The Law VS Evolution: Taking the Courts to Court

No single Creator made this world. Nothing has an eternal Nature, and no-one needs to be controlled for it. The human world is made by humans, if we’re evil or broken, that’s on us and us alone, and to a great degree we are those things and it is on us, something we’re doing. Something we are, most of us say, the Nature thing again, but no, I’m sorry, that’s off the table, at least it is in my kitchen and that’s where you are right now, it’s something we do.

.

In evolution, otherwise known as life, what we do and what we are travel together. What you do is what you are, what you do is what you are becoming.

.

What we do is a lot of abuse to control the assumed Nature, and that eternal Nature isn’t really there, so what’s left? A lot of abuse to be what we are, to be what we are becoming, which, too obvious, but saying two plus two is a writer’s job, so: abuse victims and abusers. It’s on us, and no-one else. And again, always, it’s evolution, this isn’t something that happens to some eternal model of human in every life, all this is cumulative. In theory, and surely in an invisible reality, in the potful of water and frogs, every generation in a world of controlling abuse gets more so, more abusive, more abused.

Also, sorry to say, this doesn’t happen in the wild, and education won’t do it. I’m very much a privileged person, I don’t know anyone who didn’t go to school, but they all believe in the Nature. This happens at the top of our society, in the institutions. It is precisely the institutions of control that are at the centre of it. Who is rioting? The police, right? The peacekeepers, leading the charge for abuse in general.

.

I mean, Law is based in the Natures, and as such is against natural law, meaning evolution. Law makes crime and criminals, and always, life is evolution, so it makes them cumulatively. It is amazing to watch police budgets take over everything, and they cannot imagine that it’s just stupid and misguided. They say: the people are getting worse, we need more money, as though the change happened in their absence, as if they have only been trying their way for a month.

.

The simple logic, police are here, and people are getting worse, that’s two plus two in evolution, otherwise known as real life, but there is this matter of neurotype. Two plus two isn’t simple for everyone.

Jeff

May 7th., 2024

The Last Blog, the Puzzle

I’m finished. I’m done, said it all or said enough for the world for a few centuries anyway. But I will confess, it’s not very clear, the blog’s a mess of divergent thinking and divergent grammar to boot and I personally could never suffer through enough of it to get the point, and I don’t expect anyone else to.

I’ve been fantasizing about auditing it for quality and relevance, see which ones were downright embarrassing and would turn you away and harm the cause and so need to be deleted, but honestly that thought centres around only a few entries, and any expansion of the criteria may wipe the hole thing out. Why bother.

Just know this: it was a journey, so the focus . . . evolves, probably from trying to express myself within the parameters of the NT science and psychology I began with to combat spanking, to evo sort of theories about why we spank, and then to neurodiversity based ideas about it, about how spanking pretty much defines and directs the majority neurotype.

It’s been a few years since I’ve boasted, but the kernel of the idea I began with has not changed and it has survived and evolved through all challenges, absorbing or simply refuting all challenges, but this only means that I am corroborating myself, it only means that within my view, I can make it all fit in a way that doesn’t offend my neurology. Not to minimize it completely, the whole world of human beings offends my neurology. It wasn’t easy finding my own mind. The whole world seemed to fight me.

On a personal level, this has been horribly, fantastically true.

I’ve learned something very recently, so it’s still hot, but . . . yeah.

Back to the blog, what I say here probably has its whole development in the blog somewhere, not that me saying it is a citation, but it’s an attempt to pre-emptively stop you thinking there isn’t a whole lot of thought behind this rather short iteration, the puzzle.

Spanking makes for authoritarianism.

No-one gets “better,” as in nicer from punitive abuse, all that is just words, and lies to boot. An environment of threat and abuse in childhood changes people, maybe just Allistic people. It sets an epigenetic option for authoritarianism, for violence.

Because evolution is how the world works, not how your stupid Dad said it works, by threats and deterrents. We evolve, we do not avoid.

But they won’t stop, this is the puzzle.

Either they are “nice,” people who believe the words or they are less nice people who believe in the result, the aggression, and call it strength. Neither sort will stop, the last statistic I heard, surely a decade or two old by now, said that eighty-five percent of Americans self reported spanking (doing it to children, not getting spanked. This clarification is necessary on social media). The rise of fascism would seem to suggest that it has not lessened more recently.

It makes them aggressive, spanking, and they won’t stop, because they are aggressive and aggressive is good, when you’ve been spanked. It is the most vicious of vicious circles, and it is the puzzle of the age, the one that because it hasn’t been solved, we cannot stop the rich from burning the oil, because the authoritarianism of money is to be expected when you’ve been spanked, because toxic madness is not something a spanked population can imagine life without. Spanking blots out the real world for the human social world of control, we are all forced to a choice by spanking, believe my mind and the reality I see, or believe Mom and Dad and survive?

Spanking pushes them over the edge into purely social. The violence in the environment sets them up to learn violence and hate, this is adaptation, learn it or fade away. The world is coming to a bad end, and we created an environment of threat and violence . . . weird to say: on purpose. I mean, spanking and cops, this is intentional, right? They certainly own it when they spank, it’s all You will do it My Way. They don’t seem to think it’s an accident when they do it.

The puzzle is to make them see it, to stop the spanking and watch their stupid “Natures,” miraculously change for the better, to convince an angry, aggressive creature that life would be better without it, that they themselves need to want to evolve in the other direction and it’s already too late, but like the old saying, the best time is generations ago, but second best is now.

Jeff

April 10th., 2024

There’s a Part Two:

Christianity: the Revolution that Never Happened.

This is the revolution, intended, I think, as a revolution in Judaism, that didn’t happen. You’ve heard it before, this below, from Matthew:
Matthew 5 (King James Version)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

Here, Jesus refers to the Old Testament scripture, the traditional model for Hebrew law and punishment, and then issues the new Way, the revolution. He is making a case here, as in many other places, for a more forgiving and less vengeful God. More to the point for me, I think he made a case for a less vengeful and more forgiving Man.
(Jesus was surrounded by zealots, freedom fighters, or at least the leaders who talked them up, the hawks of his day, plus he was contested and marginalized by the orthodoxy, and the Herod clan. These conservatives had a good case against him, he was politically hamstrung by the occurence of his birth while his mother was still in “virgin” status, so Jesus was dealt the position of moderate, and moderator. The conservative, orthodox church leaders, if not the king, Herod, were to some degree aligned with the zealots against the Roman occupation, and so Jesus, pitted against them by his unauthorized birth, was also set up against the zealots, and so, found himself in the role of peacemaker.)
http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com/index1.html
And so, this new, more civilized code of punishment.

 

I think Jesus announced a model of peacemaking with these great words, and set a new model for society in general.
It seems that the Christian concept of a more forgiving God caught on; God is now seen as gentler, and far more loving that the punishing, jealous God of the Old Testament.
But the more forgiving Mankind?
Punishment is still the rule of the land, all lands. In the Western world, we no longer take eyes, or teeth, true, that has improved – but we certainly haven’t made it all the way to ‘turning the other cheek also.’
Not even with our children!
Jesus’ time was a high water mark for civilization, one of the few times his message of peace and rejection of punishment could have had a chance in the long, rough history of the world, but old habits die hard. It’s still Old School, Old Testament, when push comes to shove.
It may have taken two thousand years to hear Jesus’ message, but we are arguably at another high point of civilization, and it’s one of those changes, like quitting any bad habit, it’s always going to be a good change to make. The message is, get hurt, model peace. Prioritize peace over ‘security.’ Security annihilates peace. Take some lumps. Show the bad guys what it looks like to NOT fight, show them what it’s like when someone DOESN’T hurt someone.
At least show your CHILDREN these things.
Turn the other cheek.
Viva la Revolution!

He who is without Sin May Punish.

Punishment only counts as punishment when done by an authorized person. As it may apply to Christianity, who are the authorized persons? The purest version of the answer, of course, is God (Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord). Jesus, when placed in the position of judge, seemed to think no sinner qualified.

From the Gospel of John (King James Version):

8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Interesting to note, Jesus also chooses not to condemn the woman, whether from his divinity and mercy or from his humanity and that he perhaps also counted himself among the sinners, I can’t say. It is clear, though, that he was saying that no sinner should be condemning anyone, even when the crime is proven – they said she was caught in the very act – and even when the punishment is traditional and acceptable to the society. It is clearly the condition of authority he finds lacking here, and lacking in everyone. He tells the woman the lesson, ‘sin no more,’ and that is the end of it.
All men are sinners, and so Jesus appears to find no adequate authority for the definition of punishment, therefore the teachings of Jesus show that only God can punish, and so when people try, it can only be abuse.

Original Sin

Mass-murderers like Charlie Manson and Andreas Brevik (spelling?) seem to think everyone is a psycho like them. They have it in common that all they thought they needed to do to start a race/faith war was to kill a few people, a few tens of people, and the war would be on, that all the average guy needs is for someone to start the killing and we’d all jump in and go on a mass mass-murder spree, a national, even global, bench-clearing brawl. They think everyone is like them, or at least that we all secretly want to be.
A core belief in people’s intrinsic violence, intrinsic evil, that’s what that is. Or to put it in other words, they hold with the doctrine of Original Sin.
Which is, of course, is a strong predictor for the nearly universal belief in the social tool known as punishment.
(This is what makes Charlie so captivating when he talks. He seems to know this, that he and we are not that far apart.)
It’s no secret that the religious, at least the Christian religious make no bones about this, that Original Sin is a tenet, they think it’s true, hence the need for God. And they mostly all follow the extrapolated idea from it, “spare the rod and spoil the child.” But what of the disavowed, the atheists, the lapsed? Also true, for the most part. We can deny the church, we can deny the bible, but it is foolish to deny that the bible is the basis of our entire culture here west of Afghanistan and east of Hawaii, (possibly excluding much of Africa) for the last 2,000 years. You atheists, you church-bashers, know this: use the rod, and you propagate the very thing you hope to extinguish!
This is a key part of the interaction between religion and our faith in punishment as a social tool. When everyone is punished, when we are all raised with punishments that begin long before we have any understanding of the world, then a vengeful god makes sense, the idea of a punishment awaiting us at the end of a mis-lived life seems, reasonable. It has precedent, at least in our minds. Of course, this idea is normally expressed the other way ’round, that God and his punishments are the model for our lives, as written into many faiths’ texts. I don’t hope to change any minds among the religious followers, but the atheist reader will have to admit that the actual function is arranged in the natural timeline of a human life: parents first, God second.
It seems that there is no getting around our cultural heritage, certainly not if we still cling to the most important and influential beliefs of that legacy while only disavowing ourselves of the less reality-based and purely theoretical ones.
Alice Miller:
“Wherever I look, I see signs of the commandment to honour one’s parents and nowhere of a commandment that calls for the respect of a child.”