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. The purple ones hate the orange ones and the orange ones persecute the green ones  – the point isn’t which colour is better, even for the racists. The point of the ideology is life is a fight, we need to be fighting and killing somebody, and skin colour is such obvious and easy criteria, like God gave us team uniforms.

They want to choose their victims by race, we say “racist.”

They want to persecute LGBTQ folks, “homophobic.” (I have issues with aggression labelled as fear, seems the homophobes chose their label themselves, but it makes the list with its Newspeak name.)

I swear to God, maybe y’all don’t see it – but you are arguing about who we should persecute and kill all day long and the selection process is not the point, the point is by doing so you’re still allowing that we must kill somebody, like the haters are allowed to hate, they’re allowed to go on their rabble-rousing missions until we all decide, wait, no – save those folks. We like them.

You wanna be a wild, snarling animal like you portray your targets, fine, but don’t pretend there’s any end to justify the means – the means are the end, warrior life is a warrior’s goal. You blaming some “them” for the wars as you sneak off to your secret Nazi terrorist training camp? Biology fools us all.

You hear it all day long from the bad guys, we “don’t like,” “the bible says don’t” – and apparently for them, the rest doesn’t need to be said. Of course if you “don’t like” someone you have to kill them! This is what a core belief is, the one everyone has so you can never even know it’s there. We just argue about who gets the treatment, and honestly most of it is “my group shouldn’t get the treatment.”

No-one needs the treatment. I’ve often wondered why there isn’t a coalition of everyone not white and male among the resistance, among the complainers of the world, but as usual, AST brings answers where other theories obfuscate: we all think someone needs to be killed, so no-one is arguing against that, as such. No argument against war and genocide on principle, just who shall it be next? For instance, a lot of decent folks think that’s the solution for Nazis, I mean you can’t talk to the bastards – yes, I’m trying anyway. But seriously, even the nicest of us must hold this belief, because I don’t ever see anyone saying don’t ever kill anyone, ever, for nuthin’.

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. 29th., 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

Here’s the next one