 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 14: Timothy McVeighIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
Timothy McVeigh
Waco Background
Atrocity in Oklahoma To most people it seems impossible that he could, on the one hand, care about children in Waco, and yet on the other hand, in Oklahoma, consider them as expendable - as 'collateral damage'. The fact is that this makes total sense - but not if you start attempting to understand him based on the mistaken notion that Man is moral, rational and intelligent. We've had examples of this attitude, this apparent 'double standards', every day of our lives. This is nothing new at all. We value a member of the 'us' UT Group totally differently than we value a member of the 'them' UT Group. This is the nature of Man. We do not have objective neutral morals, or values - we CANNOT have them. We have tribal morals - UT Group morals - which are totally variable; they have to be variable morals since we are members of many variable UT Groups. To understand 'morals' one must understand the UT Group of the perpetrator and that of the victim. To Timothy McVeigh the right wing, and fundamentalist, community in Waco were part of his UT Group. The 'American people' were not, as such, part of his UT Group (in this particular situation) [When Timothy McVeigh was fighting in the Gulf War situation; his country, his fellow soldiers would have been the more immediate UT Groups]. People are saying 'how could he kill some of his own' but the ordinary American citizen wasn't one of his own (he, and not us, is the one who decides who belongs to HIS UT Group) and, as in all terrorists situations (and even ordinary simple life) - if you are not with him (ie in his UT Group) you are not protected by his moral values. His moral values are only relevant within his UT Group, just as are your moral values only relevant within your UT Group; you think others deserve your rights only if you consider them to be equal to you - a member of your UT Group. To consider every American citizen a member of Timothy McVeigh's UT Group is so far removed from reality as to be beyond any logic at all. Look at America; the UT Groups are very varied; from the White supremacists, to the Jewish, to the Cuban, to the Irish, to the Blacks, to the Mormons, to the heterosexuals, to the gays, to the rich, to the poor, to the military, to the educated, to the American Indian, to the Mexican, to the whoever and the whatever. At times each UT Group may as well inhabit a separate landmass and a separate moral universe. The fact that they happen to live on the same continent is mere chance and of no importance at all (unless they are attacked by a 'perceived' totally different 'foreign' UT Group). To wonder why an American citizen should (could) do such a thing to fellow Americans is, in effect, a totally irrational thought and attitude, and it is very easily shown to be so. It is similar to being shocked at the fact that an American citizen would kill a fellow American; or an American citizen would rape a fellow American; or an American citizen would swindle a fellow American etc. The Americans take these daily 'normal' savage atrocities for granted and would not be shocked (as such) at them, yet, when an atrocity occurs, they are shocked. We tend to take 'normal' and 'ordinary' attacks as being just that - normal and ordinary, but an atrocity, of its very nature - being 'not-the-norm', must, to the irrational mind controlled by the UT Instinct, be an action of an individual outside the 'us' UT Group. The worse the atrocity the more we are convinced that the perpetrator must be an outsider - after all, 'no member of the 'us' UT Group would ever do such a thing'. To a certain extent that type of logic says that it is acceptable for an American citizen to kill a fellow American, but only on an individual level, not on a 'mass' level. Objectively, there is no real difference between a person who kills an individual and one who kills one hundred and sixty eight people. Numbers of victims are irrelevant, yet we do not think thus. But this attitude in effect shows that they do actually think (subconsciously) in terms of UT Groups, in that they were shocked that a fellow member of their UT Group (in their opinion, not Timothy McVeigh's) would do such an act to fellow members - the American UT Group.
Innocent Bystander One could describe the victims of the IRA terrorist bombings in Omagh and in Enniskillen (both in the north of Ireland) as being 'collateral damage' - all one needs as a prerequisite to becoming a suitable target, or victim, is literally to be outside that particular terrorist's UT Group - it is the activator (terrorist) who decides whom be considers as being a fellow member. If you are not a member of the Hightribe then you do not deserve the protection of the Hightribe laws. To the Hightribe there is no such thing as an innocent bystander, especially among the Lowtribe. Man has totally variable morals, or to be truthful, Man has no morals whatsoever; but merely obeys certain codes of conduct depending upon whichever UT Group that person considers beself to be in at any particular point in time, and thus under the control of that particular UT Group's values. So to Timothy McVeigh, although he knew that he was breaking the laws of the USA - a 'them' UT Group, he wasn't breaking the laws of his UT Group. He could look in the mirror and see an individual looking back who had values; who had standards, and was willing to 'back up' those values and 'defend' and 'protect' ('retaliate' in this instance) fellow members of his UT Group. He was living according to his rules. To give a simple example (and taking into account that the UT Instinct is not merely about morals but any type of judging and evaluating): I eat sausages whenever I want to; the fact that Jews consider it wrong to eat meat from a pig is totally irrelevant to my viewpoint; I live by my rules; my actions do not take the Jewish viewpoint into consideration whatsoever - I absolutely don't care how they morally consider my act of eating sausages. So to say that Timothy McVeigh knew that what he was doing was wrong is incorrect; the correct way of describing the situation is that Timothy McVeigh knew that what he was doing was wrong according to the government (and even the majority of the people) of the USA, but not according to his UT Group's morals; also, and I can only presume this, there will be people (the ultra right wing element - fellow members of His UT Group) in America, and elsewhere, who even applaud his actions. To a certain extent, his (or any generic American soldier) killing of children in Vietnam, or Cuba, or San Salvador, or Iraq, or Iran, or Serbia, or Afghanistan etc would seem to be acceptable (collateral damage), on a moral level, by most Americans because it was sanctioned by their democratic government - their UT Group; he would have even been considered as doing his duty and of upholding civilised American values; but, in objective terms, laws and actions sanctioned by governments, whether democratic or otherwise, do not necessarily make any behaviour moral (basically that was the fundamental accepted understanding which made the Nuremberg trials after WW2 seem justifiable). So, to a certain extent, one could say that killing on behalf of the USA is acceptable to the American UT Group, but killing on behalf of Timothy McVeigh's UT Group is not; that is why judging, rather than understanding, is so pointless. It is merely acknowledging the existence of different UT Groups, and thus, different values and moral standards. In fact, Timothy McVeigh's use of the term 'collateral damage'; that phrase much used, and I would think, much loved, by the American military; actually shows just how similar his moral values were to those of the US military, and subsequently those of the American public - the evaluation mechanism he used was exactly the same as the evaluation mechanism of those very people who were condemning him. For the most part, obeying the UT Group laws ensures respect within that UT Group so there is no need for shame or blame in breaking other outside laws which are not a negative reflection of the individual according to that UT Group (within that UT Group). So, was Timothy McVeigh a 'monster', or 'evil'? - the answer is no. He was just behaving like any other human being. He was no different at all. The UT Groups he was a member of may be different. The situations he found himself in may be different. His action may be different. But his evaluation mechanism, controlled by the UT Instinct, is exactly as irrational and subjective as yours. He did what he did because he was human - just like you and me. He was behaving according to his beliefs and values just like you behave according to your beliefs and values. So the truth of the matter is that he is as 'moral' as you are, though I know that that truth is difficult for most people to accept and to actually come to know and understand.
One of his own
UT Group compassion They die of malnutrition because those in the West want cheap goods - our rich lifestyle can only be sustained by taking from other, less powerful, less wealthy, peoples. They die of disease, because of the greed of international banks, drug companies and cigarette manufacturers. Are they seen in the same light as Timothy McVeigh because of the results of their actions? The fact is one could take many many examples of different businesses which cause the death of others. The American UT Group see the killing of one hundred and seventy of their UT Group as being of much more importance that the killing of thousands of members of other UT Groups - 'that's different!'. Please understand that this is NOT a case of being anti-American, anti-business, or anti-whatever-blinkered-narrow-minded-bigoted viewpoint you may wish to put me in. This is about the nature of Man. Every individual has UT Groups; from the 'me' UT Group, to the family UT Group, to the national UT Group, etc ad infinitum. To think of Man as being capable of having a 'neutral' evaluation mechanism makes no sense at all and certainly does not reflect Man's behaviour. This is the real world. Timothy McVeigh actually planted a bomb; people were actually blown apart; families were cast into a terrible living suffering hell. So the choice is to either understand this or to merely condemn Timothy McVeigh as if his actions were non-human. That would be fine if his actions were most abnormal and singular; but they are not; millions of people, one way or another, suffer every day at the hand of Man. Somehow we see the bombing of 'one's own' as an ever greater crime and act of savagery than the 'mere' bombing of members of a different UT Group. Bombing others may be seen as savagery but bombing one's own would be an act of total evilness - beyond any understanding. But the fact is that the acts are similar - one person killing a lot of other people. But Man cannot see these acts in this way. I called this evaluation mechanism an instinct for the very reason that it is an instinct. Throughout our lives we cannot but evaluate actions, yet, being totally under the control of the UT Instinct, the evaluation is irrational. Until you fully understand the UT Instinct you can never even see it at work; for it will always tell you that your viewpoint and evaluations are unquestionably correct!
Death Penalty The problem with the phrase 'he deserves it' is that it has been used so many many times in the past to justify the killing of others; to justify the denying of rights to others; to justify the enslaving of others; to justify the torturing of others. Hitler and the Nazis thought that the Jews deserved to be destroyed. Terrorist organisations in the north of Ireland thought that people from the 'other (political) side' deserved to be killed. Likewise in the Middle-East. Likewise in the Balkans etc. Whites considered that Blacks deserved to be slaves. The Male considered Females to be treated as second class, or no class, property. The (new) Americans considered that the native American Indians deserved to be exterminated. Etc. I think that one of the fundamental phrases which comes about as a result of the UT Instinct is that very phrase - 'they deserves it' - if it concerns punishment; or 'they don't deserve it' - if it concerns rights. For once we can say that phrase we can say that the killing of an individual (in this case) is not a reflection on our morals, but a judgement of the victim - and that is the UT Instinct at work! It makes us think that we are being civilised at the same time that we are acting in a savage manner. I know that what will be said is 'this case IS different! - he DOES deserve to die' - but elsewhere I've already shown that that phrase is yet another UT Phrase if ever there was one! Yet, on a personal level, I would have to agree with the death penalty - but only after taking the UT Instinct into account. In this single instance - he did deserve it. Though that leaves the question and problem of the overseas activities of the American military and security service, over the years - how many of those in charge also possibly deserve the death penalty? - no doubt your UT Instinct will supply an acceptable answer . . . to you!.
So how did I vote? I used my mind instead of my heart and voted to have it abolished (though that doesn't mean that sometime in the future I may be angry enough to wish that it hadn't been abolished). 'Justice' is in the hands of the dominant UT Group and is not justice at all, in many cases. To a certain extent everybody has their own agenda. My vote may have prevented an innocent person from being executed in Ireland in the future but, unfortunately, it won't prevent injustice - that is with us forever - it is our nature. Updated : 3rd October 2009
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|