Home  >  Don't read this...  >  How to build resilience

Don't read this...

...if an explicit take on reality makes you uncomfortable. Especially since I am unable to supply the reader with a phone number to a counselling service at the ready to calm all those for whom what follows has "raised issues".

However, if you believe it is not your duty to be miserable because of someone else's delusion, this page is for you.

Human society is largely driven by human (inter)actions. We do things for any number of reasons, and usually we would like to see a result in line with our inclinations.

But often that's not how it works. Reality, in this case all the others who are also part of society, they too have their own inclinations that drive them in directions not necessarily shared by the originator. As a result, what is actually happening is a confluence of many factors, whether we like them or not. That result may or may not be shared by so many others in turn, since for most of us the consequences of some action down the line are equally opaque - we are all in the same boat.

Sometimes the effects are such that delving into the reasons for an outcome becomes highly uncomfortable if they do not fit our perceptions we have of human affairs. In that case pointing them out can lead to anything from opprobrium to anger, even to vengeance. To avoid this, euphemisms are often used as a disguise. And so the reasons will be rejected and the problem continues and usually gets worse. Reality has the last word - always.

Most of the items featured below have the potential to severely compromise humanity on this planet (others are useful hints for one's personal use). The danger increases as we become ever more powerful and influential. In our past annihilations occurred already, only the participants were so ineffective the damage was more or less contained (but we're catching up). Societies are human activity systems on a large scale and as such behave in a nonlinear manner. The mechanics of chaos: a primer for the human mind describes their nature - how to observe and analyse them, what degree of stability or otherwise we can expect, and how they can deteriorate and why.

And another thing. As will become obvious when reading further, the following sentiments are not shared by many. The critical, discerning reader must decide how much of those sentiments should be voiced openly and what should be kept private. Since during any initiative the actions in accordance with reality work and the rest don't, the acceptable (which can be problematic if acted upon) must be balanced against the unacceptable (which works but invites opprobrium). Successful operators perform such balancing acts well, with the rest none the wiser (but benefitting from the outcome nevertheless).

Above all, what you see here are observations - not opinions.

The 10 axioms of Society define the situation in general terms.

This page is my virtual calling card.

Here are some of those scenarios. The long, and the short.

Behaviour
Sustainability
Governance
Morality
Education

Behaviour

The more things become criminalised, the further society is divided into the smarts who didn't get caught and the schmucks who did. Which also means we share our space with an increasing number of people who got caught in the past but who are now free, yet possessing a mindset not in sync with the declared ideal (and in the meantime our prisons are filling up). Once again we have a class system, but hidden from view. The issue is insidious because in most cases the changes in law are based on good intentions. We turn into a society of criminals under the law. See also The resource relationships chart.

Growth - destruction - renewal. An overall phenomenon recognised since ancient times. The argument should not be about its veracity since it occurs over and over again at any scale. Rather, why do people never cease to perform actions that quite clearly lead to their suffering? Is it because they actually do want to see suffering (and never mind the 'politically correct' version of their thoughts)? Or is it because they have a however subliminal desire to follow the grand principle? In the case of the latter it would leave the concept of Free Will on rather shaky ground. Homo sapiens is the only species that rewards madness.

Identity represents the core of ourselves. The closer a challenge gets to that core, the more assertive the defence. It can even lead to murder. Likewise, for the owner of the identity it becomes ever more difficult, if not impossible, to accept a solution to some problem as soon as their own self would be compromised.

As nations become more advanced, there is an increasing distance between those who can avail themselves of the opportunities and those who can't. Since education takes time (which is essentially limited) the number of the educated decreases relative to those who are unskilled. Where does that leave democracy with its majority rule? Furthermore, in order to remain competitive would a nation therefore trend towards elitism? (One could play on the well-known expression, "Asset rich, cash poor": "Aspect rich, knowledge poor")

There is a further consequence to the above. With more and more skills being required, those who get left behind form their own demographics. One of the side effects of disassociated groups (and not the only one) is a tendency towards violence and disruption since their members are constantly faced with reminders that tell them they don't belong. Although that kind of reaction is common as such, in this case it becomes particularly troublesome for the rest of the system because the latter requires a significant degree of cooperation for it to function smoothly. To address that disruption resources are increasingly drawn upon while the underlying cause is left to proliferate. It applies to any scenario where people congregate for some purpose; classrooms, medical facilities, residential areas, any kind of assembly in fact. Initiatives that seek to ameliorate the disengagement by providing a commensurate substitute may seem like a solution, but in the end do nothing to change the situation overall (for example, creating football clubs for dysfunctional youths - away from the clubs the society is still the same). The result is a general decay and it is already making itself felt in many countries. By their very nature neither side is likely to fully understand the other, and the wider culture will settle towards its coarser components. See also The resource relationships chart.

The same can be applied at a larger scale, that is to society overall (cognitive dynamics have that property). It matters whether a society recognises the requirements of the here and now, indeed of the future waiting in the wings, and has leaders who appreciate what relevant decisions need to be made. Since humanity comes in many varieties, from being aware of the contingencies underpinning science, technology and the sheer complexity of modern life, to agrarian life styles right down to cultures being thousands of years out of date, the possibility exists that a society tries to accommodate mindsets that have become increasingly unsuitable to current demands. It can happen out of political weakness, emotional convenience, or plain ignorance. Just as technology advances at an accelerating rate, so does the gap widen ever faster between a fitting framework and some other which has become unsatisfactory; the better inevitably overtakes the lesser. In itself this is nothing new: A product having been developed based on more traditional concepts only to be suddenly superceded by a different approach altogether (better and better bridges made of stone, suddenly there is steel; improved steam locomotives, overtaken by the diesel/electric version; more sophisticated propeller aircraft, then along comes the jet engine; and so on). The same applies to the multifaceted organisation of society with its interlocking and overlapping contingencies. Discrepancies manifest in lower educational standards, misunderstood priorities, and flawed conceptualisations about the demographics responsible for the fail. The more a society falls behind, the more difficult it will be to catch up. And, ominously, those demographics that had been placated along the way are the least ones to offer any help.

The debates about what constitutes value compared to what doesn't can be endless, yet the answer is quite simple. As an opera singer once said when asked a similar question within the context of music, "How long does it take an opera singer to sing a pop song, and how long does it take a pop singer to sing an aria?" Unfortunately, many people become uncomfortable just thinking along those lines.

If two competitors eye each other they do so in order to spot some weakness. It happens at any scale, from individuals right up to entire nations. Teamwork, if and when it happens, merely pushes the principle up to the next level. Hence a provocation can be seen as the consequence of looking for a weakness. Whether the weakness is realised by its owner, or whether that perception is true to begin with, is another matter. The phenomenon can be observed everywhere in nature and is particularly relevant when it comes to the interactions between animals and humans. For countless generations humans were a significant threat to animals and toning down the danger quite naturally emboldens the animals. It's based on age-old instincts playing themselves out before our eyes.

When indigenous people (ie, those who still reference themselves to ancient and outdated beliefs) make demands on their host society, it becomes a matter of to what extent the latter is prepared to accommodate their culture. Suppose a child walks into the board room of a corporation with a book of fairy tales under the arm, asking the CEO to take heed of its stories. Would anyone take this seriously? Yet in real life such scenarios happen all the time. Leaders of corporations, governments even, see nothing strange about bowing to out-of-date perceptions. As a consequence the various entities suffer under this type of leadership.

Everything has a cost. Everything. Winning a million dollars in the lottery comes with a cost, and we are not even talking about the price of the ticket. The question is not, is there a cost; there is. Rather, how can one deal with the costs and still come out ahead. A derivative is the inclination to re-examine one's actions should the result have been negative. Most people do that (what went wrong and why). However, how many would do the same if the outcome had been a success? What guarantee is there that the circumstances will be exactly the same next time?

There are essentially two ways in which a decision can be reached: the decision comes from a single individual (made possible due to that person's influence), or it is the result of a number of individuals having achieved consensus (via a committee). Since a 'good' decision represents a sufficient degree of understanding of the situation, that understanding could be problematic in either case. If overall positive there is no immediate problem, but what happens if the decision leads to a negative? In the first instance a better alternative is only possible if the one who made the decision can be persuaded otherwise, and that could be seen as undermining their authority making the framework less stable. As for the second, coming from a committee the questionable result can be sheeted home to a scapegoat, which in itself can lead to debates veering away from the actual situation at hand - the focus has shifted. It is an age-old difficulty accompanying decision-making entities in whatever hierarchy they may be situated. Public perception usually concentrates on the visibles on display; the individuals, the decisions, and their outcomes. Yet often the underlying dynamics are the real obstacles to a successful result - with the public none the wiser.

Organisations can grow until they acquire a momentum all their own. It can be observed in nature as well: A plant species having proliferated and now dominating an entire area, particular animals having grown in number and now influencing their environment on their terms. When it comes to humans the organisation can apply its newly found strength for the purpose of self-preservation. It means the reason for its existence can be exaggerated in order to serve itself (and therefore become even more powerful). In a society featuring such bodies it is not reality that is largely responded to, it is the declared state of affairs based on the needs of those bodies. As a consequence there are three factors influencing the overall state of society: (1) its existing capability, (2) the absence of some capability here and there but addressed by organisations designed to help, and (3) the induced perception of a lack in order to prepare the ground for greater assistance. Factor (3) undermines factor (1), which in turn renders factor (2) less and less useful. We end up with a runaway condition. What can be particularly destructive (and dangerous) is the not uncommon activism practised by such entities when solutions that actually work are vehemently dismissed in favour of initiatives which are not only useless but make the problem worse, and thereby entrenching the position of the entity. Examples of those issues are illegal drugs, violence, deteriorating health in wider society.

Social pyramids are often used as a metaphor to represent more or less self-organising human activity systems within wider society. Football (or soccer) is an example. Broadly speaking, we would have the 11 players for each team at the top, then the club functionaries at the next lower level, followed by the stadium officials, and at the base the spectators. As we descend down the layers, the degree of direct participation (and therefore the participants' commitment) decreases until those at the base essentially sit there and watch. At the same time the respective numbers increase. However, there are implications, not always recognised. Suppose the pyramid represents a subsystem of the disruptive kind. While there may be relatively few at the top to begin with, in the case of an ongoing pressure which caused the subsystem to develop in the first place, more and more members at each level will become more active and, in terms of our dynamics, migrate upwards. The result would be a growing number at the top, and potentially a similar change at the lower levels. The phenomenon can be observed within the context of a polarised - and polarising - society, where political views gravitate towards the extreme because the underlying prompts continue to exert their influence. At first only a few are sufficiently active to openly cause some public disruption; gradually their ranks swell as those previously less active become more agitated themselves. Security services become stretched because the resources normally allocated to them were meant for exceptional cases, and those exceptions are no longer a small minority. The police can address crime only if it happens every now and then. Should a significant number of citizens engage in it the former's effectiveness diminishes rapidly. So much so that even in a so-called police state (as happened in the former East Germany) with informers everywhere, an underground movement was still possible. The situation can be rendered schematically as depicted on the right. The result is an overall dynamic defined by the resourcefulness of the pyramid's members, the ongoing pressures, and the efficacy of the security services. Hence not addressing the issues underpinning social disquiet poses very real risks in the longer term. In the past two examples would be the Black Company led by Florian Geyer during the peasant revolt in the 1520s, and the uprising in France around 1580 as described by historian Emmanuelle Le Roy (Carnival: A People's Uprising at Romans 1579-1580, Scolar Press, London, 1980). See also The resource relationships chart.

Reality presents us with situations that are not debatable. A body heavier than water will sink because the laws of physics say so and there is nothing we can do about it. What can be discussed and acted upon is our response after the fact. The same applies to cognitive dynamics, at whatever scale they may happen. The brain of a less intelligent person has less processing capacity which leads to less circumspection, a lesser consideration of consequences, less empathy, less curiosity and hence less awareness of what a situation may represent, a higher dependency on emotion and a higher degree of cruelty coming from that direction (intelligent persons can be cruel, but in a considered, purposeful way). These circumstances can be observed anywhere in the world and do not depend on race, culture, religion and other such problematic topics. They can be conflated with them in an atmosphere of political correctness by switching cause and effect around because it suits the ideologue's purpose to make something problematic in order to condemn it. Not only can they be observed (the empirical evidence), in a technical sense a more compact mind will have less affinity with thought structures which otherwise would widen the field of consciousness. Therefore on a larger scale intellectual paucity results in societies that are less able to handle conflicts, are more prone to emotional reactions, treat their members with more cruelty, construct sub-standard infrastructure; in other words, are less functional. The same goes for societies which are more functional overall but contain demographics with an intellectual capacity below the norm. Once faced with the results, in those societies the ensuing debates are endless because none of their leaders dares to face the inevitability of the underlying laws. We, the rest, are forced to believe that a body heavier than water can indeed float and never mind the reality we are constantly at loggerheads with. And so in the end we sink, metaphorically and literally.

Advertising targets a particular audience since the presentation needs to resonate with the consumer. It goes beyond the obvious: Tents for the outdoor types, cat food for animal lovers, and so on. It also operates on a deeper level, in terms of a person's potential to listen to what is being offered rather than dismissing it outright. Hence successful marketing consists of creating an ambience that 'speaks' to the target consumer. The ambience in a 30-second commercial is the recreated equivalent of a situation in the physical world where circumstances trigger one or the other character trait within the participant. For example, a family dinner during which the empathy of a parent is on display, or a scene which portrays the adventurous nature of the person under focus. Outside those video clips there equally are scenarios which enable someone's character to be revealed, such as an opportunity for getting away with theft, or some danger which brings out someone's courage, hitherto hidden. This relationship between advertising and the consumer mostly moves from the consumer to the presentation, since it is the consumer who needs to provide the affinity in the first place for the ad to work. Therefore the manner in which a product is being presented illustrates the character traits of the target audience. Not all of it is positive: Empathy, diligence, forward-looking can be found as often as narcissism, egocentricity, or selfishness. Unfortunately, in the case of negatives the implications are apt to be conveniently overlooked. Yet the relevant demographics do exist and advertising reinforces their mindset.

Another - more indirect - form of advertising has to do with the constant depiction of gushing hilarity displayed by whoever is using this or that product; the excessive laughter, teeth bared (do they use special braces?), as if nothing else mattered. Would such merriment eventually start to grate with viewers, whose life may perhaps not be full of cheer, edging them towards depression when comparing their own humdrum existence with all that fun?

Do we still practise colonialism? Yes. In a global economy it is no longer necessary to establish outposts in other countries, it can be done indirectly and therefore the effects are just as significant (if not more so because the links are not readily recognised). As far as its negatives are concerned, there is no better example than the so-called 'war on drugs' with its steadily escalating impact from virtually nil to the present global reach. The incentives for keeping many drugs illegal are immense. The issue also demonstrates the inevitability of deleterious results regardless of the emotions behind them (no reasonable person would argue against palliative care under the health system for instance, but if the money isn't there it simply won't happen - end of story no matter how many the tears). The illegality of drugs raises their monetary value, thus they become ever more attractive to criminal gangs, so much so that some cartels have grown more powerful than many smaller nations. The resultant dissolution (through crime, corruption, personal insecurity) causes entire societies to collapse; a malevolent foreign power couldn't have done it better. And let's not forget some authoritarian regimes bolster their incomes through the manufacture, distribution and sale of illegal drugs. There are also the cascading effects within the prohibiting country. Again, no matter what someone's emotions or personal ideology may say, in the end it is a matter of money - how and where it is spent and whether it is available to begin with. Generally speaking, we're talking about the nurturing of black markets (which can also be achieved through ever higher taxes). Let's start at the bottom, the end users, and let's express the relationships in the form of general equations. If the individual can use a drug and still be functional (ie, not becoming a burden to society, not coming to the attention of authorities), there is no problem on the personal level although the money does go overseas and is lost to the local economy while at the same time enriching the cartels. Should there be a negative impact the person will no longer be contributive (hence become a burden to society), the police steps in (at a cost), the legal system swings into operation (a further cost), the drugs are confiscated (thereby raising their scarcity, raising their value, enriching the cartels), the user may end up in jail (costing society yet again), and there is still no guarantee the same cycle won't start all over again (it usually does). Without these existing, and costly, consequences, the equations would only contain the individual's status as well as its effect on others (the latter exists anyway and is the common trigger for the authorities with all their costs). Now suppose drugs are legal (but recognised for their potential danger). Instead of shunting the disruptive addict through the system, they are more or less isolated and given the drug, possibly until they have destroyed themselves and are now dead. What are the costs now? The addict no longer exists (has exited the system), the drugs themselves are produced locally (and are of the controlled variety, the money stays within the local economy and is no longer directed to the cartels overseas thereby destroying their business model and making their societies safer, authoritarian regimes find it harder to torture their citizens), and as far as the rest of the liberal/rational country is concerned, it is business as usual. At the moment that alternative can't happen due to the moral imperative (often derived from a lingering Puritanism) which prevents the overall framework from being appreciated. The overall framework is reality, moral imperatives are human-produced judgments that, for all their compelling power, do not rule reality. Yet humans act as if they do, and society pays the price. Human activity systems can only bear so much and emotions make things worse: Major challenges which individual nations cannot wish away are already at the scale of billions in monetary terms (climate change, global terrorism, international state-induced aggression, ageing of the populations...) and are further enhanced by localised blindness. Finally, here is another very simple equation which alone should give pause for thought. The money available to drug cartels comes from around the globe; their adversary, the national police forces, are financed by the local economy. For the latter to become stronger than the former, the local money needs to be more substantial than all the others combined. How can that be? See also The resource relationships chart. (The discerning reader would have noticed that the suggested approach is exactly what Mother Nature has always applied to all the species on this planet. The species you see today have been around for thousands, if not millions, of years. A rather compelling success story, I would say.)

Altruism is a powerful trigger of emotions. It serves to cement one's status in a community. Even in what is commonly held to be its purest form it ends up shoring up one's perception held by others ("Look how good I am"). Just about every religion exhorts its followers to share, to help. What is less considered are the demographic origins of the concept. During the time in human history when religions emerged (and of course before that) human communities were far more homogenous than they are today, certainly as far as the West is concerned. As a consequence any assistance given would be received by someone who is more or less similar to the rest in terms of their innate capacity to use that assistance. Even today in tribal societies the similarity is enforced rigidly. Therefore it made sense to help because it allowed the common wealth to be made use of by society as a whole, and eventually everyone benefitted. However, the more disparate the demographics making up a society are, the lesser the chance of what could be of use to one can equally be useful to some other. The principle applies at any scale, from communities within a nation to countries on the entire planet. In the case of disparity then, there is no overall benefit; rather, resources are moved from the capable to the incapable leading to stress on the side of the former and mishandling on the side of the latter. Barring any artificial influences mitigating the effect, the situation will get worse over time. In addition, those influences tend to come from the capable, draining their resources even further while being faced with the results of mishandling.

What is an arch enemy? With so many words thrown around abundantly, they can lose their accentuation. So this is not about a change in tone, some other emotional detail here or there, not even wearing a colourful arm band. Arch enemies are those whose essential natures are so different from each other, no reconciliation is possible because that would entail substituting their very identity with that of the other. The chasm may not have become apparent at first but it will make itself felt (and this includes to themselves) as soon as they get close enough to that other; as soon as any interaction would require one side to fundamentally change their disposition, their customs, their basic tastes in order to accommodate the other side; from that point onwards the latter will be seen as one's enemy. As they used to say in the Old West, "This town ain't big enough for the two of us". No amount of exhortation, or admonition, or even punishment will change that since one's identity is fixed (and continues to be fixed) from birth onwards. In fact, any outside interference will only make matters worse when the respective distances are forcefully compressed. It happens within the biological context as well as its psychological counterpart. Birds may be able to dive into the water but they can never be fish; humans may learn to eat grasshoppers but their diet will never be that of a reptile. And, there are customs and mannerism defining what we call a culture which are so different from some particular other, the two cannot fit into the same space without serious problems for either. Such differences may be due to the sheer evolutionary progression performed by one but not the other, they can be due to an ideology that forms the person from birth in a substantially divergent direction from the rest. When our moral betters (including governments) talk about 'inclusivity' or 'reconciliation', they may find a wider resonance when it comes to the relatively trivial, yet the fundamental aspects do exist and those betters disregard them at their peril.

There is another aspect to inclusivity (ie, varying people sharing the same space) which is hardly recognised at all. Just as individuals differ when it comes to such things as personal diligence, emotions, flexibility, temper, similar differences can also be identified across demographics, indeed entire societies. Not all demographics are the same, and the differences manifest in the overall status of people on this planet. Some societies are placid, some are violent, some are more easygoing than others, some have higher standards than others, some are more likely to engage in massacres compared to some other. These characteristics are a part of life on this planet, no matter what cultural blindness may dictate. Since those qualities result in the overall character of a nation, should there be members of other demographics (in the current sense), these members are constantly faced with the difference between them and the rest. It is by no means trivial. Imagine experiencing a railway network, an advanced infrastructure, a well-appointed hospital day after day, when you know that all that does not exist where you come from. Your daily life tells you in so many ways, "Look what we have, and your people don't". The message may be subtle, but it's there. What you make of it depends on your personal disposition - your emotions, your temper, your mood. Chances are that sentiments gradually form which can be triggered onwards towards resentment, anger, even outright violence. It can occur on a small scale as well, for example a child from a poor background having joined a rich family. Feelings of inadequacy can easily develop sooner or later (and it doesn't help when the newcomer is 'shown a good time', things they could never afford themselves). Signs that this situation is behind flare-ups around the world are the expressions accompanying such events, when words like 'racism', 'privilege', 'oppression' are voiced by those seeing themselves at a disadvantage. Then the sentiments turn into a view of one culture oppressing another, when in reality it is a matter of one set of characteristics performing in relation to some other and nothing else. The tighter the living space for all, the more likely it will happen. Ironically, those most intensely barracking for inclusivity are usually the least likely to put themselves in the shoes of different demographics, and therefore are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the problem; their ideology is more important to them than the lives of those affected. A common reaction to feelings of inadequacy is a doubling down on one's own culture to strengthen the identity in the face of what is perceived to be an adversary. These dynamics are the background to what eventually are called 'culture wars'.

Just as the concept of 'inclusivity' can backfire, so can the 'sharing' of information. Transposed from a more gender-specific phenomenon to society at large under feminism, over the past few decades it has assumed almost obsessive proportions. Women have always been the transmitters of personal details gleaned from relatives, neighbours and colleagues, sharing them among their respective demographics (under dictatorial regimes that propensity has been put to good use to catch the kind of delinquents they were after - an adjunct to costly police powers). Now, with the female mindset spread across society, gossip has been renamed 'sharing' and we all - women and men, young and old - are exhorted to engage in it. Indeed, not to share is seen as a negative. Yet it can backfire. If information is passed from one to another in a more intentionally specific manner, regardless of its ultimate value the information is more or less relevant to the receiver ("How do I fix this car?" - "Well, this is what to do..."). On the other hand, if all kinds of information is spread to just about anyone who is somehow connected (that being the only condition), relevance is virtually nonexistent because now everyone is told something whether they like it or not. Since the recipients usually do not exercise their discriminatory faculties, whatever happens to come their way becomes part of their mental space. The thoughts raised ("I haven't known this before, but now that I think about it...") can easily turn into doubts, worries, and ultimately into self-destructive feelings should they be of a more personal nature. From perceptions about one's body, diet, health, to general behaviour and political opinions, people's behaviour becomes more accentuated and thereby less tolerant. It can lead to depression, even suicide. We are witnessing the socialisation of narcissism. And by the way, it leaves the equally touted 'inclusivity' in its wake.

'Stereotype' is often used as a derogatory label towards someone who is deemed presumptuous. While that may be true in a particular case, usually the act of stereotyping is part of human nature without which we would not have survived as a species. Imagine you live in humanity's distant past and a lion has eaten a member of your tribe. Next time you venture out in the savannah you encounter a lion. Would you say, "Oh no, a lion! But let's not stereotype, this lion may be quite benign." Rather you would hunt it down or at the very least tread very carefully, because if you didn't you may not come back. Your survival option would be of the stereotyping kind. As a consequence your tribe will be safer, your own actions will be respected by the rest and this kind of response will have cemented itself into the very fabric of human behaviour. In other words, stereotyping can seem presumptuous at first glance but it does contain a core observation which is very much valid. (See a related section about core events). Hence such an attitude does not come out of nowhere, there have been precedents after all.

It is interesting to note a tandem development in advanced nations: As more and more use is made of science and its methodology of logic and reason, there is also an increased tolerance towards ideology, whether spiritual or secular. Examples of the former are our evolving understanding of the cosmos, the sophistication of information technology, or becoming aware of biological complexity. As to the latter, we have the acceptance of religion enshrined under the law no less, the proliferation of pseudo-medical advice, the adulation of the primitive. Since human activity systems are highly interdependent, the conflict is bound to influence our decision-making processes. And yet, reality is the ultimate master of ceremonies.

One of the reasons why history is usually relegated to reading about past events while snuggled up in bed is the temporal distance between the people then and us in the here and now. Here is a simple exercise: Let's say you are engaged in something important right now. Would the importance have diminished the next day? Hardly. What about in a week's time, next month, a year later? Does a ten-year interval take away from how you felt at the time? Now what about someone else - would that event suddenly become less meaningful for that person simply because some other is thinking about it? And surely the same goes for those who are no longer alive. Yet we can read about the Inquisitions for example with a certain degree of nonchalance because they happened so many centuries ago. How many of us would stop and think about the state of mind of the victim as they are brought to their place of execution; when within a few minutes they will be chained to the stake to be burned alive. What would the sheer horror of the situation feel like, for the man, the woman, the child? -- "Mummy, will it hurt?" -- It was real enough no matter how many years in the future the event is recalled. Of course, people can change over generations. But there are fundamental tenets which have not changed, and their message is the same as it has always been. There is no guarantee their power will not again resonate as inexorably as it once did. (A burning)

In a related context the argument between religion on one side and a secular society on the other emerges on a regular basis as soon as these two are compared with each other. Religionists point to the beneficial acts the church has performed, and the others bring up its negative side effects. For example, helping the poor, running hospitals, providing comfort to many and so on, but also the intolerance shown towards non-believers, from the inquisitions to hounding and ostracising any individual who does not submit to the religious dogma. Both sides have their points, but there is one question church followers are loath to address. If the devout embrace the good aspects (since they are adherents) while also recognising the negatives (at least to the extent they are being admitted), then up to what point would the violent acts still be tolerable given all those benefits? Would ten hospices be enough to offset a hundred people be burnt at the stake - and what if a thousand have been burnt? How many people's lives can be destroyed through irrational obsessions while still feeling comfortable with the soup kitchens? Perhaps all that is neither here nor there once you have faith.

When humans play their role as members of society, how much they know and indeed can know are part of the question. Unfortunately, it seems the very meaning of such words as information, knowledge and wisdom are often not fully understood. So here is an analogy:
If you can play a game of cards, that is information.
If you are able to cheat at the game, that is knowledge.
But if you know why not to cheat you have gained wisdom.

If you want to find out how silly an idea really is, question any one of its elements. The more irrational the idea, the more aggressive the response will be.

Can we be brainwashed? If your answer is 'no', you are the perfect candidate. In his book Jurismania (P F Campos, Jurismania: The Madness of American Law, Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 119) the author refers to a scene from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four to illustrate the gradual dissolution of common sense in American law students. In that scene the book's main character - Winston Smith - is subjected to intense physical torture by the director of the Ministry of Love for the purpose of re-education. Then the director holds up five fingers, which Smith confirms. Next he holds up four fingers. "Do you see five fingers?" "Yes" - because by now Smith actually did see them. A similar scene has been created in the two-part episode Chain of Command of the Star Trek: The Next Generation series (it's been hailed as one of the best). There Jean-Luc Picard is tortured by the Cardassians and has to admit seeing five lights when there were only four. While Picard remained steadfast he had to admit that at that moment he really did believe there were five lights. Although torture is an intense physical and psychological experience, the same can be achieved by lesser methods spread over time. In the end the result is more reliable precisely because the inculcation proceeded in a benign manner. We offer less or even no resistance to something 'nice' - it just takes more time. Education is a form of inculcation and it begins at birth. If the parents and their circles are infused by religion or any other ideology, the child will be trained to perceive in line with that ideology's tenets. No matter how many 'fingers' may be encountered later on, the person can be relied upon to see five. And so it happens that someone can insist Islam is a religion of peace (really? see Excerpts from the Koran - unless of course one goes by the same logic that dubbed that old US Army colt 'Peacemaker'), or that Communism is a worker's paradise, because they truly believe it; or that Christians are bound to practise love and good will, never mind the Inquisitions and similar acts of vengeance over the centuries. Forgetting such lessons puts everyone on a road to hell - unless of course you are the director of the Ministry of Love.

One idea that always finds adherents in certain quarters is 'perfection' in human behaviour. It occurs at varying degrees of intensity, but the concept is always the same. Create the 'perfect' human being and we shall all live in an ideal world. To demonstrate how illogical this is, let's use the stomach as a simple example. Stomachs contain acid to digest the food, and they have a wall which keeps the acid inside (if the wall is damaged the condition becomes life-threatening very quickly). Now imagine we have an 'ideal' acid (which burns through everything) and we also have an 'ideal' stomach wall (which doesn't allow anything through). Clearly, this is impossible. The same goes for human behaviour. To act 'ideally' means everything we do is exactly as it should be according to a particular situation. Since no scenario is exactly the same for everybody, trying to enforce one's own ideal creates problems for everybody else. In other words, life in all its variety will always be a compromise as we navigate through its highways and byways. There is an art to it, and from childhood onwards we learn that art of navigation through our constant interaction with others. The greater the exposure, the more and the better we learn. Generally speaking (there are always exceptions but that's all they are), being in a boarding school, in something like a kibbutz, or the military for that matter (even a temporary national service is of benefit), makes for better adjusted humans compared to growing up in isolation (home schooling would be on that opposite end of the spectrum)^*). Does this mean everybody behaves 'perfectly' every time? No - but the transgressions are minimal because every group, collective, and society constitutes a self-adjusting human activity system where each member is prompted towards a common standard. That goes for any type of behaviour. While negatives can - and will - happen, they are kept at the small scale and the group overall benefits in the end. In addition its members learn how to spot what is not to their liking and benefit from the experience. The adjustment takes place on an individual level and top-heavy interference by governments with all its costs is not needed (it often makes matters worse). Ironically, the current idea of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) while at the same time people are suffering from growing isolation is a contradiction in terms. How can one be comfortable with diversity if never given a chance to get used to it?
*) Those three have one thing in common: They do not come with a pre-packaged selection of members to suit one's individual tastes. It is up to each person to deal with the variety as they find it.

While on the subject of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), here is a concept that can easily misfire. It is an example of selective affirmation, prompting us to agree with the idea because we agree with our personal choice of its content. What if the actual content is not of our choice? Every civilised person should have the right to defend themselves against the brutish, the vulgar, the violent; the bivvies of this world (on second thought, make that their duty - how else do you safeguard civilisation). To enforce DEI would go against the very culture the concept stands for since bivvies would be the last ones to practise tolerance. Then the idea turns into an instrument of destruction, with the innocent victim often the loser. As the saying goes, "Good fences make good neighbours". Which, by the way, makes one wonder what intense proponents of DEI are really after.

There is one thing moralists and dictators have in common: both are tyrants. And so it follows that under their rule violence flourishes. Their enforcers - whether working for one kind or the other - have 'right' on their side and they act accordingly. The results can be seen around the world where the consequences of ever more restrictive laws are an ever increasing brutality visited upon a population.

It's impossible not to consciously think about something. The very act of "I must not think about ..." makes you do just that. Hence any prohibition, any taboo, puts the item right there at the forefront of one's thoughts. The question is, what happens next?
It also puts the declared sincerity of our moral guardians in doubt. To be preoccupied with something that is out of bounds for the rest of us could well be the legally sanctioned way, for those selected few, to savour the delicious sensation of wallowing in it to their hearts' content.

If you want to get an idea of the kind of place you're in, check out the inside of small shops, observe how they treat their children, and visit a public toilet. Shops (especially the smaller kind) provide generally desired goods and how they are packaged (if at all), and in what lots they are available and what kind of security measures the shop keepers are forced to use is a fair indication of how the society runs. The treatment of children is a reflection of the attitude towards the weaker and smaller. And public toilets tell you something about the general standards of hygiene (perhaps there aren't any to begin with).
There is also another feature that can be observed. If the attire worn by the members of a society is marked by conformity, that is a clear indication that this society is rather unforgiving when it comes to different tastes and opinions; together with all the punishments reserved for those who step outside the rules. The same applies to gestures.

A similarly useful exercise is to traverse a city on foot, especially the larger ones, although one would have to be fit enough to walk for hours on end. It can be done during the day or the night. Just as wilderness areas change from one aspect to another, so do cities. For example, a residential area gradually segueing into an industrial one, or a district with bars and restaurants making itself felt, and how commercial interests mix with other types. How the streetscape adopts a different tone, how buildings and their uses create an ambience, all this is rich information for the explorer. Guided tours and travelling by car do not provide that detailed experience.

Let's say you are exploring some remote part on this planet. After a hot and sweaty day you arrive at a settlement and the people there greet you with considerable - and most welcome - hospitality. The sun is about to set and you decide to make use of the adjacent river with its cool water. Upon hearing this the village elder says to you, "Don't go there after dark. It's dangerous. There is a monster." Would you heed the warning or take a swim anyway because you don't believe in monsters and you regard those people as essentially simple and superstitious? My advice is, don't go. And here's why. Whatever their demographic situatedness, humans need to explain things to themselves. In most cases the facts were lacking and their interpretations are based on their general beliefs about this world; only recently in our history are we beginning to understand the reasons behind this or that phenomenon. Without the facts, however strange or plainly weird an explanation may seem, it is derived from a very real situation that was so significant or indeed traumatic, it found its way into the collective memory within the context of their overall beliefs. In our case it could have been a young girl sent to the river's edge in the evening to clean some chicken, but she never came back. When the villagers traced her steps they found the spot where she had been squatting and then... nothing. As far as they are concerned, a monster had taken her. Well, it wasn't a monster after all. In the South American rain forests the deep and dark rivers are inhabited by catfish, some of the largest are piraíbas and they can be almost 3m in length (see a photo). During the day they stay at the bottom and after sunset they hunt. Their highly developed sensors allow them to discern a suitable prey, including a child on the water's edge. They approach the victim, grab her legs and drag her into the deep and there is nothing to indicate what had happened. The villagers have never seen such fish, they don't possess the necessary gear to catch one, hence a 'monster'. In principle the above applies to any occurrence that cannot be explained readily. Yet there is a core event, a manifestation of something that was perceived nevertheless. A core event, at whatever scale, that formed the perception to be carried onwards across sometimes even generations. In time the explanation (including subsequent attitudes that emerged from them) may well seem incongruous but the core event did exist. Other examples include perceptions about a certain wilderness area, or attitudes towards particular demographics (now rendered inappropriate but in times past based on very real situations - which is not to say some remnants could not have survived). Disregarding such cognitive dynamics leads to endless (and ultimately useless) arguments because the underlying causes are never addressed; yet they existed once and history cannot be undone.

Comfort and ease - especially in the West - have led to the assumption that in some mysterious way things simply exist. Rather like many children having no idea where the milk in the supermarket comes from; for them it's just there on the shelf. An example on a large scale is the naiveté with which advanced and/or dysfunctional nations are viewed. Neither 'just exist'. Nations are made up of people, and it is the people who either create something that works or doesn't. A rational and diligent approach yields a positive result, its opposite leads to failure. In a large human activity system such as a nation there are differences among individuals just as there are differences in temporary conditions, and together they produce an overall outcome as they coexist interdependently; in other words we have a functional average. Hence nations (and demographics, organisations, groups, families) represent an ongoing pattern that unfailingly points to the general quality of their members. Their nature is not to be understood through some presumed ideal but by objectively identifying their material configurations as they have emerged from the respective constituents. Merely attaching a label to something doesn't change its nature.

Why a clown can be a symbol of terror: There is the visage, rigidly set in an expression of hilarity, confronting with its utter indifference to the surrounds. In real life we have a person doing harm while smiling all the time; people rapt in ceremonial ecstasy aiming their emotions towards outsiders; the chanting tribe taking a victim to their execution.

The witch
Once upon a time there lived a witch.
She spent her days making children afraid. When asked why she did this she replied, "But I must make them afraid. It is for their own protection".
More and more adults believed her and they said to each other, "Is it not wonderful we have this witch. She makes our children afraid, but it is for their own protection."
Soon everyone was full of fear and many suffered their entire lives.
Until it became so bad some adults began to think for themselves. "What is this fear really all about?" they asked. And they realised it had all been a fantasy. It was fear itself the witch was spreading.
When word got around the people became so angry they took the witch and burned her.
Suddenly the spell lifted. And everybody said, "But of course. I knew this all along, but nobody would listen."

Many debates (mostly in the form of statements one is meant to accept without argument) surround the right to use something by people who aren't qualified and thereby depriving others who are. For example, the use of land by indigenous people rather than by those who can do so much more with it. Let's look at the principle behind. Suppose in a family one child is musically gifted and another is not. One is able to relate to tonality, to harmonious sound as one note follows the next. For the other a shout is as good as a screech. There is also a guitar, a beautiful instrument handed down the years. Who should be allowed to use it? The one who can use the guitar in a productive manner, or the other for whom that guitar is merely a piece of wood?

There is something sickly, something malodorous, about people who turn the tolerance shown towards them into a victory of their own. The tolerance is not to their credit, yet they see it as a celebration of their own dysfunction.

An airline would be crazy to employ pilots who have not been tested under an emergency. In other words, to know the real character of someone it is not enough to observe them in a happy situation. It is when things turn bad that their real nature comes to the fore. Businesses do it all the time (at least the successful ones). There is a general principle involved: raised emotions tend to strip away the outer veneer and what emerges is the actual person. Decreased inhibitions have the same effect; under the influence of alcohol for example. Why is it then that when it comes to the larger scale of entire demographics, we turn a blind eye to what is accepted - indeed demanded - otherwise.

There are two ideas, mindsets even, that have gained a considerable influence over our way of thinking during the last few decades. One holds that we humans are all the same and are subject to the same feelings, perceptions, and thoughts. As a consequence we are meant to expect the same reaction given the same cause. The other says that an enemy will turn benign if only we are sufficiently nice to them. As to the first, a mere cursory observation will show that even in a normal conversation, held in a common language and with commonly used words, there can be misunderstandings simply because the meaning of a word is interpreted differently by either side. The differences are caused by how we, as an individual, have come to know about a word and under what circumstances; all words have a certain loading which plays its own role in our conceptualisations. Another factor is the richness of the respective environment and the capacity of the mind to process information, both of which can change substantially from person to person. If discrepancies can already occur in a shared environment, the risk of a misunderstanding is even higher when it comes to persons from another social, cultural, and/or ideological background. Ordinarily we use language without any deeper reflection, but in fact language is a dynamic construct that has formed under the auspices of our daily experience. Different experiences make for different constructs, and the only question is to what extent they are different. The mutual disparity can be so large it becomes virtually impossible to find a common ground. Investigations along those lines have occupied philosophers and psychologists down the ages. As to the second idea, an enemy (and I mean enemy, not simply someone who disagrees with you) represents somebody whose mindset is so fixed and so different from one's own they cannot reconcile themselves to anything outside their particular mental space. Being 'nice' to them doesn't change anything in their disposition; from their point of view they would interpret it as an agreement or a sign of weakness. These two ideas have created a fantasy world inhabited by members of all echelons of society, and from such resultant decisions entire wars have emerged.

Sustainability

As ever more entities are created that are meant to deal with individual shortcomings, personal resilience is outsourced to the public arena. Since the entities are run by people from that self-same society, as a consequence the entities themselves become dysfunctional although they are expected to help. A downward spiral leading to dissolution.

Arguably the most effective way through which a species ensures its survival over time is the innate regenerative capacity of its young. And so the best way to control pests is to interfere with that capacity in their offspring. Biologists make use of that principle with great success once they figure out how to do it. Human society is no exception. That's why the most reliable indicators of decay are self-destructive tendencies and gratuitous violence in young people once they have become a pattern.

Resilience is an example of how a perfectly realistic concept can be sidelined into virtual non-existence under the influence of ideology and perception. It finds no argument within biology or medicine for instance because it is all so obvious: A species being able to survive under changing circumstances compared to another that did not; people being vaccinated so the body is able to protect itself against intruders. Yet when it comes to scenarios in general society, we have influences - and influencers - that blithely disregard the one fundamental protection a human being can have against the unwanted: one's personal resilience. Resilience does not happen automatically, it needs to be build up, but that is the very thing which is rejected out of hand. The most effective period of resilience creation occurs during the years of growing up. Nobody in their right mind would prohibit children from touching a football or exercising their legs according to their age and by the time they are eighteen suddenly say, "Off you go - you can play football now." At the same time the seriously deteriorating mental health in young and old in the end points to a lack of resilience. The more protective measures are implemented the lesser the chance of resilience-building and so we have a runaway condition that draws on ever diminishing resources while the problem is getting worse. Nature doesn't care about our ideologies and perceptions. More can be said about this: How to build resilience.

Sustainability - much talked about but is it always understood? Essentially, sustainability means having an input to some system that matches its output such there is no drain on that system's resources. Within this very context, there is something which so many are loath to accept and yet there is no way around it. Certain proponents of initiatives designed to 'help' those who don't help themselves often vehemently attack anyone who questions the overall usefulness of their agenda. Examples are, our 'war on drugs', the imposed inclusivity towards demographics who live in a world long since out of date, the enforced respect towards ideologies that clearly undermine society, and so on. The sheer hypocrisy on display is this: Every one of these proponents, indeed every single member of society, stands on the shoulders of ancestors who did not exist within such an artificially construed environment, and yet they proved strong enough to survive under their respective conditions. If they didn't we would not be here; there would not be any progeny. So here is someone who decries the accomplished in favour of the dysfunctional, yet they are the very product of what they deny. Since accomplishment supports society and adds to its resources whereas failure is a drain, a sustainable society needs at least a minimal amount of success. At the same time, the more advanced and/or complex a society, the more facilities need to be available in order to sustain the various - and productive - activities. The costs of such facilities need to be born by the state, that is all of us, because they are too high for the individual. Therefore a sustainable society needs certain basics to be 'free', that is paid for by everybody, and anything beyond to be paid by the individual. So, basic services such as housing, public transport, banking, telecommunication and IT, health, education, infrastructure in general, need to be born by society. If you break your leg you should receive treatment regardless of who you are, but if you want fresh flowers next to your bed every morning, then pay for it. Unfortunately, such ideas are usually shunted into the blunt categories from "socialist" on one end to "capitalist" on the other, but they are neither. It's all about sustainability at that overall level of sophistication. Imagine you are a medical expert but there is no energy infrastructure: how much can you do? The same goes for any activity because in some way or form they all cross-fertilise each other. If the dependencies are not understood, the system (and society is a system) will run itself into the ground sooner or later since it will be less and less sustainable. See also The resource relationships chart. In the end it comes down to how general assistance is viewed: As a way to keep the recipients under the thumb, or as an ongoing means to unfold their innate potential (it's part of the social contract). Parker and Hart summed up the former rather well in the accompanying sketch (B Parker, J Hart, The Wizard of Id #4: Remember the Golden Rule!, Fawcett Publications, Inc, 1973).

To have people with disabilities participate in the workforce is a hallmark of an advanced society because its diversity provides for opportunities that go beyond the physical limitations suffered from in earlier times. The less advanced a society, the more stringent the discrimination (Australian Aborigines for example placed malformed newborns on an ant hill and the ants did the rest; in South America Amerindians bury the infant on the riverbank; during the Middle Ages in Europe some unfortunate soul served as amusement at fun fairs; many a king or queen kept dwarfs at their court). Once the non-discrimination is elevated too highly however, a question arises: what guarantee is there that a critical assessment of somebody's performance is not avoided lest it be seen as some form of bias?
To put this another way: Whenever people with varying abilities are grouped together to serve something like 'inclusivity', what seems fair from an individual's perspective can turn into a drive towards the lowest common denominator when taken as a whole. Which is the reason why, the lesser the degree of individualism within a demographic, the greater the resistance towards any exceptions to the norm.

One factor which is hardly ever mentioned in this context is complexity, although it would arguably be the most important one. Here complexity is a broad term comprising the entire set of characteristics within a given system. It covers infrastructure, science and technology, the natural environment, and of course the people as part of that system, their general behaviour based on their temperament, their educational levels, their likes and dislikes - all of which can be circumscribed as available resources. If the degree of complexity has reached a point at which the resources have become insufficient to maintain the system, such a system will falter. It can be observed today as well as in the past (especially with the benefit of hindsight). For example, the Roman empire enjoyed a period of growth at first because the resources more than matched the requirements of the evolving system. Then the sheer extent of the empire would have required better means of transport and communication to take care of any problems. Clearly, an often weeks-long journey from, say, Britannia to Rome, coming to a decision there, then travel back again to act, was not exactly an exercise in efficacy. There were deficiencies in many other areas too, not the least of which the decay of the governing body (a detailed account of the step-by-step degeneration can be found in E Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Everyman's Library, London, 1993). Defining a system in terms of its complexity and its manifold resources enables the analyst to comment on its ultimate sustainability and so its future. In the case of negatives there may be compensatory factors, but even so the situation is already becoming precarious. Furthermore, the nonlinear nature of complex, dynamic systems (such as society or anything on a smaller scale) does not yield immediate results. Rather, the decay sets in gradually, with subsystems failing here and there until eventually the system collapses overall - unless of course remedial measures are being taken (see The mechanics of chaos: a primer for the human mind for a more technical description). Due to the interconnectedness of human activity systems a failure in one area has also consequences somewhere else, and so the problem becomes ever more difficult to resolve. This in itself adds to the complexity on one hand and the increasing lack of resources on the other. For example, if the education system makes for rising illiteracy levels then the resultant shortfall in comprehension affects the quality of job candidates elsewhere, which in turn leads to staff shortages at first and later to lower performance, impacting the wider system's resilience and hence sustainability. The greater the discrepancy between complexity and resources (especially the human kind), the more difficult the fix. There exist societies where the gap is so large, it has becomes virtually impossible to bring both into balance with each other; we have a failed nation state.
Note: Complexity and resources should be seen relative to each other. The necessary resources for an agrarian society are lower compared to their technologically more advanced counterparts, and such a demographic would adequately sustain its own complexity. However, introduce more sophisticated infrastructure and the resultant complexity will overstretch the resources and the quality of life would now be worse than before. Something proponents of ill-considered assistance programs are loath to admit. Similarly, a society can overreach itself through initiatives which in the end require more resources, not available at the time. On the scale of an individual the scenario is so common, there is even a well-known phrase for it: biting off more than one can chew.

Governance

A democracy allows input from the individual and so answers to the wishes of the average. In an authoritarian regime the top echelon decides and no-one else. Hence in a democracy there is more variance but tempered by the multitude, whereas in a dictatorship the range of possibilities is narrow but what remains is being done. Both experience a reversal from the grand view towards the situation on the ground: In the democracy individuals become authoritarian if reality demands decisive action, and in a dictatorship individuals become more pragmatic because the orders from on high have become unworkable. Either development represents a challenge to the system.

When it comes to refugees fleeing an Islamic regime, comparisons with similar emergencies in the past are common. For example, people fleeing Nazi Germany, or escaping the deleterious conditions imposed by Communism. However, there is a simple question purposefully avoided by the advocates of indiscriminate refugee intakes: How many Jews who fled Nazism were Nazis? Or, how many Vietnamese getting away from Communism are Communists? On the other hand, how many newcomers from, say, Afghanistan, renounced Islam - the very basis for the conditions which made them leave their country in the first place. And so it happens that Western security services never had to worry about swastikas hanging in the homes of Jews, or communist propaganda being disseminated amongst the Vietnamese communities. Yet security services around the world are forced to spend many millions trying to keep an eye on mosques, Islamic schools and the relevant social media circles. If the money should not be there, the populations have to put up with kidnappings and killings.

The concepts behind the previous sections - transference and clinging to one's core identity - are also found within a phenomenon that manifests at the societal and cultural scale. Powerful societies exert their influence on others in some form of colonialism; in the past Western culture was one example but by no means the only one. A major consequence is the transference of means from the dominant towards the dominated (such as technology, organisational ability, administrative frameworks). In time the recipients are able to throw off the domination because now they can. Having become better equipped they see themselves as equals compared to their former masters. A colonial legacy can nurture antagonism making use of the very ingredients which enabled the dominance by the other in the first place. Since the innate cultural characteristics are being maintained, we have an effective payback system under adversarial guidelines. Depending on the degree of cultural discrepancy between the two the current opposition derives its strength from the sheer difference as well as the enabling means; one amplifies and accelerates the other. Should the former power fall behind in terms of its own capacity the irony of the situation fails to be recognised - a sign of decay. The question for the aspirant is: how well does the new system sync with their core values in the long run? No empire has lasted forever.

Governments may tell us not to hate, to be tolerant. What happens if there are people who hate anyway? If the rest of us follow the government's directive then we should tolerate that hate, surely a contradiction. The only logical conclusion would be for governments to reject those who demonstrate hate in the first place. Then again, perhaps governments don't care if they cultivate hate in this insidious manner - killing us softly with their rule.

In Australia the question of monarchy vs republic achieves prominence at regular intervals. Currently (October 2022) the titular head of its parliament is the British King. Essentially republicans argue for the king to be replaced with a president. Aside from all the arguments surrounding history and the law, when it comes to the practical situation on the ground we are dealing with two basic mindsets (in principle that can apply anywhere): If we must have some ultimate authority, do we prefer that authority to be in our midst or half a world away - because both have obvious implications. One can turn the question around: What would the mindset of someone have to be who prefers to have a powerful entity constantly looking over their shoulder as it were, or having them far away? After all, there are adults who generally prefer having someone overseeing their affairs (a possible consequence of having grown up under helicopter parents), and there are those who enjoy striking out on their own. Monarchists and/or Republicans may not like having their subject treated in this way, but reality has a habit of throwing things at believers.

The more governments prescribe, the greater the opposition they generate. It not only applies to the opinions as such, it's also government per se that will be opposed. Ironically then, as governments assert their stance across society, they undermine themselves.

If a certain perspective is derived from ideology and/or based on a theory (and not more at that stage) then disapproval can generate despair in the mind of the holder especially when the criticism is ridiculous. Then again, if based on an accurate redescription of a scenario then regardless who rejects it, at the very least the holder can be at ease in the knowledge that the world is behaving as it always did despite someone's delusion. For them there is no inducement to substitute knowledge for power; knowledge already is power. Hence acquiescence to some authority does not mean agreement. Two famous examples from history are Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno. Galileo's idea of the earth orbiting the sun was based on observation and mathematics, and when he was accused of heresy he recanted. The earth did what it did no matter what a pope declared; Galileo was a scientist. Bruno's view, among others, that we are not the only beings in this universe also made him an enemy of the Church. But he was essentially a monk and defended his ideas passionately. He spent the last seven years of his life being tortured by the Inquisition and in the end was burned at the stake for his efforts.

As destructive as the dynamics surrounding ideological authoritarianism are, they nevertheless contain an element of natural justice. Every time someone from such a clique takes a position designed to justify their beliefs before the general public, there will be those members of the latter who know how silly that idea really is. As a consequence the disrespect towards the clique grows steadily as the numbers of such members grow. Although that doesn't improve the situation at the moment, over time the authority digs its own grave. It may take years, sometimes even decades, but eventually the ideology has become so hollow, nobody can take it seriously any longer and the regime collapses.

As calamitous events around the world demonstrate almost every day, the checks and balances assumed to be in place have virtually no effect. From the United Nations on downwards, at best such bodies serve as an opportunity to declare one's position in this or that forum but not much else. The original intent behind the UN for example (to resolve conflicts in an atmosphere of mutual civility) have long since been left behind. And that's the core of the problem. For civility to exist, three fundamental pillars have to be in place. In no particular order, there needs to be wisdom accumulated down the ages, a wisdom that has been gathered through experience in a multitude of circumstances. Such wisdom needs to be personified by individuals who are able to learn from experience and who have found resonance within their wider society leading to success. And the society itself needs to be large enough and enduring enough to act as an ongoing repository for those ideas. In other words, there needs to be an appropriate culture. At this stage in human evolution there are only three cultures which fulfil the above conditions: Europe, India, China (or, from East to West, China, India, Europe if you will). All three have been around for thousands of years, all three have produced philosophers and scientists who have been recognised by the rest and who have contributed to all, and all three have the population volumes to draw on their human resources. At times there are exceptions (there always are in human affairs) but overall the above equations (in terms of wisdom, longevity, volume) hold true. So, given the disparity between societies as they exist on this planet (and will exist for the next centuries), the only hope of achieving some mitigating influence over warring factions is to put the fate of the planet into the hands of a triumvirate composed of Europe, India, and China. An extended version from the historical three-person type that can avail itself of the collective information across the millennia, and which possesses a sufficient volume to give weight. And by the way, this is not about friendship or current alliances, rather providing an intellectual and cultural space where insights can be posited next to each other. Whether it will come to an explicit implementation is anyone's guess, but international developments already point to its beginnings in the political and economic arena, however implicitly they may play their role.

Morality

Morality - whether derived from religious or secular decrees - serves to distinguish between the good and the bad. Either the individual's sense of 'good' shapes that person's moral framework, or the framework shapes the individual. In the end there is no good or bad morality. What matters is the overall composition of society, whether it is largely made up of people who out of self-confidence format the rules, or whether the majority allows itself to be formatted by the rules.

On a similar note, consider what is called the Devil in belief systems. Every religion contains rules, to be followed by its adherents. Sometimes the rules are productive if they relate to reality, often they are not because of their ideological base. In the case of the latter, when things go wrong that negativity needs to be ascribed to some external entity in order to protect the belief overall. The debates among religionists as to why there is such a thing as the Devil next to God (with God supposed to be the ultimate determinant) are endless. Why wouldn't they be - if a problematic outcome is due to ignorance of some facts the reason for it is obvious; less so if the action has been construed out of mere perception in the first place. So rather than questioning the belief system (which by its very nature is unacceptable), a way around has to be found to externalise the root cause of the problem. That psychological switch is quite common. We are more comfortable assigning a mistake to some outside influence rather than taking ownership of it. Yet another example demonstrating that religions are not the product of some spiritual being for people, it's people who create religions for their spiritual beings. Hence "The Devil made me do it" - so much easier!

Religion - or any form of ideology for that matter, including its secular versions - represents a behavioural framework one is supposed to follow. If not, punishments can be severe. Since by its very nature such a framework does not necessarily answer to the reality of the situation, people have learnt from early childhood onwards to navigate around the imposed obstacles in order to make life more bearable (after all, most people don't like to be punished but want something anyway). And so it happens that people growing up under such regimes are almost instinctively disposed towards holding two mutually conflicting views in their minds: On one side is the official set of rules, to be openly recognised and adhered to. On the other is all that what can be done provided one gets away with it. By the time the child has grown into an adult, the transitions from one side to the other are accomplished with considerable dexterity. To disobey the law, given the right circumstances, has become second nature. So much so that recognising the above may not come readily to the reader who is only familiar with their local conditions and not much else, but it will become obvious once being in unfamiliar surrounds. Hence this advice to travellers: tread with caution, to avail yourself of something that may be hidden you need the right key to open the door, otherwise forget it.

For terrorism to exist, there need to be terrorists. No terrorists, no terrorism. It's not rocket science.

It is obvious all religions differ from each other when it comes to the details. It would be an interesting exercise to go to the geographical areas of their origins and study the hallucinatory properties of the plants there; the effects they have on the mind and the kind of visions they induce.

Here is another interesting exercise. As any detective knows, to shed light on a crime scene there are usually four main motivators involved: Money, power, sex, opportunity (not necessarily in that order). Keeping that in mind it remains for the investigator to sift through the participants to see who fits the equation. It doesn't have to be a crime however. Any action which requires some extra effort would need the appropriate motivation to be carried out, otherwise why bother (if what is engaged in represents no extra motivation we are dealing with a psychopath). If we define those motivators in terms of functionalities (for an analysis under the Otoom model) we can express them in a more general sense: Wealth, influence, sexual gratification, and ability. Any one of them might be categorised differently to suit the occasion but in essence they remain the same. A further aspect is their comparative value. If someone has a thousand dollars, the prospect of getting an additional hundred could be a sufficient motivator; for someone who owns a million the potential target would have to be bigger. That goes for all of them, and they all could be part of the overall motivation to some degree. Since we are talking about functionalities, they can be applied at any scale, from the individual to groups, to demographics, to entire nations. When it comes to the larger scale, not only needs there to be an overall motivation within the higher (ie, decision making) echelons, the motivation must also apply to the lower ranks because it is there that the dirty work is carried out on the former's behalf. It may not be the same composite, but some incentive must exist otherwise the entire enterprise won't go far (for example, using mercenaries to fight another army: If the mercenaries don't get paid - wealth and not influence - the one who hired them - now influence/power and not wealth - is left high and dry rather quickly). And this is where it gets interesting. Let's apply the above to the large-scale scenarios in history, to wars, to colonisation, to commercial enterprises (such as the East India Company for example), and let's include all the motivators for the higher as well as the lower ranks respectively. Is the picture still the same, the one given to us in the official versions of history, or has it acquired a somewhat different aspect? I leave it to the reader to engage in these consideration but beware: what you come up with may not suit the circles you are part of.

Education

Education is the fundamental framework serving to prepare the young for the contingencies of their society. The contingencies are derived from two sources, reality overall (ie, nature) and, in the case of humans, how the members perceive their society. The closer those two are aligned with each other the more productive education will be. On the other hand, in case of a mismatch the young will not be sufficiently prepared because nature does not modify itself to assist society; society needs to adjust itself to nature. An education system that insists on ideology and wishful thinking will not only harm the young, ultimately it will harm the entire society. Animals do not have that optionality. Either the young learn their lessons and survive, or they don't; retribution is swift. Only humans have the luxury to delay the inevitable. But that's all it is - a delay.

At first glance the officially sanctioned and implemented form of childcare seems to be a positive. Then again, by its very nature it is complimentary to the feminists' idea of women in the workforce, thereby becomes a collectivist, socialist model. In a capitalist economy it is also answerable to the profit model and so competes directly with the woman's motive to earn a profit from her work. Since most childcare workers are women, and are therefore subject to the same profit-driven pressures, childcare turns into an overall nullifying factor unless working there automatically means being in a lower - if not the lowest - category of income.

A practical advice for all the young people who suffer at the hands of bullies. First, you need to understand the nature of bullies. They are the kind of people who think they can harass and attack anyone who in their eyes is weak. For example, their target could be someone who doesn't get a thrill out of throwing a ball from left to right and right to left, or who doesn't shout, yell, or swear. Of course, none of this is an actual sign of weakness but that's not how bullies see it. As soon they come up against someone who they feel is stronger, they run. The thing to do therefore is to hit back, but be careful. If, let's say, a teacher appears on the scene the bully with his sixth sense for danger will have disappeared and the victim is left standing there and may actually become the target of the teacher. Not only that, even if the teacher is on the victim's side they can't be around all the time and the harassment will only get worse. So when you hit back (you just have to overcome your inner reluctance) do it away from prying eyes. That way the bully gets the message and the authority figures are none the wiser. And what if the bully is so much stronger? Having put up even some resistance will at the very least leave you with the firm knowledge that you are not entirely useless (and it's a damn sight better than being left with the realisation that someone else was needed to help). Believe it or not, from that point onwards the burden will be much lighter. Later on as an adult the lessons learnt will be just as useful, although the situation may be more nuanced. More can be said about this: How to build resilience.

Our main contemporary languages answer to the need for dealing with complexity through the multitude of words they make available. Education trains the mind to make use of that availability. Indigenous languages on the other hand consist of a few hundred words and not more. To teach indigenous languages in school results in children with bonsai brains.
Remember George Orwell's 1984? In that book Syme, a faithful servant of Big Brother, enthuses about his work which consists of reducing the number of words in everyday language. "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?," he explains. "In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it".
On the other hand - to get a glimpse of what can be achieved if people are definitely not beset with bonsai brains, watch the video about Shenzen, China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSgvI1ELfqQ

Somewhat linked to the above is the concept of multiculturalism. Championed mostly by Western industrialised nations, it is meant to embrace cultures other than one's own. Really? For a nation to be truly multicultural, any form of behaviour, any mores, any laws in fact that exist in other societies but not one's own, would have to be exempt from the host country's legal code. For example, no marriage laws, no definitions of decency, no financial pathways - in fact any preference that could be termed idiosyncratic. What would be kept, and enforced, are matters relating to hygiene, traffic rules, competency, building codes, and the like. Clearly, the current regulations go beyond that but at the same time attempt to impose a however undefined tolerance towards the 'other'. There have been examples of such open-endedness, usually in areas which by their very nature were frequented by a multitude of nationalities and/or demographics, such as major ports, commercial hubs and markets famous for the sheer variety they offered; beyond their boundaries however it was a different matter. The relevant ruler enjoyed the commercial advantage of such dynamism within the area's limits, while still able to impose their authority outside of them. At the very least the difference was on display. As it is, the present discrepancy between the ideal and the practical requires the authorities to continually monitor what happens on the ground and adjust it according to their preferences - and still invite antagonism which needs to be fought against. Current laws are also rather selective. The thereby constructed social environment changes society's perception in line with the law's underlying message. Domestic violence is legislated against, but there is nothing which prevents Muslims from enforcing a rigid dress code on their wives and daughters even when the heat and humidity is bad enough to trigger health warnings (and whatever the weather, for the rest of her life never to feel the wind in her hair, never to feel the ocean on her skin - is there any nation where sensory deprivation is illegal?)^*). Someone smashing shop windows is arrested, but indigenous youngsters are free to roam through an entire town doing just that and the response is merely a curfew. How did Big Brother in 1984 put it: WAR IS PEACE. SLAVERY IS FREEDOM. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
*) What would happen if a daughter were to throw off that ridiculous garb - that symbol of oppression - and fling it at her parents (unless her programming prevents her from performing such an act in any case); would she get away with it, would she be punished, beaten, killed even? And what would our wider society do; provide a safe place for her, or quietly overlook such domestics, or arrest the young woman as they do in Iran?

How to handle an overwhelming, ongoing problem with limited resources: Establish a process of thorough analysis so that the nature and therefore the reason for the problem is understood, and now examine a small part of the whole which can be dealt with under the circumstances. Based on that knowledge change that small part so it is no longer a problem. This uses resources while the challenges continue to mount. Nevertheless, whatever has been rectified no longer participates within the entire situation and therefore will cause the rate of problematic growth to decrease until the situation itself improves. In the end any new problematic incident will be merely an isolated case and can be addressed there and then. The above follows the same principles common in repaying a loan. There is the total amount borrowed and the definition of the instalments to be paid at established intervals, then come the repayments at first running up against the mounting interest charged by the lender, eventually reducing the principal itself, until the loan is repaid. From then on any further expenditure becomes trivial. The crucial points are, (1) having a clear definition of the problem, and (2), having the will and staying power to continue the process to the end. Translating the concept into wider society with its political parties and other entities, it becomes clear why an ongoing problem shows no improvement: points (1) and/or (2) are neither understood nor followed.

Certain interest groups want to rename Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, as Meanjin, the ancient Aboriginal name for that site. Meanjin does not stand for a city. It stands for the wild bush land it has been for thousands of years, whereas Brisbane is a modern-day product of a civilisation. This idea makes as much sense as renaming the Sydney Harbour Bridge Saltburn, because its iron ore came from that place in the UK.

It should have become obvious by now that the above is a reflection on how the world, how society works, regardless of what one may wish.

There are also views which may be inappropriate to say out loud, but have been recognised within oneself as true nevertheless - just don't mention them. Such as:

Where is the logic in people claiming to be firmly on the side of human rights but then advocate the admission en masse of those who are on the opposite side of the spectrum?

NO freedom of religion:
You must submit to the god of your ruler's choice.
Freedom OF religion:
You must submit to anyone's choice of god.
The only alternative:
Freedom FROM religion.

Those who pray are people who want something for nothing.

One day on a flight...
Most of the passengers were post-modernists who had different opinions about the laws of physics.
And so the plane dropped out of the sky...

Would you join a flight knowing the pilot has no idea about aerodynamics?
Why then have politicians who don't understand society?

If you want to build your nation through immigrants, then go for proven nation builders.

A hallmark of a decadent society:
Being more and more in need of its infrastructure, yet understanding less and less about it.

About free speech and fake news:
Just because I am free to drink water doesn't mean I can poison our reservoirs.

Sometimes it is the fetters that make for docility.
Nothing more.

Whoever doesn't want to know about the world doesn't deserve it.

The practice of forgiveness espoused by Christianity directly supports authoritarians. It effectively keeps their victims in a perpetual state of acquiescence.

Nothing excites the failures of this world more than someone or something they can use to justify their inadequacy.

Home schooling is a helicopter parent's paradise.

A fundamental question in any democracy:
How tolerant should one be towards intolerance?

What happens when multiethnic becomes multiethic?

People are most easily swayed by what they don't have.

The survival of humanity remains uncertain until we have managed to protect ourselves against ourselves.

People may think they are free, but they are merely on a longer leash.

We must strenuously oppose artificially construed class systems, and we should respectfully acknowledge those delivered to us by nature.

To have a Royal Commission every time something is wrong with the system is the judicial equivalent of reinventing the wheel.

If you speak the truth, then any attack will only confirm the validity of your position.

Once the justice system undermines justice itself, that society is ripe for a revolution.

Why do so many Westerners romanticise indigenous cultures?
Because they can't look their ancient selves in the face.

The more you love the more you're inclined to hate if it's the other.

Monotheistic religions are spiritual dictatorships.

What if Europe had not been colonised by Christianity all those centuries ago.
No proselytising madmen squalling across the lands ...
No obsession with the Middle East then and now, no Crusades, no love-hate relationships with its potentates, no entanglement with the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria ...
No Dark Ages, no intellectual stupor, no moralistic oppression ...
Think of science today and what it would be like in a thousand years.
Now imagine computers had already existed around 1000 CE.

In a rational society the waving of rainbow-coloured flags makes as much sense as making a song and dance about the fact that the sun rises every morning.

Today's refugee situation is a cargo cult on legs.

The difference between a statesman and a dictator:
The statesman rallies his insights for the benefit of the people;
the dictator rallies the people for the benefit of his insights.

We live in dangerous times when a history book is deemed less important than a place of worship.

Feminism - Christianity's bastard child.

What is the present but the past with its adversaries safely out of the way.

A nation cannot call itself truly civilised unless its citizens recognise suffering without being personally involved.

There are two reasons why people end up in a mental institution: Either they are mad, or they have demonstrated that they are the ones who are not mad.

If a thief says "don't steal", then by all means condemn the hypocrisy but heed the advice nevertheless.

Horse races are events at which lower life forms compete with each other.

Words are wings with which to fly,
not some chains t'be fettered by.

True evil: a system that thrives on dysfunction.

One can only marvel at the capacity of humans to fool themselves.

We shouldn't condemn those obsessive re-posters and re-tweeters.
Even the mighty oak in the forest needs the little creatures to spread its seeds.

Never underestimate the human capacity for excess.

The politician or academic who belittles the concerns held about hostile cultures is like a child who sleeps contentedly next to the warm hearth completely unaware of what it takes to collect the firewood out there in the woods.

When societies go weak the only ones who would remain strong are those who were never part of the mainstream to begin with.

Being rational - the ultimate impiety.

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."
So - what is the standard?

Memory: A device capable of reshaping its contents to harmonise with current perceptions.

Religionists are people whose strength of belief is in direct proportion to their ignorance.

The ideal Westerners for the 21st century:
- are beset with allergies;
- exist in a precarious mental state;
- are challenged by the fundamentals of life (eating, sleeping, moving the limbs...);
- adore the primitive while only too ready to denigrate their own achievements;
- always have room for emotions;
- ever more words, less action;
- lean towards the violent and brutish to balance their penchant for peace and love;
- their children win many prizes (for tying their shoelaces, for showing up in class...);
- are easily traumatised by sex;
- are obsessed with gender, less so with performance;
The more boxes they can tick, the more they'll be admired by the ruling elite. And should they trumpet their false achievements to the world it's an added bonus!
And yet there are nations where works such as Sun Tzu's The Art of War and Carl von Clausewitz's On War are held in high esteem. For them all this is useful information since both authors emphasise, "Know yourself, and know your enemy".

Imagine a society where sex has the same status as sport.
There are societies where sport has the same status as sex. They are so sick, it costs them billions.

It's easy to be indulgent towards opinions - as long as they are not put into practice.

When dog lovers meet and their pets sniff each other's genitals, is that communication by proxy?

Women love receiving a bunch of flowers. As it happens, that little posy is made out of the amputated genitals of plants.

Calling someone cynical is often a euphemism used to describe a person who has a crisp view of reality.

How fortunate that groups like ISIS are based on religion; in other words, phantasy and delusion. What if a similar resolve were derived from logic and reason?

An ideal, if based on a false premise, becomes hell.

To exist in a state of permanent childhood you need a constant supply of free energy.

Superstition clouds the mind and enslaves the heart.

If the provenance of religions is as claimed by their adherents, why is it that transgressions are always and without fail punished by people?

We educate ourselves by thinking about it.
We educate some others by talking about it.
We influence many others by doing it.

The problem with ideology is not only the disengagement from reality by its members.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, any of its positive elements are tainted as well.

Women's studies: The usual narcissism, this time in academia (and yes, I am familiar with Freud).

If we have to pay for the crimes committed by generations past, then why not burn the Pope at the stake.

The difference between attack and defence: In an attack you may gain possession of someone, but that someone is essentially a stranger. In a defence you gain yourself.

People with higher intelligence are more adept at solving tricky problems. But they can also have a greater ability to fool themselves (and others).

Why is it when wild animals attack humans it is always the animal whose home needs to be respected. Don't humans have a home?

© Martin Wurzinger - see Terms of Use