction was, "Um, okay, yeah, I think I'm going to pass on that future."  Fast forward to the present time and I was pleased when I read pages 109-110 in Gary Renard's new book, The Lifetimes When Jesus and Buddha Knew Each Other. Gary mentions how Iran's former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no longer around to facilitate the predicted nuclear terror attack. That's because the forgiveness homework necessary to avoid that particular scenario was completed.

That's an example of why, to all loser scripts I say, "F that!" And by F I of course mean Forgive lol. The winner scripts though, I embrace. The main winner script on the level of form that I'm still trying to forgive my way to is the "free energy technology" script. Clif High's data consistently indicates the possibility of free energy technology and the possibility of free energy is also mentioned on page 69 in Love Has Forgotten No One. Free energy would put an end to one of the biggest loser scripts out there currently: the global warming loser script. As many people are aware, I'm not a fan of the global warming loser script. I'll take a pass on that script if I can thank you lol.

The biggest loser scripts are where people tie their ego identities to being right about something negative so they can project guilt and say I told you so or so they can scare people into doing things like opening up their wallets; they are recipes for failure since failure in those instances has a big ego appeal. Global warming fits that perfectly. Another formula for loser scripts is that they often require collective agreement for success and so often also call for force. Global warming fits that perfectly too when the solution to it is presumed to be political. Politics in general is for losers lol (the default hobby of the lazy guilt projector). Winners just go out and do stuff voluntarily, they don't let government and the collective get in their way nor do they use government force to get their way. The global warming winners are out there working on things like new energy, while the guilt projecting losers are sitting around doing things like bitching about Trump lol. The same is true with a subject like net neutrality. The losers bitch about the need for government guns to regulate the internet while the winners are out trying to make a true free internet free of all censorship including the inherent censorship of net neutrality. An example of the free internet approach by winners is the Substratum project.

Fortunately, there are many winner scripts possible in this universe to avoid loser scripts. For instance, free energy is one way the global warming disaster could be averted. But there are many other possible ways too. Martin Armstrong's computer model predicts a cooling period imminent due to things like less solar output. So, for instance, a prolonged sun energy output minimum could usher in a mini ice age canceling out any significant global warming for many decades making global warming a godsend and giving time for technology to advance to remedy global warming. Or, an invention like a cheap, efficient air scrubber could make the global warming loser script dead. Or even new science revealing that earth has more natural mechanisms for controlling CO2 than previously known could kill it. Any of those things would be just fine by me, because I'd rather be happy than right about predicted disaster.

Happy instead of right is the formula for winner scripts. Because the ultimate winner script is of course forgiving everything and being done with the illusory ego universe. Forgiving is the winner script. When you forgive you are always winning. Because if you are confident you are on the way out, you are happy to accept whatever is in the script as the winning script.

In my own life, I almost always bet on optimism when possible. But I don't go all in on optimism; I also hedge for some pessimism. In other words, I bet on winner scripts but hedge for the occasional loser scripts on the level of form. That way I can be happy instead of always having to be right. Because I don't know what is best in the big picture on the level of form. Sure, I miss out on some of the maximum gains of going all in on optimistic winner scripts, but I also spare myself the maximum losses or lack of gains of potential loser scripts. And above all, regardless of how the script looks on the level of form, I'm able to see it as being part of the ultimate winner script of forgiveness.

As an example, I don't participate in the loser game of partisan politics. I'm a voluntaryist. The Golden Rule is the only law for me. Consequently, I have no respect for the left or the right. Government is just a game of people fighting over who controls the force of government and who is subject to it. It's a losers game. But the reality is that government is currently a part of this world. So, I just try my best to have nothing to do with government and forgive when I can't avoid it. So, for me, when Obama was elected president I thought cool, this is obviously the best thing possible for the winner script. Then, when Trump was elected, I again thought cool, this is obviously the best thing possible for the winner script. I see a difference in form between the two but see no difference in facilitating the winner script. Because, you see, when you aren't lusting over control of the guns of government and not making yourself vulnerable to them, you really don't care what government and politicians do. You're just glad there are two sides of maniacs peddling delusional ideas about what's best for everyone so neither group of maniacs ever really wins full control of the guns they are fighting over.

The only one size fits all in this universe is forgiveness. And since forgiveness is something only you can do, you don't need to worry if other people don't forgive. If you are forgiving you are winning. Forgiving is the winner script and it can also come with the advantage of facilitating winner scripts on the level of form too.

As A Course in Miracles says:
The mind is very powerful, and never loses its creative force. It never sleeps. Every instant it is creating. It is hard to recognize that thought and belief combine into a power surge that can literally move mountains. It appears at first glance that to believe such power about yourself is arrogant, but that is not the real reason you do not believe it. You prefer to believe that your thoughts cannot exert real influence because you are actually afraid of them.
I personally don't care about moving mountains; it hasn't ever been an important task for me. Nor have I ever seen anyone perform the feat of moving mountains without explosives. But I'm sure I and others do move mountains all the time as we weave our way through the forgiveness script. When time collapses and we shift into new variations of the script, many things change (past, present, future), but we are usually completely blind to those things. Nonetheless, with faith in forgiveness as the ultimate winner script, you can always rest assured that no matter what happens you are living the ultimate winner script in the big picture.

So, be wary of loser scripts. Loser scripts are at best cautionary tales. At worst, loser scripts are self-fulfilling prophecies of doom. Forgiveness is the antidote to loser scripts. Would you rather be happy or right? Winner scripts always choose happy and thus often end up both happy and right.