Behind the Fog

Philosophical ramblings




Home



Conversations


There are people who twist simple thoughts and make them seem evil. They have the ability to use words and aggression to make you and those who listen think that your ideas are evil. Aggression is their tool to make people submit to their will. Control is their goal. And they have the ability to make not just the listeners believe them, but even their targets become unsure of what they really meant.

People usually express thoughts which are deeply rooted in their subconscious and are rather thinly exposed to their consciousness. Nevertheless, they are there and have a specific bias. But the aggressors have the ability to turn this vision upside down and make you believe the opposite.

But look behind the fog that these aggressors cast around, and see the naked facts... Have patience when you read this because it's hard to see through the fog created by those people.



If you're honest, you have nothing to hide

I have everything to hide, everything that criminals want to know in order to rob me. If criminals would not know who I am, where I live, where I work, who pays me and how much, where I keep my money, if they could not reach me or my friends (to point a gun at them), then they would not know if it's worth and would not be able to rob me, rape me or murder me.

There is no moral in law, there is no justice, it's a simple matter of who has the power to establish rules in order to efficiently rob, rape and murder. They can do it and I can't protect myself, my family or my friends.

Consider that a guy doesn't pay his taxes and the justice system says that he must pay. The law enforcement go to the guy's house, knock on the door, point a gun at him and ask him to pay his due. The guy says "Fuck off!" and closes the door.

Now consider that the law enforcement can't physically do anything else, they can't go in the guy's house, they can shoot but their bullets fall on the ground just as they go out the barrel, they can't stop the guy from buying food and other stuff and for these things to get into his house, they can't poison his water or air, they can't infiltrate a mole into the guy's house to stop all the magic. There is equality of force.

Tell me this, if you were the guy, who would be the righteous one, the moral one, the one who is right? You or the monsters who came to rob you or murder you?

There is no moral in law, there is no justice, it's a simple matter of who has the power to establish rules in order to efficiently rob, rape and murder. They can do it and I can't protect myself, my family or my friends.



Freedom, choice, discrimination

Discrimination = the act of discriminating; the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions, discernment; prejudice.

Discriminating = able to recognize or draw fine distinctions, perceptive; showing careful judgment or fine taste; separating into distinct parts or components, analytical; serving to distinguish, distinctive; marked by or showing bias.



Are there two identical things in the Universe? There are not! Then why would you not discriminate among them? There is left, there is right, there is up, there is down, all different and even opposed aspects of Nature.

If things are different and you don't discriminate them, then you can't make choices because you see all things equal. Things are not equal, they are not the same. Things are different. Discriminate them so you can see the difference and make choices.

If you see better things, if you see worse things, discriminate them from what you already know / have / see, so that you can choose from them only what you want.

To be free means to choose. You have a will. You can choose. Then choose what your will says. But in order to be able to choose, you must be able to see the difference. Then discriminate!

Do not obey those who tell you that you must not choose. Do not obey those who tell you not to discriminate. Things are not all the same. Manifest your will! Do not obey! See the difference! Discriminate!

Freedom means choice, the ability to choose from different things, better or worse, as you see them. Discrimination is the path to take in order to see the difference. Discriminate!

If you make a choice, you are not free anymore. You are stuck with the choice you made. But it was your choice! You can also choose later. But in order to be able to choose, you must be able to tell the difference among things. Discriminate!

Discriminate things because they are not equal. Choose. Good or bad, right or wrong, choose because choice is the very Heart of Freedom! Your choice is not what is going to shape Reality. Reality is shaped by the interaction of billions of people who make choices. Choose! Choose for yourself and let others choose for themselves! Do not tell others to not choose! Do not let others tell you to not choose! Do not obey!

Allow yourself to make choices! Discriminate so can see the difference among things. Manifest your will to see, to understand the difference.

Do not obey those who tell you to not discriminate. They want you to not be able to see, they want you to not be able to tell the difference so that you could not make choices. Manifest your freedom to make choices. Discriminate!

But above all, discriminate hate! See hate. Look into its eyes. Look how it fights to grab you and consume you. Look hate in the eyes and ignore it! Let it starve. Do not feed it with your mind! Discriminate hate!

Left – right, up – down, man – woman, black – white... What do you see? Do you see hate? Do you believe black – white is a racial discrimination? Or do you see hate lurking in your mind, waiting for an opportunity to devour you? Is your mind still trapped by those who told you to hate, to stop manifesting your freedom of choice? Or can you now discriminate the fact that hate is imprisoning you?

Ignore hate! Man and woman are different genders, black and white are different colors. Discriminate! See the difference.

But above all, discriminate hate!

Choose your path! Do not obey those who tell you not to choose! Discriminate!



Isn't all discrimination hateful?

What does discrimination actually mean?

Discrimination is a process where an individual makes / perceives a distinction between two things which appear to him one worthy and one unworthy of (his) attention. This is the meaning of the word: a distinction based on perceived quality (and thus potential profit).

For instance, you go to shop for apples at the market and you see something which makes it easy for you to make a choice. One seller has gorgeous looking apples, one has tinny corroded looking apples. You go for the gorgeous looking ones. You made a discrimination based on look. You made a choice. Actually, it's rather certain you made the wrong choice.

I don't know if you have home grown apples down there (I mean at the market), but such apples, which are really sweet, don't look great and some have a sort of light-brown rash on their skin (I don't know how to call this type of apples).

Anyway, the point is that you made a discrimination and as a consequence you made a choice. But there was no hate in your discrimination!

(Instead of the types of apples, you could think that one seller is a gorgeous looking woman, the other is some toothless old dude.)

But there are people who don't like discrimination because they don't control the choices you make. These people want uniformity, the opposite of diversity, so that at least you can't make choices (if they really can't force you to make the choices they want).

These people have the ability to manipulate words in order to induce thoughts and behaviors. To do so, one must induce either a state of fear or one of hate, that is, a state of uneasiness, a lack of physical or mental comfort.

How is this achieved? There are two ways. One is by aggression, where the manipulator psychologically assaults his listeners. Normal human behavior determines the listeners to withdraw, to settle, to obey. Why? Because the aggressor is perceived as powerful, as being the alpha male - the leader of the flock.

The second way to induce behavior is for the manipulator to behave as the "means to a goal", that is, as someone who can lead the flock to comfort (because this is what the flock wants: comfort). In this case, the manipulator starts speaking of factors which appear external to him, like moral and gods. The manipulator behaves so that the listeners don't become aware that he is driving them to a goal (his goal in fact). This is why he speaks of factors which appear external to him.

So, the flock wants comfort. Thus, the goal of the manipulator is to induce in the listener one of two ideas:

  • He can lead them to comfort, but this means that the flock must do something (which the manipulator carefully avoids to make it look like it's in his favor, like: voting for him, giving him money).

  • The victim of this indirect assault is destroying the comfort of the flock, and so the flock must ostracize / destroy the victim.

To get back to discrimination, there are four parties involved: the discriminator (which is about to become the victim), the target of the discrimination (which is about to become the portrayed victim of the discrimination), the manipulator, and the flock (= the many, the tool).

The manipulator takes a discrimination made by the discriminator, pushes the idea of hate into it, and presents it to the flock. There was no hate in the original discrimination, but for the flock it doesn't matter anymore.

People are really not conscious that they constantly make discriminations. They are not conscious because this discrimination brings them profit, and this is the focus of their behavior, not the path to it. Since people are not normally conscious of this, once this is brought forth packed together with the idea of hate, the flock shivers.

Just the fact that discrimination has become conscious is enough to determine the flock to see it as being bad because they empathize with the weak (= by mirroring themselves as the weak). But they are also led to believe that the discriminator hates the portrayed victim. This amplifies the effects and makes the flock follow the "leader".



What happens when the basis of discrimination is irrational?

Discrimination is a biased process whose goal is choice. The bias exists due to many factors, but they can be grouped mainly in biology and life experience (which is in fact a string of discriminations made during the interaction with the environment for the entire life time).

It's very simple to say that people make choices. But people don't flip a coin in order to make a choice. They go through a mental process which is this discrimination, separating present facts into categories of profitability (physical and psychological) based on their past experiences and their biological bias.

For instance, most men like women, and most women like men. Both groups act accordingly to this biological bias when they interact with other men and women. Their behavior is different for each of these two groups.

Now, how could you tell whether a certain discrimination is rational or irrational before you make a choice? You can, maybe, do it based on your (past) experience.

But the problem is that if people would know that a certain discrimination is irrational, nobody would do it. Hence, there would be no irrational discrimination. In fact, only after the result of a choice becomes clear, it could be said that a certain discrimination was profitable or not (for the person who made the choice), and thus rational or irrational (if this is the meaning you used for "irrational").

So, irrational discrimination means loss.



Your "Discrimination is a biased process whose goal is choice" is only a word game.

Indeed, word games. There are extremely slick people who have stunning inborn abilities to fuse two distinct concepts together, like moral and anything else, and to sell this package to lots of people as if there is just one concept.

To these people, manipulation of the audience in order to control their behavior is first nature and can't be fought with because it's easier to destroy than it is to build (that is, it's easier to destroy the distinction between the two concepts, than it is to make people see the distinction).

I say "a gun is a weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory". What does a manipulator do? He comes in and pushes the concept of morality to everybody: "but guns are evil; just last night I saw a man getting his head blown off".

I used the guns example because most people here are likely to relate to this example and see that moral DOES NOT change the definition of the word "gun", but it DOES change the perception of those who listen about guns linked to moral.

Yes, these people play word games, conflating their views of moral with anything said by those who do not obey them, and aggressively push the two concepts as one to those who are to be controlled: the audience.

Hate and discrimination are two different concepts. Guns and murder are two different concepts. Unless you can prove hate was used to discriminate, you're just a very slick manipulator of words and behaviors.



You said it's wrong to say "discrimination is good when it involves selecting the finest result, and it's bad when it involves selecting based on some irrelevant quality of the producer."

It's like I said above. You are insistently trying to push the concept of morality into a distinct concept.

Here are your statements, rephrased to eliminate moral:

  • Discrimination leads to gains when it involves selecting the finest result.

  • Discrimination leads to loss when it involves selecting based on some irrelevant quality of the producer.

Of course, you can see the results only after you make such discriminations, so saying this means putting the effect in front of the cause.

Discrimination based on hate of (some) humans is called racism.



There are no races

Interestingly, all those who cry out and work hard to hide the differences among groups of humans, and try to obliterate the distinctions because it's just not right for people to be grouped in "race" or "breed" or whatever, come suddenly to their senses when they realize that anthropology can make the distinction among the skulls of various people who were killed (here I should say: by vicious murderers). Anthropology can narrow down the victim's... group (to avoid saying race here).

Taking a skeleton, you can't say (from a biological perspective) whether the human was left or right handed, had brown or blue eyes, had white or black or yellow or red skin. But you can take a skull and say, generally, whether the human was white or black or yellow. Great balls of fire! It's because of those racial / breed / group differences!







License | Contact