Your Biological Goals

Some thing I keep losing, the thought I never get around to somehow, is this, for the warriors, for the Nazis: what I’m saying, AST, the conflicts, the wars – these are the goals, the goals of your biology, they are not a means to any end, the journey is the destination, the middle of the war is the victory this function seeks. The goal isn’t racial purity – who needs a Nazi soldier in a pure world? Then who would you kill?

The goal is the fight, eternally.

Many of us already grasp that one of Nature’s goals is not ours: maximizing your breeding. Many humans find their lives improved by getting free of that primate drive to whatever degree they can, I certainly have, and getting free of that will take some reason to exist away from the warriors of the world – but why can’t we see that’s the attitude to take with our natural urge to conflict as well? I mean, we think we do, and we do have some little success at it from time to time – but this is where I come in, where Antisocialization Theory comes in, what do we try to stop the fighting, punishments and abuse? And when that’s not working, then what, more of it?

I am objecting to this idea of morality as I acknowledge it: this is the stupid, violent behaviour we have that we have been calling morality forever. It doesn’t stop the fighting; it is the fighting.

Racial purity is the most impossible, most evolutionary uninformed concept ever voiced, the opposite of evolution, which is variation – so it’s an adaptive fiction, just keeps us in the fight. You wanna be a wild, snarling animal like you portray your targets, fine, but don’t pretend there’s any rhyme or reason to it. You blaming some “them” for the wars as you sneak off to your secret Nazi terrorist training camp? Biology fools us all. The real war is the struggle between the war and peace crowds and as long as we’re at war, the soldiers are winning against their own peaceful people. Admit it. If you’ve ever thought that far ahead, you know your war isn’t ever supposed to end. A nation built on war doesn’t retire and live in peace.



Aug. 19th., 2019


“Social” is BAD/Lady Leaders – a stream of consciousness double feature

“Social” is BAD


“He’s very social.”

We say it like it’s a good thing. There’s a biology specific definition that is generic, where “social” is the totality of the concept and it is made up of things that can be any or all three of prosocial, antisocial, and asocial – well, that’s the rational definition. That social is “good” – that’s the social definition. There is a little more to this dynamic than  “lay” and “learned,” and although the Venn diagrams would line up that way, the political disaster of social media demands that we start to think in terms of social vs rational if we want to understand what’s going on. Social memes can be ubiquitous, reaching way up into the learned crowd, even to the very top.

Maybe not the anti-Christ but close enough guy is very social. We debate his intellect, his madness, but that’s not where his power is. He’s very social. We all knew it, tacitly, intuitively: his victory was the victory of social bullshit and the defeat of rationality.

It isn’t “National Socialism,” it’s nationally “being social,” which is not socialism, at all, it’s the opposite. Socialism is about the people, all the people. “Being social” is about discrimination, who to be prosocial with, who to be antisocial with. Socialism is a political attempt to expand our prosocial network to all, to rise above endless social conflict. Of course, co-opting the term to mean the opposite is what the discriminators do – when you have been defined as fit for discrimination, you don’t deserve the truth about anything either.

Of course their own “nation’s” citizens don’t deserve the truth either. That is Antisocialization Theory. The business end of nationalism requires an abused, desensitized and violent citizenry, so when mass murder is your plan for some other, then mass beatings are what you have for your own.

This is the reality of the situation, antisocial without, antisocial within.

The evolutionary psychology explanation of morality, antisocial for the enemy and prosocial for the tribe – same as lay vs learned, above. The truth is antisocial for the tribe and family, and so very antisocial for the enemy, that’s a true psychological as well as evolved function. The idea that simply not killing your own falls on the prosocial side of the social sphere, that not murdering your cousins brings what actual, active love and nurturing brings, that punishments and discipline are supposed to have the positive effects of love because you’re alive aren’t you – this is a pathetic read of the data, or rather it’s a veiled threat in lieu of any read of the data.

This is the same sort of science gives a baby monkey a wire cage for a mother and to make it a prosocial experience they wrap the cage in a towel. It’s alive, isn’t it?


Lady Leaders


I’ve been silent about something, holding back, I didn’t want to express this thought, it’s a misogynist one, I’m not proud of it and it’s an enemy maker in context, let alone what it could mean out of context. I’ve been on about that human society is warrior society, that so much of what we do “for morality and civilization” is what hurts people and makes us all generally more violent and aggressive, and I’m mostly talking about abuse, including the use of abuse in legitimate punishments and discipline practices. That implicitly includes motherhood as a major vector for this function, gives the ladies a share of responsibility for the world as it is today, the hand that rocks the cradle at least also rules the world in this way. Of course that’s not the new evil thought.

The evil thought starts with the feminist trope that if women ruled the world, there would be less war and conflict, and yes, I’ve got an argument. Put your evil-repellent glasses on.

I must ask – is that because they live as second class citizens, because they’ve been put upon and abused?

Are we so sure that having been abused is what makes you smart and peaceful? Ever heard of this new thing they have in California – psychology, I think they’re calling it?

That is the response I always thought I would have to that idea of lady leaders, that’s the thing I haven’t said out loud, and that’s years of my internal snide showing, but . . . first, that nasty meme is composed of truths, isn’t it?

Second, this train of thought, Antisocialization Theory, like it does with many unsolved puzzles, suggests a real answer to this sarcastic question. Well, AST and Trivers’ evolved self-deception do, together.

Yes, leaders are indeed leaders because they have been abused, to some degree. Not every man wants to try to wipe some huge portion of the Old World off the map either. If we made a law, only women can be elected, we would straightaway elect the meanest, most warlike women on Earth, just like we do with the boys. The ones who want the job the most, trying the hardest and doing whatever is necessary to get it – exactly the wrong ones, as usual.

I know, not entirely fair, the hypothetical could be stated as “if we were the sort of folks who elected women,” but sorry, stupid, evil brain says again, there are a few good men we could vote for too, if we were the sort to do it. Don’t get me wrong, I love lady leaders, relative to male ones, Hillary vs anti-Christ or close enough guy was the widest gap between good and evil respectively ever voted for anywhere and no question more women leaders would look like Obama as opposed to this monster than men, all civilization long – but Obama didn’t and probably couldn’t stop the wars either, all I’m saying. And electing that guy was apparently so difficult on us, look at what we elected for a rest.

I’m in a bad mood.

I’m sorry. Plus I know he wasn’t elected either, by anybody. Somehow, the comment stands, sort of like somehow, the election did.





Aug. 17th., 2019

Psych 101 Or Beyond Evolution VS Creation, Continued, Continued


. . . here’s the first one

. . . here’s the previous one


Carrying on and onwards some more, when I say, “teach the human tendency to group conflict,” what I mean to say is – not that way! Teach about it, I mean, not how to do it for God’s sake! Group conflict is “Psych 101,” as we say right? Except literally, it is – first year college, or university – meaning one, it costs money, and two, we finally get to hear about it at the exact age when so many have joined the fight, some fight or other, instead.

It’s a secret for the rich, those who can afford to go to school and can afford to send others into their fights, our tendency towards group conflict.

If the good folks are in on it, if the nice Lefties and hippies and your mom seem to be withholding the dark truth about this tendency, well, I can’t defend them. In my premise, warrior society assimilates all and no-one isn’t somehow contributing whether they know it or like it or not. I have been writing for several years now about how dear old Ma and Pa are contributing with both their well intentioned “structure” and their outright abuse and I’ve mentioned how much abuse is contracted out to unrelated people away from home at school, both in the conformist children’s group and with the genetically disinterested adults in charge, and of course, it’s Ma and Pa signing these contracts. Most of them haven’t been to college, many will live their lives on the other side of this line, knowing about the conflicts, or simply fighting in them. But I must lay this also upon the “good” folks.

You’re either a flat-out warrior who tells your kids, “life is struggle, make no mistake,” and prepares him for battle – or you’re one of the “good” ones who teaches your children age-appropriate stuff and tries not to traumatize them with war stories. I was closer to being one of the latter, obviously – but the warriors of the world have a plan for us nice folks. They know we have been lying to our kids, hiding the dark, nasty world of conflict from them (I know, I was trying to make a better world, I wanted my kids to be able to visualize and so create a better world, I know, we’re trying to be good) – and just on the edge of adulthood, just at the height of a human male’s potential for negative energy and actions, they give him the “secret” everyone else has been hiding. And guess what?

Knowledge is power. You think you’ve spent eighteen years insulating against such a thing, building something different, but . . . biology says no, to borrow from Little Britain, warrior lifestyle wins again. We’ve compromised them from Day One, insuring they lack information that large, armed and dangerous groups of men have and use against everyone. We see the parents of the white warrior shooter kids on the TV, confused and in denial . . . some probably really are confused. After all, everything they did, they did to make the kids “good.”

This is why free education is so important, and why where fascism reigns overtly or covertly, Psych 101 is not offered in grade school, again, not until after so many have passed their best learning years and been recruited to some battle.

OK, that’s what I was getting at, and frankly, writing that was a punch in the gut. Sorry if reading it’s the same. Done for now.



Aug. 6th., 2019

Beyond Evolution VS Creation, Continued

. . . here’s the previous one


Carrying on, I don’t have the full vision and I’m sure I never will, twisted, limited, antisocialized little beast that I am, but what it seems to start with is simply that we teach the tendency to warrior society from Day One, that everyone hears about it in broad daylight, not in the mean streets or in secret society meetings – or in silence in our timeout chairs.

The only reason violent political “rhetoric” activates “unconscious violence” is because we’ve all agreed to be unconscious about it as a matter of social policy.

Violent groups, nationalist causes talk about their “race” or their “religion,” and the good folks argue about these premises, but the truth is they are just that, premises, and they serve perfectly to support human warrior lifestyle, even, or especially if they are false or socially constructed. Unfortunately, the socially evolved warrior society pre-dates all of that and includes us all, so these various flavours of it, the extremist groups are not censured for their warrior goals as such, violent rhetoric is legal and moral, depending on its targets. So it’s never “should we kill people or allow people to die?” it’s always should this group of people be targeted or be protected? In warrior society no-one questions that we should kill or allow to be killed somebody. Society began as warrior society probably, and we don’t seem able to imagine one that isn’t; the end of war sounds like suicide, the end of everything.

Wow, you are really some sick swine if that’s what you think! Kidding, I know – laying down your shield is what sounds like suicide – never mind we usually pick up and put down the shield and the sword together – that old truth does not put the lie to mine. This must be one of Aristotle’s logical fallacies, that when there is a reason provided to explain an accusation, that is proof of the charge, not an alibi! If you always have a reason to be warlike, then you are one warlike dude, which, in a way, is all I’m saying. If it adds up to that, to “peace is death,” though, well, Mr. Spock and I call bullshit; this “reality” ain’t logical.

Repeat, more clearly: organizing ourselves for a war is legal and moral, it’s always going on – it’s what human society is. We argue about the other guys’ premises, but we somehow do not argue about the arrangement that has us settling for group conflict as an unavoidable and unstoppable way of life. Leave the Jews alone, say the Good Guys, back off the Blacks, we say – but isn’t it about time someone got tough with the Chinese? Try to write a speech that doesn’t include being tough on somebody: we don’t even have the language for it. This is our world, our life – we need to allow ourselves to know it, at the very least. Badly. The arc of the human universe bends towards group conflict and we need our people to hear about it from us, as the problem – not when a fellow is eighteen and being recruited into the army or the street skinheads where it’s some big secret they’re sharing with him and the answer to the world’s problems instead of the eternal senseless scourge anyone who’s been involved in it knows it to be.

It’s a tendency, as I tried to say softly above, trying to sneak it by you.

A tendency that affects more areas of life than just voting. Humanity and the Earth have not come to these dire straits because of something some minority “other” is doing sometimes – that’s exactly the problem right there, the fact that we always think some version of that. We don’t seem to have the language to articulate that it is common or ubiquitous things that need to change, that our trusted consensus is killing us, but that’s what is happening. We cannot grasp that it is we and our friends who are the problem. I mean,  in theory, but . . . no, really? Aren’t they what we’re hoping to protect?

We quite explicitly will not grasp that it is our parents, our caregivers who are the problem, that they tried hard to make us “good” and it succeeded, but that “good” means good for warrior society, good for a society organized around othering and war. We need to have a conversation out loud and in daylight, about what “good” all of our well-intentioned caregivers are actually doing, because if we are all as good as we self report, then I guess we don’t have any of these world destroying problems, right? I mean we need to break it down, what do we mean by “good,” and what does it look like in reality? It doesn’t look good, is what I’m saying. It looks like what you’d expect, considering what we do to make it “good,” though.

You know what we do to make people “good,” don’t you?

You know there are two schools of thought about this, just like climate science, and they are the same two schools, right, science on one side and religion and fascist anti-intellectualism on the other? You know science says the deterrents and punishments don’t make you good and the more of it you get the worse you are, right? All of humanity are operating on the level of climate science denial about social forces like abuse – along with the majority of the scientists. OK, sometimes I say “science says” when it’s only my science, as far as I can see, a large part of the problem being our scientists are drawn from the same pool as the rest of us. We need to bring this into consciousness, we are being such violent morons about this! Of course we are all convinced of it physically, usually before we learn the damned language our parents speak, it is unconscious because it is repressed. Now, I know, I am using the language of psychology here, but I will say, they are all drawn from the same tainted labour pool also, and their function is assimilated by our warrior way of life and is not likely to put an end to it either. I am trying to find the language required to help us speak about this, and all languages are sourced from others – psychology has some great ideas. It wouldn’t be any use to society – to the warrior society – if it didn’t.

It may seem a bit of a fine point, that it seems the concept behind Christian Original Sin would be helpful, the warning that we are evil when left to our own devices and that we need Jesus, God, something to ameliorate that, and if all were as we like to say, we could say that articulating it was a good, moral attempt to help people – again, a warning – if it were true that would almost certainly be the case anyway. But it weren’t true, if it were, God forbid, a lie, or an adaptive fiction, to put it in biology terms? If it happened to be that humankind was not in fact born this way, that prehistory and history showed that we have become this way over time, if it happened to be that most people were not born this way but become this way with education and experience in the human world? Don’t get me wrong, I’ll repeat the warning. I have children. Be careful out there, kids, there is plenty of evil shit going on.

I’m just saying, it’s not that God made us all evil by default, and babies are probably as innocent as they look – it’s us doing that. Right here, right now, maybe not quite as bad as yesterday, but still bad enough. We all try to make our kids and our criminals “good,” that isn’t just you and your genius circle of friends, every human society tries to do that and declares its success, and they all have masses of armed soldiers to prove it. Their idea of “good?” That’s your idea too. This is not a local problem, here or there; this is the human false origin narrative and it is ending badly, everywhere at once.

Unfortunately, because we are such dangerous crazy bastards whose answer to everything is abuse and violence, we cannot seem to concern ourselves with any other threat than social ones, human ones, and if Mom wants her SUV, then rising oceans it shall be, because who’s gonna fight with Mom?

Great. Finish it with an anti-Mom joke, that should fill the ol’ collection plate! Oh well, done for now. Of course we’re not taking Dad on either, if we’re still scared of Mom.



Aug. 3rd., 2019

The Leaning of Mife

OK, you get it. I figure my preferred title’s been taken, no doubt by some delusional, grandiose fool. Meanings of life are like, well, everyone’s got one. I’m not mad at them! Compassion is what’s required for those poor idiots. If we can find a way to feel like we have the answer, well that might be sort of irresistible, we don’t always deny Grandpa his take over Thanksgiving dinner, so no blame. Who among us who have suffered with doubt would deny one of us crackpots the temporary sense that it’s possible to know what’s going on? Even most atheists don’t try to take that from the religious followers, most of the time. Of course, folks don’t mind taking it when they’re trying to replace yours with theirs, but I digress.

The meaning of life is, you don’t ask what the meaning of joy is.

You don’t ask “Why are we here?” when you’re in a good place, that is the meaning of life.

You ask, “Why are we here?” when you’re far from home, in prison, in a lethal desert, on a sinking ship, at a Phil Collins concert – you get it. All life is sorrowful – but this is not an empirical truth in my philosophy, but a human truth, a human created situation. We make damned sure life is sorrowful, on purpose, if not completely consciously – that is the meaning of human life. Forced migrations, prisons, doomed ocean crossings, these things are not always Mother Nature. It’s human beings that make Phil Collins concerts happen.

You know I think I have the answer, that everything we say we do to make us “good” is what makes us tough and unreasonable, that the “punishments” that “deter” and “teach us right from wrong” are functionally actually abuse that make us mean and crazy and teach us to abuse in turn, just the sort of folks that when you live with them you start to wonder, why am I here?

I know, you were probably looking for some noun, progress, salvation – even procreation. But you can’t get there from here.

From here, the meaning of life is, how about we try to stop spending all day every day making our children and everyone else miserable so that they keep asking that sad question forever?




July 14th., 2019

Why Biology Blows Minds

I learned some biology, read a few biology books after I turned fifty, and promptly suffered a medication-assisted mental breakdown that jettisoned me out of my life. A famous leading biologist suffered such crises while learning biology and while developing some huge theories (meant in the grander sense, not of guesses). Two fellows, that is hardly a trend, but this is only my knowledge, and honestly, I haven’t checked for a larger trend. Even if it’s only the two of us, it’s worth a look, considering one of them is me.

This was three years ago for me now, and of course learning the truth about the biological world probably wasn’t the problem, the problem must be the setup of an early life without biological knowledge. Learning something that you never knew before, that you knew nothing about before, that’s one thing, but if you learn something and it breaks you, then you were thinking something blatantly wrong about it and you didn’t probably even know you were thinking it.

That sentence could be a synopsis of The Blank Slate, and perhaps that’s part of it, it did help me see that I had some version of the ghost in the machine going on, that I thought of “the mind” as something ethereal, but really, these discrete, blatant conversations about invisible things or not, these we litigate out loud, we’re not shaken by questions of materialism anymore. I’m not, I don’t think. It’s got to be something less conscious than that, less debatable than that to break people.

So, you all know how this goes, now I have to finagle it so that it’s seeing, or nearly seeing my antisocialization thing that does it to us, I mean probably. I’ve come to expect it, it’s gotten to where I expect that every honest exploration is going to take me there – but I must say, it’s not obvious to me at the moment, not like the rest of these angles I’ve thought I had it rather easy with. That answer is what came along with the crisis I had, but I don’t think it caused it – although I should stop just before that and recuse myself. That was a trauma. If anyone is in a position not to properly analyze it, I suppose everybody else knows that would be me. There was a ramping up of trouble though, with this insight at the peak, not at the start . . . still.

Of course, the other fellow didn’t have my insight at all, few have, he had his own, many of them, and many proven and accepted and now a big part of the world of real knowledge. Wait – was the first one relatedness theory? Because that might read as a rather cold, brutal refutation of the loving world someone may have been selling us, that love and family really is a function of our microscopic parts and described with some arithmetic. That might hurt a sensitive person, it’s the same sort of emotional kick in the gonads as my idea, maybe. Ouch.

I think this one stops here for awhile, I think long and slow, and this is sort of news for me at the moment, that it’s not only me and my idea that . . . offend, when we learn deeper truths about the world. Big words exist for this, deconstructionism, decolonizing your mind, but that’s not how I talk, not how I need things spelled out for me. I’m rather taken with the other fellow’s language, deception, self-deception, and maybe it’s not even the clash of the lie with the new truth that hurts so much as all that, but rather that we fight these battles alone and the prize for victory is also solitude.

Wow, that got awkward quickly.



June 2nd., 2019

Beyond Evolution VS Creation

New idea (sort of), that what Darwin, what evolutionists are up against is not some offense that we are “just animals,” but rather what I’m up against, the mimic meme, the great social myth that humans are different because we’re nicer, that our special development isn’t just a special version of mean.

This is our species’ false origin story now, maybe always, that we rose above the animals through “cooperation,” or “altruism,” and in that sense a “morality handed down by a god or a godly messenger” would fill the same purpose in one of those forms, in any given sentence in one of those arguments -the myth that we dominate this world because we are better and not because we are worse. I think the offense evolutionists face has the same flavour as the offense voiced in opposition to permissiveness, to leniency and the advance of liberalism generally, and that’s the larger context for it, not so much whether humans are partly divine, or whether there is a god or not – but whether our lifestyle, the social order, supported by these rationalizations is right or wrong. I don’t mean capitalism, or the patriarchy, for me, all these serve the human warrior society; capitalism means money may abuse, patriarchy means men may abuse. I mean the abuse itself, not who or what is allowed to do it, but that someone always is. That little factoid gets flipped upside-down in this false backstory of ours, that is what’s supposed to make us better.

(New readers may have some confusion. For me “abuse” includes all abuse, socially sanctioned punishments included, because punishment is a technology that includes the application of abuse. Punishment, in our world, is supposed to make us “better,” while abuse, punishment’s major component, has been shown quite robustly to make us “worse,” at least in the eyes of the law, educators, medicine, etc.)

Perhaps something here explains that while evolution generally had popularity, even its adherents had resistance to Lamarck, to the idea that we create ourselves, and that that resistance is still alive and fighting, apparently. If it’s the great machine, OK, we say, fine, evolution, and we are still created beings, formed by forces larger than ourselves and beyond our control. We are still not self-aware or self-responsible in this state, and there is still the room for and a need for God, despite the apparent conflict. Indeed, this would seem to be the creature we see in the news and any dreams we may have of great human destinies do tend to fade with experience and age. We can be managed in certain ways, but humanity cannot apparently be reasoned with.

That’s the mimic meme too, not just some parent, beating their child to “make them good,” but the larger, social idea that it has worked, and that we are good, again, that we have won the tournament against the rest of the world and bent it to our stupid, stupid will – because we are “good,” altruistic, cooperative, empathetic . . . a lovely list of words, to be sure. Evolution is acceptable if we are horrible but powerless in the process, and evolution may be acceptable if we have had a hand in it, but if that’s going to be the story, we had better look “good” in that story, or first, who wants to hear it, and second and more importantly, what good does saying it do? We’re not supposed to tell a child they’re bad, only that their action was bad, because we don’t want them to take it to heart, so how do you tell apes that their bad actions have the unfortunate effect of making them bad? Talking about abuse still, always.

I tell myself I don’t write for children. I know I’m looking for dangerous places to be – honestly it’s all just talk now, I’ve already ruined my real life by taking this issue on with my child-rearing – looking for dangerous things to think about. I hope I’m not making anyone crazy with this, but I’m operating at a very young age in my cynicism; I’m still clinging to the idea of truth above all. If I didn’t have that delusion to chase, I’m afraid I wouldn’t have anything at all.

I think I understand about crackpots now, about people that get obsessed over a viewpoint. For me, this is the heart of the matter, of all matters, and so any talk at the higher levels in these matters, cultural, political, religion vs atheism, all seem secondary, but I’m sure a lot of people have their own idea of where the heart of the matter is. I’m willing to allow that matters have more than one heart, an unknown number, no doubt, but honestly, this is the one I’ve found, and frankly, whether it’s big enough to explain all that I think it does, I can’t have the certainty I’d like about that – but it’s big enough to keep me busy for awhile yet, I think. Honestly, I am staring into the abyss, I’m not trying to share that part, but you probably see. I need something that I can fool myself is important, to keep me busy, you know what they say about idle hands.

At least until I get some sense somebody else has gotten the idea, that I’ve been able to breathe life into this meme, and see it thriving and reproducing out there in nature.




May 25th., 2019


Here’s a Part #2



Motivating the Great Unwashed

IF the racist bell curve were a real thing, then what it would mean is this: that 49% of white people are below average and 51% of black people are below average. I don’t buy it, just IF.

Anyone trying to base any sort of policy and budgeting that discriminates by race is prioritizing the inferior 49% of whites over all blacks, defying their own logic immediately, Charles Murray distributing public resources to these inferior whites and depriving the superior blacks, because “superior/inferior,” wasting our tax money in exactly the way he’s arguing that we shouldn’t be. Considering the demographic proportions in America, he’s wasting almost six times the resources, trying to educate the bottom half of the larger white population!

So we know Charles is in that group, he’s just trying to elevate himself, because if things were a meritocracy, that sort of logic would keep you out of the good schools. Of course, that’s whose interests are to prioritize their group, their “people,” the inferior ones want to enjoy the benefits the superior ones have acquired. “Racists are stupid” isn’t just anecdotal, because of course the less intelligent members of the dominant race are motivated to be all in on race, on their group’s dominance. That’s just science.

A fine place to drop the microphone, but it raises the question – is there something the modern liberal society does to counter that motivation, something we do to motivate the whites in the other direction? I mean, we try to talk and teach, but do we do anything to actually motivate them in the other direction? It’s a new thought, but I must say, nothing is coming to mind!

And what might that be? Now we have to start to examine whether an actual meritocracy isn’t also inherently cruel, that a white meritocracy is what threatens the less gifted and drives them to their group attachments, race attachments . . . it’s always the false dichotomy, the false choice, isn’t it? Somebody has to get the shitty end of the stick. Do you want it to be your kids?

I don’t buy that either, nobody has to get the shitty end of the stick.

Fuck that guy and his shitty stick. I’m sorry, that’s where it all goes for me, all of our problems are the same one problem.




May 24th., 2019

Directions, expanded

Just an update, I’ve tried to stretch this for clarity.

I wasn’t going to write this blog – and I didn’t. It’s just a Twitter rant. But it’s a clarification, certainly an important part of antisocialization theory.


  1. Sorry for teasing, if anybody was. I’m afraid this trailer signified the end of my output for now. Anyway, like a lot of it, I’ve already laid this idea out before. But rather than send you back to an earlier, dumber me, I’ll give it to you in point form, Twitter style. /more

(This referring to a teaser tweet from a few days ago with the following text)

Well, I’m almost sixty.

I guess it’s time I stop all this infantile radicalism and start spouting some long-winded lullaby about some stupid middle of some boring road. Have we met? LOL, you’ve met me now! I can’t imagine anything that would capture me better than that with all the time and ink in the world.

How about some compromise between Man the Rational Animal and Man the Meaningless, lost in relativism and adaptations to adaptations to we don’t even know what anymore?

Shouldn’t need our teeth for that. Grab your cardigan, put the kettle on for a nice Ovaltine and watch this idiot finally stop trying to tear the world down for some rebuild that he should have known since statutory adulthood was never coming.

(Then on to Point Number two. From here, I’ll try to expand, stretch out the shorthand to something someone can follow.)


  1. The point of antisocialization theory is that our punishments schemes and abuse push our personalities in a DIRECTION, and perhaps that direction is the opposite direction to where our schemes push our behaviour for the most part, meaning we LOOK better, but we FEEL worse. /more

What I’m after here is the idea that while use of punishments does control some behaviours, making life better and safer at home within our group for the most part, where our most egregious individuals are controlled, exiled or killed, there is a cost and a downside, and that is that each of us are participating in fighting him and so to some degree the violence we are trying to stop him from we are now all involved in.

It’s hard to imagine that we have a technology that makes this negative energy (these negative causes and effects) disappear, energy doesn’t disappear, it is converted, moved – stored, perhaps in this case, the individual murderer’s violence is traded for our group violent control, we lose a murderer and we all become police, jailers, executioners, and share the load of some violent constant, nothing created and nothing lost. This goes to conscious evolution, and self-domestication. I don’t think you can beat yourself passive. I think if we are domesticated, we are also the slavers as well as the domestic labour pool, it has to be a process of splitting, and for us to be getting more sheep-like, we must also be getting more wolf-like. It would seem that the existing state of evolutionary psychology is focussed upon the success of our conscious efforts and our growing sheep-like traits, they are writing books to explain our decreased violence and our ability to work together.

I think they’re ignoring the dark side. I accuse them in my heart of leaving human pain, misery and mental illness to the “blank slate psychologists” they say will never solve anything. I worry that for them, just as for parents, none of which ever went to parenting college, this punishing business is a magic bullet, no cost, no downside. I say this a lot, and if any of them think I’m wrong, none of them are engaging me about it. Of course, I’m no-one and unpublished. Social media is a place to talk, not necessarily a place to be heard; I can’t know any of them have read my complaints.

Frankly, as things have been, group conflict almost always being our biggest problem, my “dark side” is a feature, not a bug, makes us strong and we’re still here, not selected out. But if it’s a feature, why can’t we talk about it? Conscious evolution is going to require that we don’t have huge areas we aren’t conscious enough to talk about.


  1. There’s a lot of stuff to say and fight about there, but for now, this: abuse produces more crime, and discipline produces more effective armies, and so the DIRECTION pain drives our personalities in is towards fighting, violence, defensiveness, aggression. /more

Just to clarify, violence is a large component of all those vocations, the common factor. When attempting to engage in science, we try to get beneath social constructs like dividing violence into criminal and law enforcement violence, because there are common elements that predate ideas like law and crime, things to know about it beyond the current value attachments. Abuse is a component of both criminal abuse and military discipline.


  1. “Abuse,” when I say it in these contexts, includes punishment and discipline, because those things include the use of abuse. But, addressing this question, we have a PRINCIPLE, a near species-wide behaviour, that pushes us in a particular DIRECTION, so – /more

By this I mean to agree with Richard Wrangham and any before him that have traced the progress of our civilization and seen the role of our majority rule, punishments and capital punishment, I agree that yes, this is a human trait, perhaps universal. People know the power of punishment, for me, people know the power of abuse. I agree, we all know the power of conscious punishment to reach some of our conscious goals. I believe myself, that we also unconsciously know the power of abuse to reach our perhaps less conscious goals. And maybe this less conscious part is the less malleable part, and so the more universal part.

I think where our conscious efforts take us, Wrangham probably tells this story very well, but being conscious and overt, perhaps this is flexible, sort of steerable what we teach, what we punish for, what crimes we designate and what behaviours are mandatory, and cultures certainly vary. But abuse, this provides direction, pretty thoroughly documented by all sorts of social science, and while things are being debunked, the whole general direction isn’t likely to be. That direction is violence, fighting, and it springs organically from the application of abuse, regardless of the lesson intended. Statistically, I mean, by Big Data.


  1. – so determining initial conditions, like some “human nature,” with its connotations of innateness, isn’t either the point, possible, or necessary. We know what DIRECTION we’re swimming. We know where we’re TRYING to go, where we are working to TAKE our natures to. /more

Hmmm . . . this bit’s clear enough, maybe . . .


  1. So much for origins and innateness, but also the more nuanced position of endless relativism, of adaptive fictions and constructed realities – again, maybe we can SAY we don’t know which way is up or which DIRECTION we’re swimming, but look at us: /more
  2. When you see all the salmon struggling in the same direction, maybe they don’t have a clear idea what it is, or maybe they wouldn’t tell us and give away their ancestral homeland to us predators, but they’re all swimming the same DIRECTION and so we can glean it. /more
  3. You must know where I see us all swimming to: strength, discipline, and never-ending war and strife. This adaptive behaviour works for the last group standing, I suppose, and we’ll be down to that soon enough if we don’t see where we’re trying so hard to get. /done

This is where the rubber meets the road for me, that we talk about either our static “natures” getting us into this pickle, or the never-ending conflict is an accident, some default we fall into because we’re just not trying hard enough or something – when I’ve had this insight that it’s what we do the most, the things that we never let up on for a second that have brought us to this state of affairs, and those are our punishments, and again, I think we can’t beat ourselves passive.



  1. you ever get tired and sad and give up and try to beg off and NOT write something brilliant? SMFH. 🤓🤣🤣🤣



May 12th., 2019

The Extreme Case

My main point is, all the pain we administer to one another, legal or otherwise, all hurts us, angers us, and statistically drives us to violence and group conflict. Abuse does this, and the abuse component of our intended deterrents also does this, because pain is pain like water is water and things like pain and water have real world properties beyond our desires for them.

Perhaps my largest iteration of this is that societies that are hardest on children are the most fearsome at war, illustrated by parables like the Spartan mother who kills her son when he returns home with a wounded back, suggesting he had retreated. The real-world display of this principle is that that the current Spartans, the current world empire with an unbeatable military is the last country of the former First World that is not signing the UN Rights of the Child Charter, America.

The extreme case is that the Nazi and/or neo-Nazi groups are filled with angry young men, abused by their mothers, fathers, and their surrogates and directing their anger to strangers from other cultures, strangers with different skin tones or churches.

I was busy on a project, replacing the tuners on my guitar recently and didn’t change the TV channel all day and wound up watching one of the expose/infomercials about American white supremacy groups and the police who infiltrated them. At one point, an officer tells us he messed up, potentially ruined his cover by starting a story with “When I was in college,” – a major red flag in that world – and scrambled to cover it with the story that his dad had made him go, he’d gone one year and gotten booted for some racist violence. That got him through, because his dad made him do it, and he hated his dad for it, he hated his dad . . . they all understood that. And they all agreed that brown people and Jews would pay the price, that hunting down their own white fathers isn’t how it works.

If that isn’t the power of antisocialization theory working like bloody magic, wind them up and let them go, and they never seem to make the connection.

Enough, isn’t it?



May 10th., ,2109