 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 15: Examples of the UT InstinctIf 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.
Introduction The UT Instinct makes us evaluate subconsciously and there is no point in giving examples of atrocities and unacceptable behaviour which are widely acknowledged as such - by those in the West anyhow. It is difficult for us in the West to see the atrocities of which we are a part. To get the majority to see the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis is fairly simple. Here I want to show that America, Britain, and, basically, you and me, are no different as regards our evaluation mechanism than Hitler and the Nazis - we have the capability of being as barbaric and as savage - and, as in the case of Hitler and the Nazis, our UT Instinct will justify our actions to ourselves and tell us that we are civilised. Lastly I apologise for the length of this 'page' but to a certain extent if you have read from the beginning you could (maybe even should) have enough information to understand the UT Instinct already - enough so that you do not have to read any further. These examples merely show how the UT Instinct works and, more importantly, the results of UT Instinct 'thinking'. Though I would have to add that these examples sometimes show the wonderful interesting (unlimited) facets of the UT Instinct. This chapter was written 2002, any updating should be obvious.
This episode in Britain's history is equivalent to a man beating up an old woman and then taking her purse and her wealth then also living in the woman's house and getting her to do all the work, taking the woman's pension each week for himself and then, when the woman fought back, the man would brutally subdued her - not only that, but he would be proud of, and publicly acknowledge the fact of subduing her if she fought back. I would presume that most of the people of Britain would condemn that man and his actions without hesitation, and yet nationally, there was huge pride in the British Empire, which was doing the equivalent thing. The fact that this Empire was founded and maintained on brutality and savagery was irrelevant. It was a British UT Group pride - the pride of the Hightribe. What it really boils down to is this - the people in Britain just did not know it was wrong - they were not actually able to make an objective moral judgement of the situation. Why was this brutality not only accepted, but rejoiced in with great pride, by the majority of the British people? The answer is very straightforward - it was acceptable behaviour - the moral majority did not consider it a wrong thing to do - therefore it was not morally wrong - to them - to the British UT Group.
Churchill To Churchill (controlled by his 'British' UT Group morals), it was totally acceptable, and not in any way contradictory whatsoever, to expect that the 'British Empire' should regain all 'its' colonial territories which it had lost during the war. To Churchill, freedom was for Britain and those nations oppressed by the Axis countries. But freedom, as far as Churchill was concerned, was not for the peoples who lived in countries which had been colonies of Britain prior to WW2. Churchill never saw, nor could ever see, how subjective, and seemingly hypocritical, his understanding of freedom was. But this is the UT Instinct at work - one law for 'us' and one law for 'them' (usually contradictory). It was the freedom for the 'us' to be free, and not the 'them'. It was the freedom for 'us' to rule other peoples but not the freedom for the 'them' to rule other peoples. Churchill was not alone in being so blind and subjective; millions upon millions of people were also as blind. To expect Britain to judge the German desire for territorial expansion in a neutral fashion is to expect the Hightribe to judge an attack by the Lowtribe on another tribe with the same neutrality as its own attack on the Lowtribe. The Hightribe can always justify their attack on the Lowtribe and maintain their notion of being civilised. But the attack by the Lowtribe on another tribe will demonstrate to the Hightribe that the Lowtribe really and truly are a savage and brutal tribe.
British Justice And, as the British were determined to maintain power, especially in the face of any opposition, British justice in fact meant nothing but oppression and injustice for those who opposed the rule of the British. It actually legalised the crushing of any attempt by 'natives' - the 'them' - to gain independence and freedom from British domination. As such, it made the desire to be free illegal. It should really be described as UT Justice; yet the British people GENUINELY considered their system as exemplary. One of the major 'factors' of the UT Instinct is the notion that the 'them' are not only less deserving, but are, in fact, less human (intelligent, responsible, civilised etc). Let's face it, if you are not fully human you do not fully deserve the same treatment as that which humans deserve and expect. So, naturally enough, the Blacks, the Arabs, the American Indians, the Asians and any others who were ruled by the British were described as being savages, and uncivilised. Although Ireland was a mere few miles from Britain, the Irish race was at times described, and depicted, as being half-man and half-apelike - the 'missing link'. We were the people in rags; barefoot, ignorant peasants - why? - because that is what the British had created by their actions. Why? Because this is what we deserved - according to their UT Instinct. But for the fact that the UT Instinct and its control and reasoning is SUBCONSCIOUS the logic is wonderful in its perfection and strength. It is a masterpiece! The British could defend their treatment of the Irish, for the Irish were - 'nothing but backward, ignorant savages'. How could one expect the British to treat the Irish as equals when it was obviously the case, to them, that we were backward - sub-human. Throughout history the enemy - anybody's enemy - has always been depicted as being savage, wild, sub-human, dangerous, uncivilised and barbaric - the 'them' always were (and still are!) instinctively considered so. Alongside this notion of the 'them' being savage and uncivilised was the much stronger notion, due to the unceasing UT Instinct 'logic', that the 'us' deserve all this plunder. The British deserved all these riches. And why did they think that? The UT Instinct and their natural instinctive greed and selfishness tells people that what they want is actually what they deserve. So, how could they ever think they were doing wrong? They were taking from those who didn't deserve this resources and giving it to those who did deserve it. The Hightribe would understand that 'logic'! The Hightribe will be of the opinion that they should get more than the Lowtribe; that it is just and fair that they get more than the Lowtribe. So 'Hightribe Justice' actually means injustice - for the Lowtribe. To the Hightribe that is what justice is! To consider that the Lowtribe would deserve equal justice would be seen as going against natural justice. The 'moral' situation with regard to the British Empire was so absurd, and the people so controlled by the UT Instinct and its natural propaganda, that in the glorious days of the Empire cigarette packets depicted the British soldiers fighting and killing Blacks, who, one presumes, were fighting for freedom. This was not considered brutality to be covered up and hidden. This was something to publicly show off, be proud of, and flaunt to the world. This was the British Empire in all its glory! Even in Britain today, there is a duality within the legal system. As previously discussed, the killing of a Black person is not considered as important as a killing of a White person. The investigation of the killing of a Black person, to some police officers, is to be carried out only for show. The discovery of the killer is not an aim, or goal. Likewise, there have been many corrupt, wrong and totally unjust trials against Irish people in Britain for terrorist crimes, that one can only say that the British police force, legal system and judiciary all colluded in falsifying evidence, hiding evidence which 'proved' innocence, falsifying 'confessions', allowing maltreatment of those held on suspicion, and ignoring the obvious discrepancies in evidence, to such an extent that the whole legal system was shown to be the corrupt institution it always had been. This is what 'British Justice' was all about. How many of those members of the police force were subsequently convicted and jailed for their falsifying of evidence; for their perjury? Few - if any. How many British soldiers ('redcoats') were tried for killing freedom fighters in countries all around the world during the British Empire days? None! Of course not! These soldiers were not breaking the law! They were actually enforcing the law! That is what British Justice was. But did the British truly believe that they had the best system of justice? Of course they did! They truly did! The UT Instinct TOLD them so!
Whereas in the past slavery was a result of tribal warfare in a lot of cases; the modern situation was nothing more than commerce. It was morally and legally acceptable to merchants, the judiciary and even to some religions. Dealing in slaves was considered to be buying and selling a product - not a human being. The whole enterprise was made legal and respectable . . . that's business! It was morally acceptable for these slave owners to own slaves because their peers - members of their 'White' UT Group, thought the same. It was the collective acceptable moral standard of the UT Group. Slavery was not banned until nearly the mid 19th century! Did the slave owners in Britain, the USA, and other places, really believe in equality and justice, and yet at the same time believe that is was morally acceptable to own, and buy and sell, slaves? The slave owners in the southern states of the USA truly believed that they were superior, civilised, decent, honourable, god-fearing people. Once you can define another person as being a member of the 'them' your actions are not controlled by the laws governing your actions towards a member of the 'us' UT Group. As I have already explained, it would be taken as actually going against the laws of one's UT Group to see non-members as equals. For a White person living in the southern states, during slavery (if not even at present), to say that they considered a Black person as being an equal would be seen in a totally negative light. This is treachery to ones own 'White' UT Group. The dominant UT Group will always exploit and abuse subordinate groups - this is totally natural - this is Nature. It is the UT Instinct which gives justification (to conscious bioents with self-awareness) to these natural selfish desires.
Riots
American Soldiers in Vietnam When the US soldiers were in Vietnam it was a case of the Hightribe being among the Lowtribe and thus the 'normal' 'decent' rules of behaviour did not count. You couldn't morally justify destroying American villages and towns and shooting American women and children but the Vietnamese, they were the 'them' - even the ones on the American side, for the most part!
Rwanda Yet in most cases these butchers and savages had been law abiding, ordinary people. If you met them in the street they would seem totally normal - a fellow human being - a civilised individual. Most likely the UT Instinct is telling you right now that they are different to you.
German People in WW2
Balkans Conflict 1980s-1990s
The Orange Order in the north of Ireland A year or two ago a book was written about the Orange Order. This order is a Protestant organisation which wants to maintain the political link between the north of Ireland and Britain. Religious bigotry is one of its very fundamental principles, and some of it members are virulently anti-Catholic. When the book was published it stated that despite the appearance and public face of the members of the Orange Order, behind it all they were a decent and civilised people when one got to know them. There was an outcry by people in the south, and north, of Ireland when the book was published. People phoned into one of the Irish radio stations where the author had been interviewed complaining at the outrage of this book. They were so angry that the Orange Order was depicted in such a good light as these members were considered as monsters by many Catholics; and their bigotry towards Catholics was public knowledge. This book seemed like propaganda and yet was written by an Irish person. For most Irish people to accept what was said in the book was nigh impossible - this did not make sense to them. How could this bigoted organisation be seen in a positive light? But what of the truth? The truth is so obvious. The author was investigating the behaviour of the Orange Order when they were among their own. They were under the control of their UT Group - the Orange Order UT Group. It is totally natural, obvious, and pre-ordained that they would behave in an absolutely civilised, decent, caring, helpful, and considerate manner. They were among equals! In fact, the only way for them to behave was as such. To show just how simple this all is, let us go back to the One Tribe Scenario. This Hightribe is being interviewed and investigated by a writer. Be comes to live with them and see their interaction. The members of the Hightribe will be totally civilised etc towards fellow members - this is how they actually live! This is how the tribe survives and doesn't fall apart because of internal conflicts. Be will write a book saying how wonderful the Hightribe are; with their education and health services, their respect for the elderly, their religion, their social and community bevahiour etc - they will be seen in a totally civilised light. This will not be an act, or pretence, by the Hightribe. Among the Hightribe they ARE decent members of (Hightribe) society. Just as Nazis among Nazis were, for the most part, I presume, decent and civilised individuals. It is without question that the Lowtribe would be surprised, astonished and angery to hear that the Hightribe were considered as being civilised etc. They can see a totally different side to the Hightribe. They see the savage side to the Hightribe. This demonstrates the power and control of the UT Group. If you want to be in an UT Group and share in its mutual respect you obey those laws and regulations which govern the behaviour towards fellow members - it is instinctive! The Hightribe are civilised, yet they attack the Lowtribe! Doesn't this make them savages? Unfortunately, Man is totally irrational and subjective, and has morals and values which are totally variable, and so it makes perfect sense - in our mad world! Likewise the Nazis were civilised and decent, the slave owners were civilised and decent, the Serbians were civilised and decent, the British were civilised and decent, terrorists are civilised and decent - among their own UT Group. In the Irish case, since it is a type of democratic country and the government is partly uncorrupted?, the police officer will do bes normal job preventing law-breaking and investigating crimes which are reported, and will be fairly neutral and not take sides. In the South African case, the country was not democratic, in the true sense, and the government was corrupt (in a 'moral' sense). So, in Ireland the police officer will do bes duty and defend the status quo, and will be just; whereas in South Africa the police officer will do bes duty and defend the ruling status quo (Apartheid), and be unjust. Could it be said that the two members of the police-force had such different values, and different 'moral' characters? Both end up enforcing the law - the fact that in one country the law is unjust is irrelevant. Peace has to be maintained for the 'us'. The 'us' law has to be enforced. Naturally enough, the 'them' are always perceived as being more guilty than the 'us'. When arresting a troublemaker in Ireland the police officer is enforcing the law. When arresting a Black for sitting in a 'Whites only' area the South African police officer was enforcing the law. One could say that police officers use their power against 'criminals' - but it is the UT Instinct and UT Group laws which decides what type of person is considered a member of the 'criminal' grouping. In the case of South Africa, during Apartheid, the Blacks, in general, were considered as members of the 'criminal' group, thus the police were just doing their duty. It can never be a case of 'The Law', or 'Universal Laws', but of UT Laws and UT Group laws. No matter what country you may care to examine you will see that the police are not neutral, objective, law-enforcing bodies with objective moral values. In different countries there is a different 'us' and 'them' and there are differing laws. The law is always there to protect the 'us', not necessarily the 'them'.
Hierarchy of UT Groups In some cases the different UT Group may be the differing 'sub-sections' or departments within the police eg the traffic division, the criminal investigation division, the drugs division etc, and in some cases will literally be in conflict, and un-cooperative, with the other departments.
Murder v Murder For example, murdering one of the 'us', a White person, in a predominantly White society and police force, is wrong. Being a Black victim, in the same circumstances, can make murder less unacceptable to certain police (I refer to the Stephen Lawerence case in Britain, for example, where it was sadly obvious that some of the police did not seem to take the killing of Mr Lawerence as being a serious criminal act. The 'search' for his White killers appeared at times to be merely a token investigation). So where were the morals of these officers? When that group within society which is in peril is only confined to members of the 'them' then the 'real' society is still safe - there is no hurry to find the killer. Expecting White police to be totally objective is like expecting Hightribe police to be totally objective when investigating an attack by a Hightribe member on a Lowtribe member. Those guilty of 'honour killing', in countries where this is part of their 'culture', are not treated with the severity which one would think a killer deserves. Likewise the attitude of many members of the police and judiciary towards the victims of rape - the victim being seen as the instigator in many cases and the crime itself being seen as a minor incident, rather than a physical and violent attack on an individual - one deserving full rights. Attacks on homosexuals, and others, are also sometimes seen as being not very serious.
Criminal v Criminal Most police forces work on behalf of the 'power majority' - not the morally correct - not the morally just. Thus you had the situation in the north of Ireland where the police force, the RUC, along with the Protestants and Unionists, were the 'us' and in power, and the Nationalists and Catholics were the 'them'. The law, the UT Group law, was written by those in power to protect those belonging to the 'us' UT Groups. The law was not neutral; the logic of the majority was - 'a Protestant parliament, and police force, for a Protestant people' - this is a misquote but adequately describes the attitude, and so they could always maintain the notion that they are upholders of the law, that they are law-abiding citizens - unlike the 'them', of course! The police were from the dominant tribe and could justify the inequality and injustice. To maintain 'law and order' (the law and order of the Unionists) was to actively curtail the rights of the 'them' - the Nationalists. To protect the Unionists was merely doing one's duty. This UT Logic actually justified the collusion between the RUC/security forces and the Unionist terrorist groups in the killing of persons who were considered as being dangerous to the Unionist cause. I could go into the whole discussion of the judiciary and the fact that no judge is, nor can ever be, neutral, though most people consider that 'their' judges are unbiased and fair! In simple terms: judges are human and therefore are as subjective, irrational, biased and controlled by the UT Instinct as everybody else!
In some cases 'us' is the government which represents the people - in the other case it is the government which represents itself (a very limited UT Group). The latter may defend and justify themselves by saying that they are defending their country (eg from left wing, or right wing groups etc) but if you analyse this it actually means they are defending the ruling power from destruction, and in the case of dictatorship then the soldier will be defending the ruling powers from attack by the people. It is so easy to think that 'our' soldiers are not, nor could ever be, oppressive like those we see in dictatorships. There is a very good example of how the 'us' and the 'them' can be twisted around to the situation whereby soldiers will fire on 'their own people' even in a totally democratic? country (if, objectively, there can ever be such a entity) if the circumstances are right. During the anti-Vietnam war rallies and demonstrations in America, at the Kent State campus, one demonstration was broken up, and four students were shot and killed by the National Guard ('reserve soldiers'). Those students who were demonstrating were ultimately seen as the 'them', a threat to America, and so the soldiers opened fire as if they were the enemy. Do not forget - in any war no soldier will first discuss the opposing ideologies with the individual enemy soldier before firing - all one needs to know is - who is the enemy. Once you can differentiate the enemy from the 'us', the 'them' are legitimate targets. So even in America, the land of the free and the brave (an UT Phrase), soldiers will shoot and kill 'their own people', if the UT Justification is there. So to think that the soldiers working for dictatorships are any different, in moral terms, than soldiers defending 'their own', in democratic countries, is totally incorrect. On 'Bloody Sunday' in the north of Ireland the British army opened fire and murdered unarmed innocent civilians - Catholics - the 'them' - the enemy. This behaviour is typical of the British army over the centuries, as already discussed above. It is also typical of the behaviour of an army in third-world dictatorships. People in the south of Ireland, for example, may think that their soldiers would never become the oppressors - but that is not the case! During the Irish civil war Irish person fought Irish person, and the soldiers were no exception. As is always the case in 'civil' wars, there was absolute hatred between the warring factions. Atrocities were committed on both sides. One might be able to say that 'under normal circumstances' Irish soldiers would never become a tool of oppression. Then ask yourself; can dictatorships be defined as 'under normal circumstances'? Under normal circumstances members of the Hightribe are decent, civilised, law-abiding individuals . . . but I would not like to be a member of the Lowtribe when among them!
So where is this love of democracy? It was a love of democracy and a determination to remain a democratic country. But that democracy referred to the USA and only the USA. Democracy is for the 'us', and if democracy for the 'us' means that other countries have to be ruled by dictatorships, so be it. At times this policy of replacing 'disagreeable' governments by a 'sympathetic' dictator was seen as an acceptable 'political' mechanism or aim. To the Americans, the major 'them' were the communists. Needless to say, the 'them' were considered savage, inhumane, dangerous and some kind of obscene creation to be defeated and annihilated at all costs. And when it comes down to actual facts, the communists did invade and establish puppet governments in the safety zone between Russia and the 'West'. But what America did was just about as ruthless. How many people were subdued, tortured and killed in Chile, Iraq, Iran, the Philippines, Korea (?), in other South American countries, in other Asian countries and in other Middle Eastern countries because of inteference by the USA? When it comes down to reality both America and Russia protected themselves by destroying democracies around the world whenever necessary, and whenever possible. Can the American people see that they are being hypocritical about democracy? Of course not. They are thinking about their UT Group. Political power held by people who are 'enemies' of America are seen as being in the hands of savage and uncivilised people. Naturally enough, savage and uncivilised people should not be allowed to yield political power. Removing them, even forcibly, is seen as doing something good and right. Removing a democratically elected government and oppressing the people could actually be justified!
In the case of dictatorships - a small 'inner' UT Group - the power of that UT Group is so great that the threat to the individual members of that group, from the wider tribal base, is neutralised to such an extent that the wider tribal laws do not control the behaviour of the inner tribe. Fear of being expelled from the inner UT Group, or losing respect, is irrelevant if you are the 'chief' and control the tribal laws. The inner circle will have its own tribal rules, but the protection these rules provide do not extend out to encompass the outer tribe. In this case the outer tribe may as well be a totally different tribe (as regards the UT Instinct). The reason why we are members of UT Groups, or tribes, is for our own benefit - life is better when we co-operate. We co-operate with 'equals' - those with whom we have mutual respect. To break the tribal laws will cut us off from that respect. We will be judged as being not civilised enough to be a fellow member of that UT Group. We will lose out. That is where the control of the individual's greed has an effect. But, if the inner UT Group are strong enough they become the Hightribe and the outer tribe become the Lowtribe and thus are exploited as usual.
The north Of Ireland Dictatorship Because of the UT Instinct there are still Unionist and Protestant politicians, along with British politicians, who cannot acknowledge, and are unable to even see, that the situation in the north of Ireland was contrary to all definitions of democracy, equality, decency and justice. The 'us' were looking out for the best interests of the 'us' - it is totally natural - there is only (and can only be) equality within the UT Group. How can you expect the Hightribe to see that they are being unjust in how they treat the Lowtribe? It is impossible for them to do so. You may think it is simple to see the injustices in the north of Ireland but that is where the UT Instinct has the power to fool oneself. To say that the Unionists and Protestants should be clearly able to see that there was injustice against the large minority, the Catholics and Nationalists, is the same as saying that Males should have always been clearly able to see that Females was unjustly treated and viewed as nothing more than mere slaves by men. Were Males able to see that? Even Females, to a certain extent, were unable to see that. Why? Because these attitudes are natural - it was seen as being the way things should be!
American Dictatorship Most of the indigenous American Indian population had been exterminated in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the clear light of day it is easy to see that the American (White) Hightribe did not include every person and every ethnic group that lived in America as the 'us' - only those who belonged to the 'Whites' UT Groups from Europe. Although made up from many different ethnic backgrounds and countries they (the European descendants) became the one tribe as such. This is like the Two Tribe Scenario (with 'White' integration), except that the many 'European' tribes became the Hightribe and the non-Whites became the Lowtribe. Natural greed and self-interest actually united these differing peoples into a new UT Group - the raison d'être of being a member of any tribe in the first place. But, despite this seemingly wonderful social and cultural gathering and cohesion the UT Instinct was as strong as ever. Whites saw fellow Whites as being equal and the American Indian as being inferior and therefore deserving of exploitation and/or annihilation - they were considered the Lowtribe. When gold was found on their tribal lands they were told to 'move on', as if they were merely grazing animals. American 'Mexicans' received similar contempt. American Blacks likewise. Chinese immigrants ditto. If one examines the north of Ireland, the American, and the Iraqi (Saddam Hussein) political situation and compare them with each other you should see that they are actually very similar. From afar each country can be considered as being one entity but this is rarely, if ever, the case - especially as regards the UT Instinct. In Iraq, the north of Ireland and the USA political power was for the benefit of the dominant UT Groups - Saddam Hussein, the Protestants and Unionists, and the 'Whites' respectively - the Blacks, the Mexicans, the native American Indians, the Kurds, the Catholics etc were never considered as belonging to the 'us'. In all these cases force, and UT Group laws, are used to guarantee that political power stays in the hands of the 'us'. There may have been elections but the Hightribe were the only group who could ever gain and hold power. Up to the late 1960s many Blacks in America were not given the right to vote - yet did America call itself a democratic country? - of course it did - it was democracy . . . for the 'us', and in most cases that is all that ever counts, that is all that is required. The fact that Blacks, Mexicans and American Indians were not a part of the political system in America was not relevant - democracy was for the 'us' UT Group of Whites. To the Whites this truly was democracy! America - the land of the free and the brave - but only for those whom the Whites considered as being members of 'the free and the brave'! Rarely was it said by the oppressors that the native American Indians, the Blacks, and Mexicans should be denied their rights but instead the justification was - 'they are too stupid to know how to vote' - 'they are not capable of using a democratic vote; they are backward; they are ignorant; they are lazy' etc. This is similar to the Hightribe and their 'thinking'. They do not consciously analyse the situation and come to the conclusion that the Lowtribe are less civilised; the UT Instinct TELLS them that the Lowtribe are less civilised. The dominant UT Group don't pretend to think thus; they truly believe that the 'them' are of less worth. The UT Instinct is an instinct! - there is no 'calculated' thinking, just merely irrational 'thought'. This 'feeling' is part of the very being of those involved - they cannot question it - just as when you are happy you cannot question the truth of your happinness. It is your feeling and so it is as real as it can ever be. It is vital to fully understand this. So to fully understand the first sentence of this paragraph I should state it thus - they never thought of denying them their rights for the very simple reason that they never considered them as deserving those very same rights! Any power given to the American Indians, or Blacks, or Mexicans would mean less power for the Whites; and defending the White way of life - the 'us' way of life, was defending the proper, correct and civilised way of life - the Hightribe way of life! Denying voting rights to others was justice - an obligation! A guarantee that things would remain 'good and decent'. When you think of it it is wonderful logic! It is so simple. One can say 'I believe that everyone should be free!' - but that really means - 'everyone whom I think deserves to be free'. This is the UT Instinct at work. It fools us into thinking that we are the civilised ones. We can truly say to ourselves - 'we believe in equality!' - but it only ever applies to those whom we think deserve that same equality! To the American Whites their country was leading the world in freedom and democracy. Yet it was a form of dictatorship. Thankfully this situation is changing in both the United States; where Black Americans, American Indians and Mexican Americans are gaining LEGAL equality with the Whites; and in the north of Ireland where the Catholics and Nationalists are gaining legal equality with the Protestants, and Unionists - though sometimes it is only legal equality - the law does not and cannot change the nature of Man. Unfortunately this change in attitude certainly cannot be said for the situation in Iraq, or many other places around the world. UT Laws may be removed from the statute books but the UT Instinct will always live on in the hearts of Man. It will exist as long as this species exists. People may think there is change - that things improve - that Mankind improves but ultimately, IT IS ONLY THE UT GROUPS WHICH CHANGE, thereby giving the appearance of 'progress'.
As I have already discussed, those who are the freedom fighters, those whose aim is to free their people from the unjust and savage rule by those in power always tend to grab that same power and be as unjust as their predecessors. The Chinese people had been oppressed before communism came to China - and still are. Nothing has changed. The nature of Man has not changed. Those in power, especially those with power to maintain that power will be under the control of the 'me' UT Group and the UT Instinct. It is they, at the top, who are the Hightribe - the people are the Lowtribe. It was not the people who were of utmost importance to Mao - it was Mao and his own ideas which were important; for if people got in the way of the implementation of HIS ideas - they were very expendable. Countless millions of people died due to famine and the results of Mao's land reform policies - the 'political ideology plans' of this individual. (Yet, at the same time, he considered the USA to be the evil entity!). Can it really be said that Mao was looking after the interests of 'the Chinese people'? It may even be the case that more Chinese people died under Mao's rule than when under the previous political system. Mao was only interested in his own personal ideas. The 'my way' does not leave room for people - they are a mere footnote to the 'idealist's' selfish visions - the pawns in Mao's game of life. Who dictated or controlled Mao's 'morals'? As he had sufficient power to be THE UT Group, it was he himself who decided what was right and wrong. (Tribal chiefs and dictators decide the laws and values of the tribe). Thus, he could do no wrong - by his own values. In fact, as it was he who was attempting to attain the goal - the ideal political situation in China (according to him), he could think of himself as a hero - not to the people's wishes or desires - but to his own ideals, no matter how many Chinese people died.
Tibet This similar situation has been repeated all around the world. In a lot of cases it is only the land which is desired. The people are not required (not seen as equal), except possibly as workers, or slaves. This happened in America (the native Indians and Mexicans were not wanted), in Ireland (Britain wanted the land but not the Irish), in East Timor (the Indonesians wanted the land not the people). This is no more excusable than a thief stealing property from a weaker individual. The fact that it is a country which is doing the stealing does not, somehow, make it any less savage and immoral. China's actions in Tibet is as a result of the same nature in Man that has been prevalent for the past tens of thousands of years on this earth - nothing has changed.
The Cultural Revolution During the cultural revolution the 'us' were those who belonged to Mao Tse-tung's cultural army. Generally there was a purging of political, intellectual and community leaders. Teachers were taken out by pupils and beaten up because they were perceived as not towing the Mao-ist line. If the raison d'être was for the betterment of the people of China then who exactly decides who belongs to, and who does not belong to, the Chinese UT Group? The Hightribe - those in power - do. The 'us' want and will take from the 'them'. The conclusion has to be that merely being Chinese was not considered as being 'Chinese' - it was the political ideology that was relevant - the cultural army UT Group was the dominant UT Group. If you weren't a 'supporter' you were the Lowtribe. It is the members of the UT Group who decide if someone is considered a member or not. It is totally arbitrary. But to belong to that UT Group means you accept those UT Group laws. So although two people may be Chinese nationals, the Chinese Hightribe will only look upon other Chinese who have the same tribal beliefs (political ideology etc) as fellow members. To have different tribal beliefs automatically makes one a member of 'another tribe' and thus a member of the Lowtribe, and thus deserving of contempt and savage treatment. To disagree with the 'thoughts of Mao' was to be not equal to the members of the cultural army UT Group and therefore prevented one being guaranteed equality and protection. But as with any UT Instinct conflict the 'them' have to be fairly obvious and in the cultural revolution scenario the 'intelligentsia' were the victims. Two people may look fairly much the same and act very much the same but by calling one of them the 'bourgeoisie' one automatically made them a member of the 'them' - selfish, greedy, 'living off the sweat of the poor working class' etc - and any injustice, humiliation and cruelty was considered as being deserved by the victim. The term 'bourgeoisie' could definitely be categorised as an UT Word - for it is not just a word but more an accusation - an automatic defining of one as being a member of the 'them'.
The Just Cause It always sounds much more nobler to say that you are 'fighting for a cause' but in actual fact you could also substitute that empty phrase for the more honest 'I am fighting for MY cause - me!' - 'I am fighting to get my way!'. It is the simple logic - I want - I take. So to consider it a selfless goal is certainly fooling oneself, in the majority of cases. If Castro merely fought for the freedom of the Cubans he would not have so naturally taken up the dominant role of dictator. But gaining power, he became THE UT Group and thus his rules became the rules. He fought to get 'his way', got his way and maintains his way. 'For the freedom of the Cubans' can only be understood as applying only according to the evaluation of Castro, and as Castro is attempting to achieve HIS aims he can consider himself to be a hero, no matter what effect his personal 'selfish' wishes have on the ordinary Cuban people. To consider Castro's actions as being selfless would actually mean that one could also consider the actions of the executives of those American corporations which run vast commercial enterprises in South American countries - the banana republics, as being heroes and selfless when they are so willing to subdue local peoples and communities for the good of - 'the company'. In effect there is very little difference between the two. A large corporation is certainly an UT Group - a powerful UT Group.
Dissidents It is easy to see how natural it is for the 'us' who are in power to make laws which confine that very power to the 'us', justified by the very subjective and irrational opinions of the 'us', and thus anyone trying to overthrow the 'us' rule, or laws, would of necessity be breaking 'the' law - our law. Being in a position of power and using it is natural! And, because the 'moral' obligation of the police and the army is to uphold the rule of law, and because the rule of law in China is unjust and dictatorial, thus the police and the army are unjust and dictatorial, but they are 'doing their duty', as already discussed. The police and the army are not there to question the 'moral' and 'ethical' nature of 'the law' - they are there to 'do their job' just like any police officer, or soldier, anywhere in the world, no matter what the 'political' situation is. The term dissident could be described as an UT Word. There is a major difference between describing a person as wanting more rights for people, on the one hand, as distinct from a person who is disobeying the law of the land.
All Are Not Equal It is easy to think - 'how could they kill, or abandon, one of their own', but it is us who have given them a collective entity, yet that does not mean that the father, or mother, see the child as being as equal to their own desires. [One could ask what the difference is between these parents who kill their child after it is born, and parents who arrange for an abortion to prevent the birth of a child]. How could a father not care about his offspring, although maybe 'only' a female? Exactly the same way that plenty of men do not care about the children they have fathered in temporary sexual relationships (in those situations not only do they not care about the 'fatherless' child but also do not care about the situation the mother may find herself in because of being pregnant and, subsequently, being an 'unmarried mother'). It is always easy to look at situations with blinkered eyes. The family - it is natural - it is wholesome. Is not Man a wonderful species! We are civilised and godlike! How easy it is to fool ourselves! How easy it is to ignore certain facts! In a lot of marriages the woman is not, and was never, equal. So is this father a wonderful bioent - caring about his wife, caring about his children - being selfless? Of course some men do care about others, in this case their families, but it is the nature of Man to do so when it is in their own interest - just as when they obey the tribal laws - when it is in their own interest - when they consider that others are members of their UT Group. Throughout history how many parents have used their own children as slaves - especially in rural situations where the sons work the farm for very little return. How many men, in the past, and unfortunately in the present, give their wife the least amount of money necessary to feed themselves and their family, while keeping the remainder for themselves - for drink, gambling etc. How many parents mentally, physically and sexually, abuse their children [a lot of this is slowly but surely coming to light in Ireland, as well as other countries]? Of course the majority of men get married and have children and 'look after' the family! How many men want to live on their own, cook their own meals, sleep in their own bed alone, clean and tidy the house on their own, and be lonely? The fact that the human species tend to end up in a family situation does not demonstrate that the nature of Man is one of 'goodness' and 'god-like spirituality' and heroic selflessness, equality etc, just like the fact that the members of the Hightribe are friendly, courteous, helpful and considerate to fellow members of the Hightribe does not demonstrate, or reflect, the true, absolute, selfish nature of each individual member of the Hightribe (ask the Lowtribe!). Finally, ask yourself why these parents want a male child in the first place anyway - so as to have a worker to look after the land and look after the parents when they are older. Is this selflessness?? So is it really shocking that parents would kill, or abandon, 'their own' female child? Parents are bioents - bioents are selfish - thus parents are selfish. In most countries it is only a minor crime, if any crime at all, to mistreat and be cruel to an animal. Why? Because the animal is not seen as being 'one of us'. Thus the decency, the legal regulations, the self control etc which we take as being a prerequisite for our mutual respect with regard to human relationships are not to be relevant when dealing with a non human (outside our Human UT Group). Again, this is the notion that if we break the UT Group laws, even though in some cases because of some higher ideal and caring, we are uncivilised and savage and brutal, but if we behave in a savage and brutal manner while still obeying those UT Group laws we have the 'protection' of knowing that we are still civilised - by our UT Group definition and standards. This is merely nature at work. There are many forms of cruelty to animals, only a few of which, thankfully, I am aware. Human beings can act in the most cruel and barbaric way, getting enjoyment out of cruelty; getting enjoyment out of the brutal killing of an animal eg hunting. This is not for necessity - for clothing or for food - it is merely a form of entertainment. Which is the savage animal - the prey or the human 'hunters'? Yet the human bioents really and truly have the opinion that what they are doing is not wrong. The fact is that they have no more an objective moral judgement capability than those very animals which they are hunting. Even more deserving of contempt and condemnation is the situation where animals are trained and bred to be fighters and killers. Admittedly some animals are natural fighters but usually only with regard to either; mating fights and thus finding the fittest male, or hunting for food; but what the humans have done to the animals is unforgivable. There are dog fights; cock fights (and usually any other animal suitable for creating a fighting breed), and the aim of the fight is that the winner maims or kills the opposing animal. If ever there was a true parallel to the story of Frankenstein and his monster this type of situation must be it. It is a terrible reflection on humanity that we even manage to corrupt the animal world and literally breed vicious savage killer animals. And the purpose of this obscenity? A bit of enjoyment; a short period of entertainment; an excuse for making a bet. We may have created those monsters but we, in fact, are even more monstrous than othose creations. But the wonderful UT Instinct tells us that our ability to create such 'monsters' reflects our superiority and intelligence and gives us a mistaken notion that we control Nature! We show our dominance by abusing and exploiting. There are the situations where an individual or group of people torture an animal - just for fun, for amusement. Why is the legislation not as severe with regard to torturing animals as it should be? - because they are not considered as part of the 'us' and that it would actually be wrong to consider that animals should have the same rights as ourselves. This could also be said of our testing medicines on animals. It can (or may) be justified as being part of our survival but, only because we are the dominant UT Group and our opinions take regard of ourselves only. We, as a species, eat meat - is it wrong? Absolutely not. It is as wrong as a tiger attacking a human and eating ben. It is natural. But what is not natural is the method we have of keeping livestock in so-called 'factory farms'. The animal is treated like a non-living entity - a product. It is difficult to imagine that there are millions of animals who have never lived in, or experienced, natural daylight, who have never lived a 'natural' life. Usually the only time they are brought out into the natural sunlight is when they are been taken out to be bundled in a lorry to be transported to the slaughterhouse. This is so barbaric and savage as to be incomprehensible that Man cannot see how inexcusable this is. Yet the UT Instinct tells us that these animals deserve nothing better - they don't count as regards our UT Group. Commercial considerations are paramount. Commercial considerations are ALWAYS paramount. For the most part many would be able to acknowledge Man's abuse of the other bioent species as described above. But again, I want to stress that the UT Instinct effects ALL our evaluations and sometimes Truth can be demonstrated in the most innocuous situations and examples. It can be too easy for most people to perhaps accept the UT Instinct's control in relation to the most savage and barbaric actions of Man, but with the understanding that it only refers to the most savage and barbaric individuals, thus condemning others but very definitely excluding themselves. This, of its very nature, is the UT Instinct at work. To demonstrate just how invisible and all-encompassing this UT Instinct is we need to examine totally ordinary and everyday attitudes. Having pets, in some cases, is actually cruel to these animals, though whether cruel or not, it reflects the UT Instinct. We take the birds of the air, the animals whose very nature is to be free and fly, and lock them up in tiny cages - and why - just for our own amusement, and sometimes literally just as part of the fashionable furniture in our homes. We created many types of 'designer' dog breeds - ones with small tails, long legs, furry, fur-less, droopy eyed, long eared etc etc - whatever takes our fancy - and all this merely for our own fashion tastes. We have done the same with pigeons and other animals. Yet, for a species which considers itself moral and intelligent we never asked ourselves the question as to whether is was morally acceptable for us to interfere with the breeds of other members of the animal kingdom. Again, whether it actually is morally acceptable or not, is not relevant here; the fact is that we NEVER questioned it, and why? - because the UT Instinct instinctively 'told' us that it was acceptable and so, like the irrational and dominant species we are, we just accepted that as valid. Yet, in many ways one could say that our notion of 'owning' pets turns out to be as cruel and as uncaring as the behaviour of the more savage and brutal actions of some members of our species. In zoos all around the world animals, both large and small, are caged up all of their lives - and why - so that stupid dumb human bioents can go around gawking at these caged 'wild' animals never realising that the natural instinct of these 'wild' animals is much less cruel, much less savage, much less brutal, than the natural instincts of the human viewers themselves. There are countless animals whose lives are so unnatural that it would have been better for these animals never to have been born in a world dominated by Homo Sapiens. It is a terrible reflection on us. In fact, a lot of people think that our treatment of animals, for example, the fact that we can 'train' animals to perform stupid meaningless tricks as with circus animals proves how superior we are; while all it actually demonstrates is just how pathetic and stupid our species is. In reality they are living species, like us (except that they are not as destructive), and therefore have as much 'right' to live on this little planet of ours as we have. But take a look at the last sentence! This little planet of ours. Of ours! This is the UT Instinct at work. There must be tens of thousands of different species on this planet and yet we have the tendency to think that it is ours - Man's. If I had said - this little planet of theirs (the animals) you would have seen that as being ridiculous. And why? Because we are the Hightribe. What is ours to take is ours. What is theirs is ours. We do not think, for even just one moment, that this planet is theirs. They do not deserve this planet - we are the superior ones - we deserve this planet. Thus, it is our planet. The dominant species always owns all it can grab, and is under the impression that this is the way things should be - and 'naturally' speaking that attitude is true, but in 'moral' terms that is certainly not true, but Man is not a moral species. If I said that I am so civilised that it actually allows me to act in a brutal and savage way towards others you would think me mad and totally irrational, yet the UT Instinct 'allows', or even 'encourages' people to think in that manner, for how can Man consider members of the animal kingdom equals when they are not members of the same (human) UT Group? The vital point to grasp is that this is totally subconscious, so although we behave in a selfish and (morally) unacceptable manner towards other bioent species we automatically assume that this is correct and acceptable and that this does not negatively reflect on our civilised and decent behaviour. This is how the UT Instinct works. The very moment you are sure and certain that you are 'morally' right is, most likely, the very time that the UT Instinct is working at its hardest to control your evaluations.
United States Of America Most people would agree that it is wrong to steal other peoples' land. In most cases it would be considered an illegal act. But that is only if the victim is part of the 'us' UT Group. In the United States they had laws and in their laws they, the White Hightribe, had title to lands which could be protected, owned and sold etc. So the very simple argument that the American Indians did not have title to the land because they had nothing on paper meant that the law could actually be used to steal land. To a certain extent one could say that the American law, in practice, made it illegal for the American Indians to live anywhere within the United States - they had become squatters in their own country! Finally, when the American Indians realised that they would have to fight for their very own existence, the full rigour of the law would be used to exterminate the American Indian, once and for all - the final solution (not the first, nor the last, time that type of concept has been used). Less than one hundred and fifty years ago the US cavalry were given the task of, essentially, destroying and exterminating the American Indians - of driving them into the ground. Basically, under American law - the only 'good Injun' was a 'dead Injun'. The 'us' will always try and legalise the brutality, the greed, and the savage behaviour - just as the Hightribe have laws which ultimately mean the destruction of the Lowtribe. One cannot condemn the Indians from retaliating - who would allow themselves and their fellow members of their tribes to be annihilated without giving some kind of a fight.
Firstly, if education could solve these 'problems' it would obviously infer that Man was intelligent and rational and thus would be capable of realising that we are all equal etc once confronted by the 'fact' that we are all equal. The very simple argument against that utter stupidity is to merely state that if Man was capable of being that rational and that intelligent be wouldn't, in the first instance, have to be taught that we are all equal! Does anyone truly believe that it would have been possible to educate Hitler to the truth that Jews were decent humans; or educate White supremacists that Blacks were equal and civilised? Man is not that logical, nor that rational! It is not the case that a child learns to be a bully - bullying is natural. In every sphere of existence there is a dominant and a subordinate grouping - there can be no other natural way. In human terms the 'logic' comes from the UT Instinct. A child doesn't learn to become a bully but it does learn 'tribal' (UT Group) values. Every child 'learns' that its UT Group's values are the true values, and thus the only acceptable values. (There would be no point in teaching values under the conditions that these were seen as merely 'opinions' and not Fact and Truth). Therefore others who have different values, 'logically speaking' cannot have the same level of truth - or worth. The UT Instinct, together with the natural instinctive self-interest and greed, and the desire to exploit weaker entities, leads to the very natural act of bullying. The 'strong' take advantage of the 'weak'. This instinct is in everyone - it is part of our very nature. Who of us has every asked the 'moral' question as to whether we have the right to 'own' a dog, or any other animal for that matter? Likewise as regards using pack animals eg the horse, donkey, camel etc. We are the dominant species and we use our dominance usually without any moral questions whatsoever. One could also include the bullying 'professions' - those professions which have enough power to charge unjustifyably large fees as compared to the 'general' worker. As regards the gender UT Groups, one could say that one half of the human species is bullied by the other half. Some workers' unions can bully if they have enough power so that their workers get more than other members of other unions. Many in authority can be bullies when the occasion and opportunity is suitable and advantageous.
Unfortunately it is the UT Instinct which tells us that any 'unacceptable' behaviour by a member of our own UT Group is the result of some abnormal or unnatural condition. It will NEVER be seen as an actual trait of the 'us'. And, like the 'Rain Is Dry Scenario', we desperately want to judge each unacceptable action of Man as an individual case rather than a collective true reflection of the Nature of Man. Thus bullying is seen as a 'distortion' of our true nature rather than an example of what we truly are. 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).
|