 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 9: UT Group ConflictsIf 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.
UT Groups And ConflictUnfortunately humans are not straightforward. If we only ever belonged to one UT Group it would be much easier to fully explain the UT Instinct, but each human can, and does, belong to many varying UT Groups, but usually only one can be in control at any point in time. This adds another dimension to the understanding of UT Instinct and of the human evaluation mechanism. We can say that being in an UT Group has a control on our behaviour - we must ‘fit in’ and obey the UT Group laws, otherwise we may not only be thrown out of that group, but also will lose the respect of the other members - those with whom we see ourselves as being equal etc. We could take an example of the husband who beats his wife. Years ago, in Ireland, and elsewhere, this would have been much more acceptable than it is now. A man could, in male company, mention that he had to slap the wife who was giving trouble and not be expected to ‘lose face’ within that male company. Today that attitude is generally not acceptable, and therefore, although the man may still beat ‘his’ wife, and will think that he is justified in doing so, he will know that the wider UT Group will not find that acceptable and therefore he will not mention it in public. But, if he finds himself among a few men who have the same opinion as himself not only will he mention that he beats ‘his’ wife, but may very well exaggerate how much he beats her - to gain the ‘respect’ of the new, inner, male UT Group. Among ‘their own’ there is no guilt as in One Tribe Scenario. [Although I have no intention of advising on practical uses of these theories, or telling people how to live their lives - there are many others very willing to do so!; all I will point out is here is that this is where modern tribal ‘mechanisms’ like the internet can be very dangerous, damaging, and destructive - all one needs to do is find those of like mind and this will actually encourage those of the same UT Group to acts more ‘daring’ and in a more unacceptable manner (according to those outside that particular UT Group) than they would if they were on their own - devoid of their special inner self-encouraging UT Group. One could take the examples of either: the paedophiles - child abusers - who would automatically want to demonstrate that they are better and smarter and will boast about their new method of entrapping, or enticing, children; or the case of right-wing thugs who would want to boast of how they terrorised people who did not fit into their definition of what a member of their UT Group should be. In the case of the right-wing militants; they know that the wider UT Group (‘White’ society) does not approve of their actions, and because, in most cases they want to remain within the wider White, Anglo-Saxon UT Group, they must not be too vocal about their activities; and although I have never been at one of their meeting yet I am sure that there is plenty of ‘boasting’ about their activities, because within that inner racist UT Group there is no shame, in fact it is the opposite, just as the case in the One Tribe Scenario where they would brag about attacking the Lowtribe.] Loyalty Within UT GroupsThe simple logic of the UT Group is that, because everyone is on equal terms within the group, no one should expose the actions of a member to an outsider, or to any judgement from an outsider. In other words nobody should reveal the actions of a member to a different UT Group. It would be totally against the rules for a member of the Hightribe to go outside the tribe and accuse a fellow member of attacking, for example, a member of the Lowtribe. This would be acting against the best interests of the Hightribe. This would be akin to treason. There is a similar, but slightly different, situation where a member of the Hightribe may do something against another member of the Hightribe. Nevertheless it would be unthinkable for a member to make this public. It would be seen as an INTERNAL matter. Most institutions and professional bodies have ‘societies’ and ‘clubs’ for its members. Usually these bodies are self-regulating and want to remain thus, and are also of the opinion that this is the ideal situation - in UT Group terms this is self-evident truth! Doctors, The Police, Teachers, Solicitors, Newspapers, Employers, The Clergy, etc NEVER want to be judged by ‘outsiders’. The list is endless. The logic is so simple. Within an UT Group they have their own rules (and, of course, mutual equality and respect). Those rules are only relevant within those groups. Thus, naturally enough, it is only members - those within the UT Group - who are ‘qualified’ to make any judgement on a fellow member. Not only that, but if a member misbehaves in relation to an outsider, the ‘benefit of the doubt’ will always go to the member. The simplicity of the logic can be revealed when translated to tribal terms: if a member of the Lowtribe accuses a member of the Hightribe of misbehaving and asks the Hightribe to make a judgement the outcome is fairly and naturally obvious - ‘innocent’! For a member to accuse a fellow member of misbehaving and disclose this to outsiders would be betraying the ‘equality’ within the UT Group. In objective terms a member of the police-force who exposes the criminal behaviour of a fellow member is not only doing something laudable but, in effect, actually only doing bes job - upholding the law. But, internally, within the police-force UT Group, this ‘honest cop’ whistle-blower is betraying a fellow member of the police-force and thus has become untrustworthy. That person will be ostracised and in some cases will have to leave the police-force. Loyalty within the UT Group is of paramount importance and much more important than honesty or justice (towards outsiders) - who don't deserve it. Loyalty within the UT Group ensures the UT Group's survival. UT Groups could not exist without that concept. There is great exasperation from the general public towards some of these UT Groups, for example the medical profession bodies. Apart from very exceptional and singular cases, they always seem to take the side of those who are accused of ‘professional misconduct’. But this should be seen as totally natural. They are unable to behave in any other manner. This is the case of an outsider attacking a member of their own UT Group and their first instincts will be to defend fellow members of their UT Group. The raison d'être of any UT Group is for the ‘elevation’ and protection of its members (they are ‘special’ because they are members of this exclusive UT Group, bearing in mind that subjectively every UT Group is naturally exclusive), and so judging a member to have behaved badly reflects on every other member and thus they close ranks. This notion of loyalty within UT Groups can be used, and abused, depending on the circumstances. The military use it to instil, encourage, and cultivate loyalty within military units. Loyalty within the small groups, especially when the very nature of the small group is realistically connected with survival, can be seen as more important to any other loyalty any individual of that small group may have towards outsiders. This loyalty can be used by dictators who are able to maintain their grip on the hearts and minds of soldiers who, by defending the ruling class, are, in effect, helping to subjugate their fellow citizens. Loyalty, within UT Groups, can be so strong as to cause an individual to accept the possibility of death rather than contemplate the chance of being rejected by bes ‘fellow peers’. Respect, within one's UT Group, is everything. These type of situations let the UT Instinct shine through and reveal the simplicity of the ‘logic’. ‘Morals’ are defined from within an UT Group and therefore to lose the respect of fellow members, no matter how justified the cause, can never be counterbalanced by the gaining of respect from outsiders - those who are not considered equals. Also, keep in mind that most, if not all, of these UT Groups will have their own emblems and symbols denoting their superiority and exclusivity. Justice Within UT GroupsThis has been slightly covered in the previous section. But, as always, they are many facets to explore. Within an UT Group there will be an understanding that there is equality (this is a self-sustaining understanding) and thus there is justice. An UT Group looking at itself will easily, and can only, come to the conclusion that it is the very essence of justice, that it's view on subjects is the correct one, as discussed previously. So just as the Hightribe will consider that they are civilised because of their laws etc even while committing atrocities against the Lowtribe, they will also think that their justice system is civilised and fair even while they are committing injustices against the Lowtribe. One could imagine the Hightribe as having a saying about ‘Hightribe justice’ and if only the rest of the world had the same level of justice the world would be a wonderful civilised place for everybody to live in - they would be that stupid and that subjectively blind. ‘Hightribe justice’ in fact, and essence, actually means injustice for the Lowtribe. They would never consider that the Lowtribe's laws and sense of justice could be as good if not even better than their own. Every tribe and UT Group thinks similarly. In the USA the ‘White man’ wanted to be tried in a ‘White man's court’ if accused of an injustice against a native American Indian. The idea being that American Indian justice was not justice at all. Likewise the American Indian did not consider that ‘White man's justice’ suited the American Indian. We never think that there is the same level of justice in other countries. We always think that we can get a more fair trial in our own country (usually). In Britain they had the notion of ‘British justice’ and considered that it was an example to the whole world. But during their empire days ‘British justice’ meant defending their right to their empire and thus any peoples seeking freedom were legally punished and destroyed and this was justified in the minds of the British. ‘British justice’ meant injustice for all the peoples who were under British rule - especially those who sought freedom. But within the British UT Group they were totally convinced that their justice was exemplary. Catholic Church AbuseThis example which, in fact, covers a few facets of the UT Instinct is the situation of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church (in Ireland, Britain, America and Australia - though this is not only confined to those countries, nor confined merely to the Catholic Church) and which has only come to light in the last few years. Children in orphanages, and those living locally, were sexually and physically abused - raped, and both physically and mentally tortured by members of the Catholic clergy (priests, nuns and brothers - here collectively termed ‘clergy’). When complaints were made to those overseeing these clergy (their ‘superiors’) in most cases nothing was done, and, at best, the priest in question was merely moved to another location. This was a clear case of covering up the illegal and savage actions of these clergy. Sadly, in some cases, it was actually the victims who were punished by those superiors for revealing that they had been sexually attacked. To many people this seems totally and absolutely incredible. The Catholic church is meant to be trying to live by the laws of god and yet here they were aiding and abetting child rapists. But the UT Instinct explains this situation very simply. These priests, and their superiors, are part of the same religious UT Group. An outsider accusing the clergy of sexual abuse will not be given the same level of credence as the word of the accused in question. And even if there is doubt in the mind of the superior they are not going to bring their UT Group into question. They are not going to become traitors to their UT Group by making these actions public. They are going to defend a fellow member. A negative reflection of any member of their UT Group will cast a negative reflection upon every member of that UT Group, and that is unthinkable. So these clergy were allowed to carry on with their behaviour. The defence of the UT Group is much more important to the defence of the innocent (members of the Lowtribe). There is a second and fascinating facet to this religious abuse example. At the same time as clergy were sexually abusing children in Ireland, and elsewhere, the Catholic church was condemning people for having sex outside marriage, and condemning the use of contraceptives, and condemning any sexual relationship between homosexuals. Yet they were allowing, and covering up, the rape of children. Again this seems to be so totally obviously wrong that the term ‘hypocrite’ has been used to describe the Catholic superiors and clergy, but again, the UT Instinct explains it simply. The laws governing the behaviour of the ‘people’, the ‘them’ are not the same as the laws governing the members of the inner UT Group. Excuses will be made for unacceptable actions of fellow members; there will be leniency, understanding, forgiveness, and help for those members of the UT Group. Behind it all, they still considered themselves decent and honourable people - being of the same UT Group. The ‘them’ on the other hand - the ordinary Catholic people, because of the nature of the ideas of the Catholic religion - itself controlled by UT Group logic, are automatically to be considered as being sinners, as being wrong-doers. Thus, within the Catholic clergy UT Group, the clergy will be thought of as being ‘weak’, and giving in to temptation (this blame can be, and often is, easily transferred on to the children - the victims), and the ‘them’ will be considered to be inherently bad, inherently bent towards doing wrong and sinning. Thus, unfortunately, clergy who abused children were allowed to go on year after year emotionally scarring innocent children to the point where some of the victims even committed suicide, and others still feel the fear, pain, humiliation and anguish decades later. It is a terrible terrible reflection on this species of ours. This is the tragic consequence of the UT Instinct. (Some members of the clergy did try to bring a stop to this abuse and were ‘punished’ by the superiors for doing so eg not promoted etc). The Middle-EastWe come across the most blatantly biased attitudes every day and if we happen to somehow be ‘neutral’ because we may not be interested at all in the situation we may sometimes actually see the stupidity and irrationality of humans. Take the situation in the Middle-East - the conflict between Palestine and Israel. When a Jewish child is killed by a Palestinian terrorist the Israelis will dramatically proclaim to the world that the Palestinians are savage and that this attack demonstrates that the Palestinians are nothing but blood-thirsty terrorists. The Palestinians will dramatically proclaim to the world that Israel has forced the Palestinians to fight for their freedom to live in their own country. When Israeli military action kills a Palestinian child the Palestinians dramatically proclaim to the world that Israel is a savage nation which is brutally trying to destroy the Palestinians and that they are nothing but blood-thirsty terrorists. The Israelis defend their actions saying that they are only defending themselves; that they are forced to attack the Palestinians because of the actions of the Palestinians. Each side will accuse the other of being hypocrites when they talk of wanting peace; and of being hypocrites when they talk of being justified in their actions. Each side will see the other as being savage, barbaric and blood-thirsty. Each side are unable to judge their own actions similar in equivalence with the actions of the ‘them’. To add to the above, in situations like this the actions of an individual is seen in a totally opposite light depending upon which UT Group viewpoint you are evaluating from. The Palestinians see their suicide bombers as being heroes; willing to give their lives for the ‘freedom of their people’; the Israelis see them as having no regard for even their own lives, let alone the lives of innocent Israelis. Yet, if a Jewish settler is killed because of bes determination to live in one of the settlements be is seen as a heroic defender by those Israelis. The UT Instinct process ‘allows’ a person to think one thing and genuinely believe it, and yet a moment later to think the totally opposite and still also genuinely believe that. Each side can only be subjective and blind. They can never see the killing of an individual as just being that - a killing of an individual. It will always depend on which UT Group the victim belonged to and which UT Group the perpetrator belonged to. If the victim was on the ‘us’ side them the act was savage and unjustified, and carried out by an evil monster, and if the victim was with the ‘them’ then the act was heroic and justified, and carried out by a civilised defender of the righteous. It is vital to understand the above. This is one of the major ‘results’ of the UT Instinct. The exact same action carried out by a member of two different (opposing) UT Groups will be seen in a totally and opposite light. There is no logic. There is no rationality. This is illogical and irrational. This IS the UT Instinct at work. Japanese honourThis example demonstrates just how important respect is within an UT Group - from equals. The Japanese have a code of honour which has a long history. This is a genuine part of the tribal customs and understanding of the Japanese UT Group. Yet, during WW2 and during the Chinese-Japanese wars, the Japanese behaved in such a barbaric and savage manner as to defy description. There was terrible torture, killing, abuse and brutality. Thousands of females in occupied countries were forced to become sex slaves for the Japanese military. The treatment of prisoners-of-war is acknowledged as being most savage and uncivilised. Yet, those very same Japanese thought that, firstly, the fact that they considered themselves civilised justified their treatment of their ‘subjects’ and, secondly, and even more strangely, they truly considered themselves as being civilised, and as behaving in an honourable fashion, even while they were committing these terrible, savage and brutal acts. To those who do not understand the UT Instinct the attitude of the Japanese seems totally incredible. How could they consider themselves as being civilised and acting with honour even while they were torturing, killing and raping? (That's not even taking into consideration that they were trying to subdue other nations and peoples for their own selfish benefit, in the first place). If you take a quick look back that the One Tribe Scenario you should be able to see just how logical it all is. Japanese honour was important WITHIN the Japanese UT Group. The treatment of non-Japanese could not be equated with the treatment of fellow Japanese. To actually respect and honour foreign soldiers would, and could, be seen as an act of a traitor. The Japanese soldiers and military were behaving in an honourable manner - according to the Japanese UT Group laws and evaluations. The Japanese were certainly not merely pretending to consider themselves as being civilised. This is what they truly believed. This example shows just how subjective our evaluations are - thus, it is irrational to judge the actions of another. A fellow Japanese soldier considered the actions of a comrade as being honourable - a true depiction of an honourable Japanese fighter. An Allied soldier would consider the same actions as being totally savage and dishonourable to the Japanese nation. Understand that your own evaluations can be as incorrect as the Japanese. In other words, what you should say, after coming to any conclusion regarding some ‘moral’ question, is that you think you have come to the correct conclusion just as the Japanese thought that they were correct in their behaviour during those wars. You CANNOT say that your conclusion can be any less subjective than theirs. Your evaluation mechanism is exactly the same as theirs. The only difference is the UT Group you happen to be in, when judging the actions of the Japanese. It is a terrible truth. DO NOT fall into the ridiculous childish notion that because, in this example, the Japanese (some Japanese) regret what they (personally and as a nation) actually did during WW2 somehow means that humans are ‘morally’ evolving because this is just not the case! The only real change; and even that is totally variable and subjective; is that the nature of the UT Groups have changed. Thus the Japanese may not look upon the Americans with the same antagonism as they used to, but now see them as being in the same UT Group. UT Groups can change over time (long or short) but the nature of human evaluation - the UT Instinct - does not change - EVER. ProtectionALL human beings are subject to the UT Instinct. Bodies like the police are no different. To put it simply, the police are there to protect members of the ‘us’ UT Group - the Hightribe. Members of the Hightribe are the civilised and law-abiding people and members of the Lowtribe are the criminals. In other words one's UT Group decides whether you are considered as being a criminal or not, and not necessarily one's actions eg if from an immigrant ‘class’ you would be considered a suspect sooner. In most cases members of the police-force are taken from the Hightribe. These are the more ‘intelligent’, ‘responsible’ and ‘educated’ and thus can be trusted with the nation's and the individual's protection and safety. But, for example, in Britain when a Black youth is killed by a White attacker, it may not be seen, by the (White) police, as being a crime exactly equivalent to the killing of a White youth by a Black attacker. In tribal terms it would be expecting a Hightribe police officer to be totally neutral as regards a crime committed by a member of the Hightribe against a member of the Lowtribe, and to see this as equivalent to a crime committed by a member of the Lowtribe against a member of the Hightribe. In most circumstances this is not possible. So in certain cases, even of murder, the police do not investigate the killing of a Black person as they would a serious crime - as a threat to the ‘us’ UT Group, for, in effect, it is not a threat to the ‘us’ UT Group. We all think in the same subjective manner. There are many people in the world who truly believe that killing is not acceptable, but it is usually subconsciously extended by the phrase ‘the killing of those who do not deserve it’. THIS is exactly similar to the Hightribe's law of not killing. Once you can say, or think, that the other person deserves to die then suddenly there is justification for killing eg in a war the enemy deserves to be killed, some people think that murderers deserve to be executed. The fact is that it is the human evaluation mechanism which is making it seem logically justifyable, whether it be the Nazis justifying their killing of Jews, or the British justifying their killing of civilians in German towns during WW2, or the Americans justifying their killing of workers in a radio station in Serbia; or the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Irish terrorist groups, the Islamic terrorist groups etc etc killing those whom they think deserve to die. They can justify their killings just like you can justify yours, eg the death penalty for murderers perhaps etc. Then the killing is NOT a reflection on the killer but the victim. Miscellaneous Short ExamplesAlthough I do not want to get into the subject of individual behaviour - this booklet being a theoretical explanation of the behaviour of all humans - the species, the understanding of UT Group can shed light of everyday behaviour. When ‘law and order’ (these laws of the wider UT Group) break down many people who in general would behave lawfully raid shops and steal as many goods as they can. There is no shame is this behaviour because it is their neighbours who are also looting at the same time - the community UT Group decides the ‘morals’. Also, usually the owners of the shops are from a different UT Group (ethnically or socially) and therefore are seen as exploiters of those living in the ‘poor neighbourhood’. Sometimes one can get very irate at the actions of other motorists. One's own driving (in one's own opinion) is perfect and blameless and therefore the other motorists are always at fault. They are a stranger; in your way, and are not driving correctly, as you see fit. Therefore they deserve rudeness and aggression - and politeness is not required. Imagine you are using the one finger insult to someone you are dangerously overtaking because they weren't driving fast enough for your liking and you suddenly realise that it is a relative, or close neighbour who you are being rude to! You would suddenly, and most likely, very quickly, realise that your behaviour was not acceptable. The reason for this is because this ‘stranger’ suddenly became a member of your UT Group (family, neighbour, or social group) and respect is always required within the group. To be disrespectful to them is actually disrespecting yourself for there is always equality within the group. Another aspect to this example is how we can automatically compartmentalise the ‘them’ into an UT Group. This helps us to insult the group rather than the individual. For example we may see a few bad drivers and will quickly come to the conclusion that (ALL) elderly drives are bad, or (ALL) female drivers are bad, or (ALL) Italian drivers are bad (they ARE bad!!) etc but we will never group bad drivers into the UT Group to which we belong. A young person will never say that (ALL) ‘Young Drivers’ are bad. There is always loyalty within the UT Group. This is similar to insulting and even being violent towards strangers whom are thought to deserve this uncivil behaviour eg fat people, people from different ethnic groups, disabled people, disfigured people etc. These ‘human oddities’ are not seen, and cannot be seen, as being of the same ‘Perfect’ UT Group as oneself, and so insulting them becomes easy. The rules of behaviour towards members of one's own UT Group do not count in these situations. And although you may not be openly, and physically, insulting to people like that, in your mind there is a very good chance that you are thinking thus. Circumstances and OpportunityI have mentioned these two factors as having a part to play in ‘physically’ controlling human behaviour. It is vital that this is fully understood. It is too easy for many people to be of the opinion that they are not like those other ‘evil’ people whom they consider to be wrong-doers. This is pathetically incorrect. I hate to repeat myself, but, the UT Instinct IS IN EVERYONE! Firstly, we are bioents and are thus selfish. The individual UT Group - the ‘me’ - is just as selfish as the tribal UT Group. This does not only control our behaviour as regards ‘serious’, ‘illegal’ or ‘immoral’ transgressions, but, like the UT Instinct, it covers our behaviour from the very innocuous to the most savage - it controls all of our behaviour. During the period when President Clinton was undergoing investigation into his sexual behaviour there was much talk about why he was behaving in such a manner and the baby-talk theories that were around at that time went along the lines that a powerful man had more sex drive etc; well, it is a well known saying that a sailor had a girl in every port and the simple question is; does that mean that a sailor is a powerful man, or is it merely a simple case of opportunity and circumstances? In other words the Hightribe would seem to be civilised without question if they never met or knew about the Lowtribe. The UT Instinct wouldn't have had a Lowtribe UT Group for the Hightribe evaluation mechanism to process. BUT the potential was always there. So, although you may think that you are a really nice civilised bioent - think otherwise - know otherwise. One could also enquire as to the reason why so many Hollywood stars have so many divorces and broken marriages. The simple reason is that they are ‘just like us’, except in their case they are meeting a lot of fellow handsome and glamorous co-stars and have the same sex drive as we do and therefore are drawn towards those other people. If we met these stars both socially and within our working environment we would end up being divorced as many times as those film stars etc. On a more serious basis we should take a look at dishonest politicians (so prevalent in Irish politics, though ALL countries could be included in this section), clergy who abused children, and include any other sectional group which appears to have a monopoly on ‘evil’. The fact is that it is opportunity and circumstance which gave these people a chance to do what they wanted to do. The fact that they became a member of whatever ‘special’ UT Group played a part in the ‘logic’ of it all, but the fundamental bioent selfishness is actually the root cause. The UT Instinct does not force a person to do what they do not want to do; it only gives ‘conscious logic, or justification’ to those acts. For example, we would always prefer someone else to do the work for us (and pay as little as possible, if anything at all), but we cannot justify this unjust situation unless we can put those who do the work into a subordinate group eg: pack animals, slaves, the female of the species, the uneducated, refugees etc. The UT Instinct ‘helps’ us to justify our selfish behaviour and actions. One further point to the President Clinton situation - it demonstrates how we never want to see the cause of unacceptable behaviour as being the result of a person merely being human (that is why we invented a feeble irrational excuse - ‘power corrupts’). We will always try and find a different excuse - a cause outside our UT Group - again protecting the ‘us’ UT Group. The fact is that Clinton behaved as he did because he was a male bioent - with opportunity. A large minority, if not even a large majority, of males would do the very same given the same circumstances and the same opportunity. So if you are saying to yourself that you are not like the terrorists, nor like the Japanese soldier during WW2, nor whatever ‘them’ you may care to think of and that you wouldn't partake in inequalities etc; it is the UT Instinct telling you this. It is the UT Instinct telling you that you are civilised, decent and wonderful and that your ‘morals’ and ‘values’ are the correct ones. And what is that opinion worth? - nothing! For if you asked a member of the Hightribe is be considered beself civilised the answer would be a resounding YES. All you would be doing is putting the ‘them’ into another UT Group and saying ‘I'm not like them’. Welcome to the Hightribe!
REMEMBER: Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
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).
|