This is a cross-post from an FDR post, but may as well be its own post (especially since many of you are IP banned)

"Statism is simply a symptom of child abuse."

This is vastly oversimplified. Now, of course, instilling a feeling of helplessness and inadequacy is central to creating Sheeple. But there are many other factors, including economic collapse, fear and group identity as motivating factors and the initial ignorance of early humans. Vested interests and a lack of concern for those it affects are also there. Humans, also, are far too quick to resort to violence. Child abuse itself is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the conflict which exists between sociobiology and civil society. This equasional relationship of child abuse and statism also ignores the effects of adult abuse upon creating compliance. Many people are quite defiant of the state in their personal activities until facing unmatchable violence, and without this last factor many others would also engage in it.

Pattern recognition and copy-catting also form an essential part of the spread of ideas and institutions, they are the basis of most human learning. Evolution seems to play a numbers game on this account by making such social patterning superior in most people to ratiocination, undermining the ability to contradict popular (or seemingly authoritive) standards; liberal bourgeousie philosophers learned their civility just as unconsciously as the jingoist soldier does, the fact that the former is logically more tenable in human relations is only a post-facto evaluation and not usually its source (though it can itself bolster the 'civilization' of those affected by the philosopher's rationalization).



All of these sociobiological trends, as well as child abuse, have varying degrees of actual viability for those practicing them; humans have lived for some million years in violent tribes where outsiders were frequently enemies and power relations had no economic exchange to counter the violent acts or lure people away from them. The law of the jungle is not invalid in many circumstances, and how can one expect a culture developed from such instincts and real pressures to be any different, initially, than statism? Each person is born with these habits to some extent, and culturally embedded during a period when exchange economies may have been unecessary locally and rarely encountered (and certainly less realized) for 900 thousand plus years? The tribalist heirarchalism was also less dangerous in these small groups, vast exploitation, mass propaganda and such were not possible before an integrated socio-economic structure came to exist; and by then it was already too late. Mythological systems which became religion and ideology were almost all philosophic, metaphoric and explanatory; even illiberal social norms of religion and tribalism usually conformed with basic survival and majority practice since no real enforcement of them was possible. The concept of the 'superman' which the King or whomever in politics impressions on the public, a leader-founder/explorer is based on both metaphoric utility and exagerration of real people who developed land and ideas which allowed people to relatively flourish. Only when government became viable without rapid extinction could religion be used to control and indoctrinate in a systematic way, by allowing professional priests and propaganda aides. Literalism of mythology is relatively easy to sell, and reduces whatever value proto-religio-philosophic stories and morals had; especially considering these tales collected the natural and often realistic situation humans were in. Low wealth makes conservatism a rational strategy, especially if one is ignorant of the subject, since a mistake could spell doom for many people. The dangerous and genocidal enemies, the supremacy of violence are all real features of this life; and to judge early humans for slaughtering and looting wholesale is equivalent to criticizing Jefferson for not having read von Mises. Loyalty to a perceived family/group is simple Darwinism in humans, just as the disregard for those outside this group. An expanding population in nature has no greater competitor but those outside its circle-of-allies; they have no choice but to fight for resources or die.

I do not want to give the impression that child abuse is irrelevant, but the real picture is much larger and can not be understood without reference to the total history of mankind and life itself. Humans acting like animals, in every sense of the word, is precisely because they are animals. Since neither evolution nor everyday experience instill within us an arbitrary benevolence towards all humankind (our greatest natural competitors) nor an understanding of indirect coordination amongst rational individuals it would be utterly absurd to imagine that a State would not arise. Destructive and ignorant as its toleration may be, authoritarianism and its correlaries are habits born from real facts about the world, from instincts which made human survival possible in the world that they lived in and these very instincts and norms have made civil activity (from individualism to billionaire production) extremely shocking and unfamiliar. The total absence of violence against children would in itself abolish none of these trends, and though it would probably help greatly by ingraining habits of civility the second a man could be convinced his progeny were in danger from strangers his presumption of violence in order to secure their protection nears 100% in many.

No human being is an angel or a devil 'by nature', the instincts for violence and voluntaryism mutually coexist and when he uses either will be determined by his views of the world. One may sublimate these drives towards ends more pleasant and possible in a civil society and thereby gain the control of them, but it is maddening to see people act as though there is something 'wrong' with the fact that some men use deception and violence which every other animal on the planet has in its core; it either casts a moral judgement upon core elements of all life on Earth or condemns humans for not knowing obscuritanist social sciences. It may be unfortunate, but these impulses are as natural and (historically) understandable as the desire for food (itself a violent expropriation, albiet usually not of other humans). Violence is not 'evil' any more than sex, both suffer from impulse driven short-sightedness. The 'moral sense' conforms itself to mens experiences and ideas, to call such violence 'corrupt' does nothing to address the causes and consequences of violence, and operates entirely on the ignored fact that civilian morality is from civil society.

"The majority of philosophy is scar tissue."

And here I have to disagree, the majority of philosophy is an attempt to gain understanding or meaning, as Nietzsche says, "A yay, a nay, a straight line, a goal." Philosophy is the discovery and creation of values or itself a valued excercise. Doubtless social background can affect thinking in this area, but much that is not 'abusive' but simply popular, ignorant or misunderstood; often in the intellectual class it comes from a self-convincing of some idea which struck them. Neither nonsense nor contradiction, even of a malicious reality, even necessarily indicate misanthropy; but instead may be honest confusion bolstered by social acceptance of ideas. Altruism and religion are supported by many polite and sociable people who simply have not dealt with its contradictions (internal or external); and many utopians have the instincts of a humanitarian but the political knowledge of a goat.

Much of philosophy and psychology has suffered from ignoring the facts of human history and pre-history. Although many people find the ignorance, gullibility and short-sightedness of the majority of people indicates stupidity or 'despicable' motives and drives; they ignore that the very things that make that possible also account for most of our intellectual capacity. These capacities, whatever their weaknesses, are the basic background of development that made our survival possible and to this day remain a fundamental element in every action you undertake. It's not unreasonable fault that we look for successful strategies by copying winners (the living) in ideas and behaviour, however dangerous it may be in a more wealthy time where a populous mutually feeds into conformism, nor even that when people annoy us we want to hit them; the basic instinctual rule of nerves at all is that disagreeable things should be efficiently dispatched, and the more advanced animals regularly use intimidation to cow eachother. Apparently, the ability or habit of consciously parsing language, evidence and abstract rules etc, is very uncommon. Indeed, given variances in brain makeup and the newness of this rational constructivist theoretics and its ego-consciousness, some people may be very likely to fall into errors of logic; giving credence to linguistic tricks but actually accepting it as valid, and having difficulty ever realizing it.

Indeed, the ego can not be too 'in command' with our present brains, we have absolutely no time to 'think things out'. Can you imagine if you had to recall an entire series of experiences, abstractions, deductions, inductions and emotions and then compare them manually. What we lose in accuracy we far gain in speed, our brain simply makes automatic notations with regards to experience/concepts so that we already have a Cliff's Notes on the emotional impact and the gist of its meaning, along with stuff that its strongly associated with; we constantly make decisions without even examining these recollections constantly, so that we might not know the real reason behind an action later (but may recall a reason that fits in our mind, true or not) and may actually have feelings or say these ideas out loud without having given them any thought. Given the onus of being wrong (or worse, a fool) which itself derives from socio-biological relations, the unwillingness to retract something stupid is often felt by those who have only made a mistake by chance.

This does not mean I like when they do it, anymore than I like when a cat scratches the door because it's too stupid to open it itself. But if the most herdish, manipulative and parroting million were their own species they'd still be the only other thing on this planet we can have a coherent conversation with. Nor do I intend to defend or lighten their behaviour. In fact the problem itself is that they are humans, and not cats. They are our physical equals, smart enough to copy us. Their physical reflexes and ability to think on their feet, or to ascertain social relationships, is by no means greatly inferior to the million most ingenious. They learn very quickly from experience how things work on a direct level, and it would be simply untrue to say they aren't innovative. Ideological conservatism is always adaptable to protect certain valued interests, since this 'pragmatism' is a core element in human adaptation. When pressed hypocrisy is a method of preserving their identity and image while promoting themselves. What I'm saying is, it's important to remember that most people are not stupid but they may have very different habits, backgrounds and even neurophysiology than you. Whether the person is just being blindly obstinate or really anti-social, if you want to understand her you must not forget what humans are, in total. Given the total biophysical and genetic individuality of every person, even with duplicate genetic material, if there are any standards of 'human nature' much less what constitutes acceptable social and moral standards, they have more of a claim to these titles; no matter how poorly supported or self-defeating they may be they are derived from real, hard-coded impulses which we share and that these feelings and ideas are the core of reality for every individual in existence.

Do not assume that everyone must intellectually support, or understand, bourgeousie society to take a positive part in it; or that their interests when subverting it are somehow 'inappropriate'. Who the Hell wouldn't want power? Even if you don't want to force anybody, wouldn't it be great if they just wanted to? Wealth, the security of your offspring, friends or a group you abstractly identify with as integral to your own interests; and promoting their 'territory' and interests also? True, it's bizarre for a 'country' but if you're a tribal ape you will have a distinct interest in these things, these things are what formed the human (rather than genetic) society. As I may post about somewhere else (somewhat off topic) but whose to say that it isn't hunting skills and pack-mentality that form the basic "package" which lead into the development of all human intellect. The basic system of what I call 'Associational Forecasting' which seems to underly much of our mental functioning MUST have started due to its use in flight or fight situations. Getting smarter is naturally going to be channeled into what instinct and experience show you, long before anyone was possibly smart enough to engage in rational cooperation they were smart enough to fight and kill like nothing on Earth. Before it wrote sonnets, intellect drove the engine of calculated murder and deception. The concept of anything resembling 'benevolent by presumption' requires the development of a vast network of intellect all striving to strip everything possible of all the nutritive substance it could give and promote the genes that carried it, wolves are ingenious planners and hunters and have a fiercely heirarchical society. Gang behaviour may be antithetical to the rational society, but gang behaviour is one of the most powerful forces of evolution and survival in every creature that has adopted it, likewise with Associational Forecasting among solo animals. What I am saying is, intelligence is the force of exploiting everything that's not your DNA's future, and it still for the most part is among humans (we give a damn about cows). We can talk about it now only because before talking existed it was murder's handmaiden, we exist as a civil society now only because we once existed as the most brutally effective predators in history; our branch survived an ice age and tamed wolves despite the fact that our legs are bent the wrong way for walking on the ground and the burliest cave man (and possibly gorilla) could get massacred by a 150lb wild cat. Evolution almost demands our violence, and if we leave humans out of the picture we're ruthless and even find it funny. Our market economy is, in fact, based on exploiting and destroying the life of anything we want to, the only reason (as Mises has pointed out) that we can be peaceful with other humans in the long-run is because their brain is worth more in their head than in a rock; but the reason they have such fine brains is because they pioneered the technique of one-upping Darwin in the game of killing. It's the knife edge mankind has walked on, and it's not accurate or fair to blame them (IE, us); they don't even know what they're endangering. They're just trying to do what they can with what they've got. Never forget that everyone has the same exact goal as you, IE, to do whatever gives him the most satisfaction; if he is biased or susceptible to confusion and socially transmitted dimwittedness it's because he thinks it's what's best and has no automatic source to know that bullying and conformity no longer rule his genetic survival, nor does he understand that a complicated and relatively new element to his animal brain can and often should be given supremacy if he really wants to make himself satisfied. Because DNA is shoving a poker down his chest and telling him that he's embaressing himself in front of the 'tribe' which his life itself was and somewhat still is dependent upon.

It's horrible to me that we're not all lovely little indo-slavic burghers with spaceships as we should be but when you consider what they've got to deal with, people do pretty damn good for themselves. Instead of condemning them because they accidentially support an insanity they can't conceptualize to begin with realise that people are like this and the best we can do is to help them get their mentalities in control and/or avoid, deter and protect ourself from their lunacy in the unfortunate case that they should actually follow it through.

Very interesting. I would say more... but I agree with most of it and don't have much to add.

Have you read Nock's "Are all Men Human?"?

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/human.html

I think you would appreciate it (or Ralph Cram's work, which it is based upon).