Anti-Subjugator

This document was first published here in August 2004, and updated numerous times, through September 2004, through my transition from atheist to Mu'tazilah, and represented my final understanding of the forces at work in the world.


Humans, having evolved without an instruction manual, had to learn everything by ourselves. This eventually led to the scientific process, specifically science, evidence and logic, in order to determine course of action. This is as opposed to dogma, ie just any old rubbish that someone indoctrinated children with, and when enough people had been indoctrinated, it became beyond question.

Our democracies are strong mainly as a result of the use of science. It was simple science that showed that capitalism was superior to communism. Their dogma destroyed their own economies. They should have tested communism on a hippy colony before spreading it across a whole country. Just in case!

Using science, we can go back and examine other things we have been indoctrinated with. Note that anything written here is opinion only, not sacrosanct. Everything needs to be rederived from first principles independently, or ditched, whatever. This is DEFINITELY not a dogma.

It would appear that it is a genetic tendency, especially in males, to want to control other people, and also to take whatever you want (e.g. food from other people). Those who were inhibited from doing this would have died out. To avoid dying out, one would have had to been loyal to the leader. So for protection, you need to join a tribe. As a straight business deal, loyalty to the tribe gives you protection from other tribes. There is no compassion for other humans, or even members of the same tribe.

So the natural tendency is for everyone to find a tribe that they can belong to, in order to gain protection. Children would naturally be indoctrinated to see themselves as part of that tribe.

However, the natural tendency to gain wealth from others, causes tribes to clash with each other naturally. If you can be plundered, you will be plundered. Only strength can hold someone back. That is the bottom line - strength.

In order for a tribe to be able to defend off a stronger tribe, it is necessary to form an alliance. But these alliances are still based on antagonism towards others. With indoctrination, people can insist that the alliance should be based on skin colour or somesuch, in an attempt to win loyalty. Until there is only one tribe in the world, or tribes have no reason to want to clash with each other, there will be war.

In modern warfare (science), it is the militaries of nation states that are currently the strongest tribes. The Arab-majority nations successfully allied based on various attempts at both race and dogma (Islam) in an attempt to defeat Israel. While unsuccessful, it did at least provide a rallying point, which remains today. Note that this race-based tribality leads to internal strife, e.g. Kurds in Iraq, which ultimately weakens the country.

The communists also had a rallying point, the commonality of their dogma (communism).

And then there is the greatest alliance of all, NATO. Or more specifically, the free world (liberal democracies). The rallying point is that everyone should band together to protect the right to not be subjugated by any other party. But the members all stay together due to mutual trust. No-one in Europe seriously believes that the US is about to invade them. It is this trust that is causing the alliance to get stronger all the time.

The reason for the trust, is that the member countries GENUINELY don't wish to exploit each other. Although this is a natural tendency, this tendency has been tempered by indoctrination.

In actual fact, NATO members DO exploit each other. They just don't use military force to do so. Europe has had a freed ride, defense wise for the last few decades. Where would the European welfare state be now if the Europeans had been footing the bill for their defense? And that's before we even get to Ireland and Sweden who didn't even raise their hand to join up with the free world. We all know where so-called neutrality got the Dutch in WWII.

Regardless, the indoctrination (from parents, school and optionally church) causing self-restraint is as follows:

1. Humanism - do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is the ideology that also makes our societies pleasant to live in, and allows freedom. This in turn feeds on itself and develops science at a phenomenal pace. Protect and help rather than exploit others. And create win/win situations so that people don't get scared they will end up being the losers (which is why the poor hang on to a despot like Chavez in Venezuela).

2. Humans are born equal and without sin. Therefore, people should be judged by their current behaviour rather than digging up sins of history.

It is better to give than to receive.
Forgive and forget.
Turn the other cheek.
love thy enemy (to avoid holding grudges)
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Everyone is born equal and without sin, regardless of race, religion or sex.
Respect other people's opinions and be tolerant.
Everybody is different, respect diversity.
Fix yourself before you complain about others (ie self-criticism is extremely important, especially learning about all the sins that were done by YOUR OWN race/religion/culture/sex/country in the past).
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
We should always try to help others less fortunate than ourselves.
How does the other person feel?
Ask people if they need help.
Never take the last biscuit from the plate.
Don't be selfish.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Don't judge others lest you be judged.
When helping people it should be "no strings attached", ie you should not expect anything in return, it is not a business deal.
Look at things from the other person's point of view (ie put yourself in their boots - imagine how you would feel).
It doesn't matter if someone is rich or poor, everyone is equal.
People should be judged on their current behaviour (ie what they DO), not who they ARE.
People should be judged as individuals, not as a member of a special interest group.

If you do the above things (ie be a humanist) you will go to Heaven. If you don't, you will go to Hell.

Doing all the above (ie obeying the law of any modern-day liberal democracy) makes you a humanist, and you get protection from all humanists in the world, simply by obeying the law and being a nice person (or a "good host" as the Arab tradition is).

It is this lack of racism or sectarianism, and instead adopting humanism, that has allowed the US to be allied with Germans and Japanese. And even countries that aren't allies, are normally neutral. So long as no attempt is made to exploit others, the others find no reason to form a hostile alliance.

This is how to make true friendship - get all chidren indoctrinated with a desire to help others. But at the same time, it should be dogma-free and control-free. So you don't "help" people by ramming communism down their throat. And rather than wasting resources controlling people, you can simply let them free. They come back (ie join NATO) of their own volition. If Austria were to invade Switzerland and subjugate them for a while, then leave, I think they would very quickly be queing up to join NATO, because they know that NATO offers no-strings-attached protection and they would have a "never again" attitude to neutrality. Incidentally, Hitler was born in Austria.

This is the winning ideology - the one that takes no resources to maintain because no control is required to keep people in line. But the independent countries must not pose a danger either. To do that requires the people themselves to be humanist, and to express their humanist nature via democracy, so that the government reflects that humanity.

This is the problem in Egypt. The people there have been indoctrinated to be Arab racists. They can't shake this off because no-one wants to be odd man out (natural social practice for defence). They are held in place by a relatively moderate government. Since they can't express their indoctrination and elect their own Hitler, they are frustrated and a subset of those frustrated people resort to asymetrical warfare (terrorism).

Whether via asymetrical warfare, or via nuclear warfare by a ideological enemy (e.g. Iran), the problem is that there is an ideological opposition to liberal democracy. Some of these opposing tribes are hostile, some aren't. ie some thugs have no interest in threatening anyone else, e.g. Burma.

Forgetting nation states, for one human to be not afraid of another human, requires that the other human have been indoctrinated to be humanist, thus overriding their genetic tendency (males) to be exploitative.

Not everyone has been indoctrinated in this manner. In western societies, those that haven't been indoctrinated can still be dissuaded by threat of being caught breaking the law and going to jail. For security reasons, we should worry about humans who have not been indoctrinated, and aren't scared of being caught. These people are unrestrained. And they could have been indoctrinated with a dangerous ideology instead, and wish to nuke infidels for example.

Let us now see how dangerous an individual can be. Let us assume that you can buy a nuke from a corrupt Russian if you have enough money. Who has that money?

1. Bill Gates.
2. President of IBM.
3. President of Syria.
4. Prime Minister of Australia.

Let's further analyze...

1. There is no constraints on an individual, other than the hope that he isn't organized enough to know where to buy nukes from. Or that he has been raised as a humanist. Maybe that's fine for Bill Gates, but in the case of Osama Bin Laden, a danger was created.

2. Large corporations do not generally have one man able to use large amounts of money for "personal use". But a potential danger.

3. This is a big problem. Dictators are unrestrained, unaccountable and well organized. Most agree Hitler should have been preempted. The President of Syria could unleash the equivalent of Hitler's firestorm in 1 day if he can buy the weapon. He could become an Islamic Fundamentalist tomorrow, and no-one would know that he is about to do a suicide nuking. There is no response to this even, except by killing a whole lot of Syrians who had nothing to do with the decision to launch anyway. He should be preempted. We need open governments that reflect the humanist values of the underlying society so that there can be some confidence in the leader. Just being democratic isn't good enough either. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela may have an idea to do a "last blow for communism", so that other communists (like Castro) can survive. Demagogues who even shoot their own democratic protestors should not be allowed to exist.

4. This government is open and non-demagogic and reflects the underlying humanist values of its people, so like all other liberal democracies, does not need to be preempted. Nonetheless, everyone has a right to not have to live in fear. As such, the Australian government has an obligation to open itself up to inspection by anyone who would like to see what controls exist for financial spending, to make sure that no black market nukes are being bought.

The other obvious thing to do is try to eliminate or secure the nukes, to prevent people buying them in the first place.

Secular capitalist liberal democracy has proven to be the winning ideology. It reflects the underlying societal indoctrination. And it is constant war to free the world, that is the ultimate guarantor of peace. The concept "freedom = good" must be given higher priority than "war = bad" in children's indoctrination, and policy. It is this concept that is causes the US/Europe rift on the decision on when to go to war. The Europeans think that non-free countries should be legally treated the same as free countries. War is not won via naive assumptions. It is necessary to fight war on the same terms as the enemy. One day your stick may be smaller than his stick. And then you will be destroyed. It is necessary to ensure that in every country in the world, there is a humanist government reflecting the humanist values of its people, and indoctrinating children to do that. As well as teaching science instead of dogma. So freedom (ie end of state-slavery) must be actively spread via war, after a cost/benefit analysis. The communists said that freedom was everyone getting the same wage. Saddam told the Iraqis that freedom was being independent from Britain. But neither of these is right. Freedom is the ability to change/influence the rules, and to be able to freely obtain information and discuss with others what those rules would best be.

An additional problem in Iraq is that people are unaware that they can now have tribal protection by flocking to Iraqi Law. The IP/ING/MNF will protect anyone who obeys the law, and punish anyone who doesn't. The concept of protection via the law is not properly understood, as far as I can tell. Also, they may not be aware that as free people, they are part of our tribe, from our point of view, so are under our protection. In addition, the critical thinking skills are too immature, as there has not been the interaction with the outside required to remedy them. So what you have now is the equivalent of armed kindergarten children doing what looks weird from a western perspective (ie suiciding by attacking western troops of their own volition for no tangible gain). Another part of that is that some people complain that the perfect option (no mistakes) was not chosen, not realising that only the least worst option is available.

There are probably something like 95% humanist Arabs in Iraq, and 5% nutcases. The 5% nutcases are the sort of people who rush onto the street with an AK47 and will threaten shopkeepers or anyone else and attempt to seize control of the country. So, under normal circumstances, in any country, the "leader" will always be a nutcase. But actually he's just a criminal. This is natural.

The 95% are quiet people who just want to run their shop or go to their normal job etc. These people never pick up an AK47 and seize control of the state. It is actually unnatural to have democracy. In democracy, about 1% of the 95% are used in order to keep the 5% under control, via better organization, better weapons and jails.

In addition, the Kurds want justice from the other tribe (Arabs) not realising that the tribe is not to blame collectively for what one man did. My recommendations for justice are:

1. Saddam put on trial.
2. An Iraq that is a liberal democracy so that human rights will be respected from now on.
3. UN rules changed to make dictatorship illegal and holocausts illegal, so that this doesn't happen again anywhere ever, under the ridiculous excuse "that was right to self-determination". An apology from the UN for being so stupid not to realise that living under a dictatorship means that the people have no right to self-determination at all! This phrase should be changed to "right to self-determination via a representative government (not necessarily via democracy, that can be up to the UNSC to decide)".

Also, note that people who vote before having been educated in modern economic theory, are susceptible to making nihilistic decisions, like voting for communism or an Islamic State. There is probably a need to ensure minimal education requirements, or some time for education, or a limited number of non-racially based parties to vote for. I would recommend that the first election starts off with a 2-party system as per the first world, who will naturally compete with each other and end up naturally gravitating towards the centre.

Also, it is identifying as a human, rather than an American etc, that is important. In actual fact our liberal democracies have evolved to being virtually identical, and it is not particularly useful to use nationalistic identification. Ideology transcends all borders. We inherited nation-states, but after finally victory, NATO will probably render the whole concept fairly absurd, and the world will look more like the EU, except more capitalist, with more emphasis on self-funded retirement and without income redistribution between geographical regions.

Everyone in the world, needs to be asking everyone else in the world the single question "are you happy?". That is what creates the unbreakable alliance. Also note that humanism (ie the golden rule - do unto others as you would have others do unto you), is not specific to any religion, it is actually part of philosophy, and was independently invented by Aristotle and Confucious, amongst others.

And if we go back to when we used to be apes, the genetic instinct that allows us to know what is right and wrong is if the other person smiles. And the way to find out how to make someone smile is to ask them what they would like, what would make them happy.

Our tribe is humanists. It is necessary for humanists to subjugate/arrest/kill/cold-war/convert any non-humanists in the world, before any of them get the opportunity to do the reverse to us. This should be done on a scientific cost/benefit/risk analysis, and if it costs 100,000 humanist troops to free the rest of the world, so be it. Our ancestors paid a far higher price than this in WWI & WWII. This is about 3 years worth of US road toll. Freedom is worth much more than private car travel. The population can be restored to normal levels after victory simply by banning cars for 3 years. Arab supremacists and Muslim supremacists are the two largest ideological opponents to humanists currently.

In addition, any religion that considers humanists, including atheist secular humanists, as part of an out-group (thus inferior) should be banned or reformed. Otherwise atheists and heathens end up getting burnt at the stake. Basically even atheists should be allowed into Heaven if there is a benevolent God. Vengeful Gods should not be allowed. They are harmful to society.

All governments need to be humanist and science-based. In the west, that is "accidentally" achieved by democracy amongst adults.

Another thing that must be taught is that people are born without sin and should be judged therefore on current behaviour, not past behaviour. Blacks in America looking down on whites is a lose/lose situation that sees them wind up in jail. It would be better if they discussed how many whites died killing other whites in an attempt to set them free. Arabs can probably find something nice to say about British colonial rule too. Like all the science and technology that came from the industrial revolution, perhaps? When will we see a black Muslim American writing a letter to a white atheist Australian soldier saying "thanks for your service"?

Some other genetic traits are respect for power, including the awe of someone able to construct a pyramid. Anyone who can do that, can probably provide protection. And anyone who can construct the entire universe is definitely all-powerful, and we should do whatever they want (and various people have said that God wants various different things). Fear of punishment in the afterlife may be a western genetic trait that was created by culling unbelievers. The Chinese atheists may have escaped this fear.

A woman is after a strong male for protection. Both physical strength and financial power are attractions. It is natural to be jealous of competition (splitting resources). A man needs to allay these fears. Empathy for unrelated strangers for no personal benefit is a precursor for love. The next level of love is when this is applied to an individual. The level above that is providing a guarantee that the protection will be provided for eternity, EVEN IF the woman is incapacitated or otherwise unable to provide further benefit to the man. And another level is a guarantee that the resources to be provided will not be split to be given to another woman. As well as protection, normal empathy for the woman's feelings must be provided. Yep, those longwinded stories about some aunt who did something-or-other need to continue to be endured. The woman is after someone to listen to it to relieve her frustrations, not necessarily because she wants a problem to be solved. However, men with good ideas who can solve problems are a definite boon. There is no attempt to control a harem of men from the woman's side, since women are only after protection, not subjugation. They can only have one baby at a time after all. However, if the male does not provide enough things that she is looking for, she would naturally seek protection elsewhere.

The man is looking to wield power. Power will determine how many children he gets. Power comes by attracting a herd of followers. And a large herd attracts yet more followers who respect the wielded power. So for a man to be successful, he must be satisfied that he is powerful, because everyone says so. The job of the wife then is to just make him think that he's the bees knees. And the job of society is to placate the man to think that too. The winning combination has been to make men think that the sign of success is to be powerful by studying hard, working hard, and then giving all your money to charity because you're a humanist. This also has the effect of placating lower-income earners, because even if they were rich, they would be "required" to give all their money away to charity anyway, so technically they would be in the same position. Simply by not donating to charity, they can have what they want. The important thing is to instill a requirement to give to strangers rather than to take. It is when you TAKE that wars start. So long as you have an inherent desire to give $1 per year to charity to make it look like you're a nice guy as per societal requirements, you can satisfy your natural selfishness and your power requirements at the same time, and you won't become a thief.

Forcing people to give to charity via communism etc interferes with the natural markets. This is against science. Any social experiments should be done in a controlled manner, not writ large on a country via a dogmatic belief that it "should work". People need to satisfy their own selfish drive for power via economic conquest before they succumb to societal standards for giving money to charity. This is what makes Bill Gates give up some of his vast wealth. He knows that if he doesn't voluntarily donate money to worthy causes, the rest of society will look down on him as a selfish arsehole. At the end of the day, he has a genetic desire to be seen to be great and moral. We don't judge China by how many medals it wins at the Olympic games but by how much aid it selflessly gave to the Iraq reconstruction effort. Not much respect. But the Chinese don't know why we don't respect them. They're pointing to their medals yet still being shunned by the world community. In fact, the more they point to their Olympic medals with pride about how powerful they are, the more worried we get, and end up replying with "yeah, ok, how many more reasons are you going to give me to nuke you off the planet you hostile arseholes?". They need to understand what we're looking for. They don't understand that we're naturally reacting out of fear of their UNRESTRAINED INTENT. They see that we have power so there is no reason for us to be scared. But the open intent is very unusual to us and we assume it is a "cultural difference", but can't put our finger on it, when we think of culture as Chinese takeaway, and religion as benevolent! They want us to respect them as a member of a tribe that can wield great power. Not realising that our tribe is humanists, and they're the enemy, and if they continue the arrogance, we'll assemble a coalition against them. Power used for selfless charitable purposes is the name of the game.

On the assumption that people have a right to not live in fear, the required path to success is as follows:

The government will defend your human rights from the age of 1. Prior to that age, mercy killing will be allowed to help ensure the right to a dignified life. Unwanted crack babies screaming in pain to grow up on drugs and end up as prostitutes is not something I would even allow for my dog. Not that there is anything wrong with prostitutions, it is a noble job that helps many frustrated males. And of course crack baby prostitutes have fear of death when the grow up, so won't allow you to kill them then - by then they have fear and can understand what you are proposing to do. You will be educated to a certain level. Then you can enter into the economy and make as much money as you want. Society encourages you to help those less fortunate than yourself. If you fail to find a job, you will temporarily lose the right to vote, and instead be transferred to the government's "make work" program, where you write public domain code designed to break the back of Bill Gates's software monopoly. If you fail to even do this, or are unable to work, you will be given basic guarantees of food, shelter and emergency treatment. If you refuse to work, you will be treated as having a mental condition and housed in a minimum security mental hospital, where you can recuperate.

This takes fear out of society, without disrupting the markets. Government must be science and humanist based, which rules out Chavez's experiment on both counts. It also rules out tariff protection so that people can keep unsustainable jobs.

In the absence of fear, husbands will find they need to satisfy their wives via normal empathy requirements. She can leave at any time. The wife in turn praises her husband for providing both for her requirements, and for his benevolence to strangers. If a child is born, both parents are morally obliged to take action to ensure that the child is raised with two parents. It doesn't matter if the parents fall out, they should stay together, in separate beds, and can have discreet sexual liasons outside.

Sex from a woman's point of view is both the physical feeling, the acknowledgement that the protection still remains because the woman is still proving attractive or useful. But remember, the protection should remain even if these things cease, so the empathy must show through. From a male point of view, it is an acknowledgement that the woman thinks he is so protective and so benevolent that she thinks he is god personified, and is willing to do anything he wants at his command. But of course, the empathy means that he doesn't do anything that she doesn't want him to do. The dual empathy is what makes it more than just the physical side.

No fear or force is applied by the government in any of this. It is total freedom. Those who are in "refuse to work" rehabilitation do not get the right to have or raise children. A more stable environment for the child will be found, and women will be put on birth control.

Homosexuals can have unions, since that is their personal freedom, but cannot raise children in such an environment, at least not with such deliberate intention. Empathy for the child's rights have precedence.

So society judges people and countries based on voluntary benevolence to strangers (not race-based or country-based) in a natural environment (ie capitalist), not jury-rigged.

Oh yeah, and Christians sinning knowing that they can get away with anything because Jesus died for their sins, is harmful for society. Muslims have the same problem. Humanists go to heaven, non-humanists go to jail or Hell, depending on whether it is the law that is judging or God.

And good news is that all this stuff can be blamed on America! Because America is isolationist, it didn't care about the human rights of people in other countries. Iraqi women getting raped didn't matter a damn, while American dogs and American cells (unborn babies) were given extreme protection, in fact the Catholics even stopped contraception. Crack babies growing up to become prostitutes and living in dustbins on the other hand were rationalized away. This gross hypocrisy led to foreign holocausts being dismissed as unimportant. Within those holocausts, what happened is that Wahhabis took advantage of two genetic traits of men - power lust and selfishness. Power lust should not be confused with competition. To experience power lust, clear your head of empathy, then imagine that you are in Egypt, and there is suddenly chaos (no tribal structure), and everyone is looking around for who is the strongest, so that they can be protected. And you've got a pyramid and no-one else has. And people are impressed by your pyramid. So they're coming to you. Well, that is one option available to you. The other option you have is that you can seek protection from someone else, and pledge allegiance to them. You now need to make an animal choice - to be a slave or master? Now all the slaves look up to the authority of the master (Mullah) as being God's representative (everyone else says so, so protection is gained by being agreeable). The master then indoctrinated children, telling them that their tribe is Islam, and to hate people not in your tribe. They were then sent out on a destroy mission to protect their tribe. Whenever in a position of power, such as with the Russian children, the lack of empathy causes the power lust to make their selfishness take over and the rape starts. It is perfectly natural. This gross child abuse by Wahhabis, not teaching empathy for strangers, is something that should have been ended by America, if they hadn't been isolationist and got their anti-imperialist, anti-Britain rhetoric going that made spreading human rights over the globe seem bad. Basically only Americans matter a damn. Of course the Treaty of Westphalia had something to do with that too.

Someone needs to urgently tell all the Arabs that our tribe is human. Not Christian. Not American. Not white. If the Arabs are humans, then we will accept them as equals and protect them. Are Arabs human? Do they want our protection? LOOK AT OUR POWER. This is why they are fighting. They do not understand that we are protecting them via the rule of law. They are not second class citizens. They are equals. WE ARE PROUD TO BE HUMANS!!!

Australians are members of the tribe of humans. We are not white people, we are humans.
Arabs are members of the tribe of humans.
Arabs are our brothers.
All Australians accept Arabs as equals. We are not racist. The people who said that Australians are racist white people LIED to you.
Australia is in Iraq protecting Arab human rights. We are not trying to steal oil etc etc etc.
Join us. We are proud to be humans. LOOK AT OUR POWER!!!
Americans accept Australians and Arabs as equals too. We are all part of the same tribe. We will protect you. We accept you. All the free world accepts Arabs as equals.
If you don't believe me, ask some Americans. Ask them if they accept you as an equal. I know that they accept you as an equal, for the same reason that they accept Australians as equal!
And we don't care what religion you are either. I am an atheist. In Australia, atheists, Hindus and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiite) are accepted as equals.
Australians and Arabs were allies in World War I and we will never forget the brotherhood forged in blood!!! Thankyou Arabs! We needed your help and you gave it to us!!! The hopeless Pommy bastards (British) couldn't defeat the Turks without us for sure!!! The Anglophones are proud to return the help you. We will replace all your terrible leaders with good leaders - leaders that respect your human rights - leaders who are "good hosts" and who will ASK YOU what YOU want (via democracy). We owe you that much for all the help you gave us. We're sorry it took so long for us to return the favour. The reason for the delay is because we needed to defeat Nazism and Communism before we could help free the Arabs.

I've figured it out even better - we are allied amongst those who don't subjugate others. That is our tribe. The non-subjugators. If you are a non-subjugator, you will be respected as an equal. That's all we want.

And social standing is a competition about who is the most generous to complete strangers.

I donated US$200 to this party, although it looks like some US conservatives have donated more than me. How much did you donate?

http://english.iraqdemparty.org/

Or if you want to help smash Bill Gates's monopoly, why don't you donate genuine public domain code (NOT Gnu Virus Licence) to here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdos/

Males are natural subjugators. Slavery is natural. It's either subjugate or be subjugated, the moment chaos exists. He who owns a pyramid gets to be master. And child predation is also men naturally wanting to experience as many different sexual things as possible, out of curiosity for how many different places they can stick their penis. It is only empathy or fear of being caught that prevent these things from happening. The attraction towards lesbian pornography is the same thing, being able to control people such that they will do whatever you want, including unnatural acts. Holy cow people, take the least worst option when deciding what to do about this.

The terrorists are behaving naturally. An authority figure indoctrinated them with hatred, and fear of God. And America is to blame, for ignoring indoctrination of children because of its isolationist tendencies (ie American nationalism). Human rights abuses don't matter so long as they happen to foreigners. Australians are the best damn country in the world.

And the whole world is to blame for being anti-American bigots, suggesting American hegemony, which contributed to keeping America disengaged. And the revolutionary socialists were responsible for the left-wing media which heaped blame on the powerful, even when the powerful wasn't actually doing anything wrong, and in fact the powerful WASPs were the nicest people you could ever hope to meet.

We are tribal amongst non-subjugationists, humanists, humans, rationalists (science, evidence and logic), liberal democracies. Social standing is based on how much you contribute to spread these values to others, both inside your country and outside, and how much you conform to these values yourself (ie not being a hypocrite). That is why Australia is the greatest nation on earth. No other reason. Power is feared, not respected. Humility is respected. That is why America is respected by free countries, feared by non-free countries. Individuals should always be treated as individuals, not as members of some special interest group (e.g. Canadians, whites etc). And they should be judged on behaviour. Current behaviour, not past behaviour. Adopting these values makes Utopia on earth. You don't need to wait for death. The Anglophones have been doing these things for a long time, but never knew how to categorize it in non-racist terms. E.g. "white man's burden" and "Christian values". This causes enormous friction with other groups, but we've never known what makes people "nice". We think it is normal to be nice. It shouldn't need to be illegal to make people use self-restraint, they should be doing it "naturally". But naturally we are enslavers and selfish. It is empathy that overrides nature. On the other hand, we know what correct moral behaviour is - it is whatever makes another person smile (subject to not regretting it later in life due to not understanding the social implications of the action). The world that I want to live in has a smile on every face. Unnatural things like homosexuality should not be done where a child can see it. Children should be raised in a natural environment.

Australia is often accused of being racist. I ask you how many white Australians you know who are non-humanist, ie wouldn't accept an Aborigine or an Asian as a friend, because of their race? Same deal for America. Who is the greatest nation?

And thankyou anti-power bigots for making WASPs so tolerant that "we" could start thinking in terms of protecting the entire world rather than just our country. You will be forgiven. Society is more productive if you have a smile on your face and are making amends for past mistakes by proving how tolerant you are to those in power and how much you respect their contribution to society.

The Arabs understand the concept of power, and understand the concept of anti-power. The Marxists confused this with anti-subjugation. All will be forgiven. Everyone was just obeying their genes and using faulty logic. The west didn't help with their idea that people aren't born "evil", which they confused with natural subjugate-or-be-subjugated. And the Europeans are non-subjugationists, not anti-subjugationists. When two tribes clash, the leader needs to make the subjugate-or-be-subjugated decision.

Also, when donating money, put it into institutions for humanist rationalist non-subjugationists, such as the IPDP, rather than temporary improvement of standard of living. All non-subjugators have a moral responsibility (if they are humanists) to seek an end to subjugation, dogma and inhumane behaviour, anywhere in the world, in a strategic manner, choosing the least-worst option in any scenario, using our finite resources, while still paying attention to our sub-tribe (family, nation etc) needs. Social standing is based on voluntary donation across all categories. All the money for yourself or your immediate family is not good. But nor is giving all your money to strangers at the expense of your immediate family, in an attempt to get recognition. Money should be given from the heart, not because the social recognition is required.

I'm an anti-dogma, anti-non-humanist and anti-subjugator (in that order) who wants to see a smile on every face in the world and who believes we should help those less fortunate than ourselves (regardless of race/religion/sex/age/nationality) and that everyone has the right to a dignified life free of fear (death penalty OK if it has a deterrent effect) and that we should take the least worst option when making decisions and that the Pope shouldn't have said that the Iraqi Holocaust was fine by him since it was only non-Catholics dying by the bucketload, being raped and being tortured and besides which, that means more Catholics in the world relative to other religions, so he has more power and control over people, much like the sexually-frustrated (from listening to endless sex stories from people looking to confess their sins to wash them away while not actually being able to have sex himself) Catholic priests have over Catholic boys. Are you?

We are the greatest species because we both respected artificial things and asked "How did that guy make that, so I can have power too?".

There is a difference between anti-power and anti-subjugation. The Arabs do not understand this. Please let them know. We are anti-subjugation. We are not anti-power. We fear subjugation but we do not fear power. I respect the use of power to end subjugation, without hesitation, even when there is no benefit to myself. I don't care if I have to kill 90% of the enemy tribe, in order to ensure that institutions are set up such that the leader of that tribe will respect the human rights of everyone in that tribe forever. I don't like living in a world where subjugation exists for selfish purposes and especially where violations of the Geneva Convention, like rape, are allowed by the leader. Both because I feel sorry for the people in that tribe who don't want to be subjugated, and also because if someone can subjugate someone else, they can subjugate me too if they ever become stronger than me (no matter how small that chance may be, I don't want to take that risk, I'm sick of living in fear and I'm sick of people ignoring human rights abuses of foreigners as if they don't matter). I am willing to have casualties in my tribe, so long as most tribe members survive and the ideology of my tribe remains secure. I am willing to use whatever force is required to win, but I want to use the minimum force required to create the institutional change. It is OK to lie (actually only exaggerate) in order to gain allies and keep neutrals from forming a hostile coalition. Do you agree with me?

Arabs think in terms of loyalty to a tribe, so here's the first time I thought of mine:
My loyalty is as follows:
Paul Edwards's brain (ie science)
Non-subjugating humanists
Subjugating humanists for unselfish reasons
Non-subjugating non-humanist allies
Subjugating non-humanist allies
Australian soldiers
Allied soldiers
Enemy civilians (beneficiaries)
Enemy conscript soldiers (unwilling fighters)
Enemy soldiers (willing fighters) who surrender (forgive and forget)
Enemy soldiers who resist (minimum force using brain to judge cost/benefit)

In the pro-liberation WASP culture, in order to shake free of "tribal thinking", we think of ourselves as humans, not members of a special interest group. Then we use science to regenerate alliances rather than being racist. But minorities are more fearful and look to the colour of their skin with fear that they ever become a minority.

You are a human. You have human rights. Your rights are protected by the rule of law in any liberal democracy in the world. You are free to travel as a human within any of these countries without fear. You only need to fear when you travel to a non-free country, ie one where the rule of law is not respected. Non-racist, non-religious-bigotry, non-subjugating countries are safe for you to travel.

Let's put it in animal terms:

I am AGAINST racism.
I am AGAINST sexism.
I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
I am AGAINST dogma.
I am AGAINST subjugation.
I am AGAINST fear
I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie different race, different sex, different religion) using their OWN HARD-EARNED MONEY or TIME or COMPASSION

I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN while RESPECTING the sanctity of life and using the MINIMUM FORCE REQUIRED to complete the technical task WITHOUT FORGETTING that NO HUMAN IS EVIL we are all simply OBEYING OUR GENES like lions and tigers. This includes the so-called terrorists, who were indoctrinated to give their lives to spread Islam. They have succeeded in doing so.

The reason the terrorism occurred is due to both Muslims and Christians considering their own religion to be superior. This meant that both of them put the other in an out-group and thus didn't have any empathy for the civilians in the other group. They should have instead assumed that there were humanists in the other group too and that they deserved human rights which were being denied. Even something as obvious as state-rape. No matter how naughty someone is, they shouldn't be raped!!! There was something seriously going wrong when people had no empathy for victims of a holocaust.

The Muslims need to be told that there is a brotherhood amongst all humans and thus they have human rights, including the right to not be subjugated. The Christians need to give assurances that they will defend the human rights of Muslims.

Mohammed showed that no matter how good a man is, even if he echos the teachings of Jesus, he should never be given power, because even the greatest man in the world will fall prey to his animal instincts. We should not swear allegiance to any man, no matter who he is or what he says. That is the lesson Islam gave the world. It is complete, the religions are compatible. We are all Muslims.

Can some American ask the US President to say he is a Muslim URGENTLY? This is the quickest way for the war to end. The US President should say that he is a Muslim so that the Muslims have a sense of security so that they can stop fighting, and understand that we accept them fully as our own. They already have a strong concept of being a Muslim. This is the most humanist action the US President could take at this point in time. And it will give the Muslims all over the world a sense of pride and an understanding that they are forgiven and that the final victory was theirs after all. And hopefully Arabs and Muslims everywhere can find it in their hearts to forgive Christians for putting them in an "out group" despite all the time they spent in church.

I have decided to become a Muslim, and I will follow Mu'tazilah and Sufism. This is the world that I want to live in:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305020108.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I hope people can forgive me for any offence I may have caused during my quest to learn the truth. I realize now that I fought against dogma as in a war, and that is why I never had empathy for the people I argued with, I only had empathy for institutions. Because I only treated people as ideas, not as human beings. I am sorry. That is why I never managed to convince anyone of anything.

And that is what makes me proud to be Australian. Australia has traditionally been a force that fights subjugation and fights dogma, anywhere in the world. People really are equal here. The people who tell Aborigine jokes are reacting to the fact that they see Aborigines behaving in a racist manner. I myself voted for Pauline Hanson because I could see the problem was not coming from those in power (white people) who treated Aborigines as equals, but from the Aborigines complaining about actions that were exaggerated or never happened. We should understand that we are all equal and are simply obeying our genes. The correct thing to do was to ask WHY. All those people in jail are there because they are like lions and tigers, obeying their genes.

Our tribal loyalty should be:
BRAIN
HOMO SAPIENS

This has the effect of immediately collapsing any thought of anyone being special due to race, religion or sex. After that, the brain should be used to REGENERATE the alliances based on IDEOLOGY not some racial/sexual/spiritual characteristic. All humans, being animals, will go to heaven. That is certain. It is up to us if we choose as a society to "domesticate" them, in a win/win situation, the same as we treat dogs. Humans are genetically trained to show pleasure with a smile. Dogs are genetically trained to show pleasure by wagging their tail. All animals will go to heaven. No-one is actually doing anything wrong. We are all doing what society encouraged us to do.

People obey authority figures, looking for respect, social standing. This is why no-one is evil and everyone should be forgiven. We should make sure we respect the right things, not the wrong things. This is the spiritual meaning that was missing. And the way to change people is to concentrate on the leader of the pack and he should always lead by example. And we can try to encourage the leader to behave properly by realising that he/she is an animal and should thus be pliable to normal thought processes.

All religions had a sense of mysticism. From Caroline:
Have read the above posts regarding religion with interest. Two words everyone should be familiar with - "Perennial Philosophy" - do an internet search on the topic. There are fundamental spiritual truths that are commonly shared among all the great religious traditions. These truths find their clearest expression in the MYSTICAL tradition of each religion - that means Sufi Islam, Zen Buddhism, Esoteric Christianity (see Christian mysticism), Taoism, Judaism (Kabbalah). Some of its proponents stand outside any traditional religion - my favorite is Jiddu Krishnamurti. Why is it important to familiarize ourselves with the Perennial Philosophy? Because one of the root causes of the rise of islamic fundamentalism (Osama bin Laden) is that Muslims fear being overtaken by "modernism" and particularly by the spiritual vacuity that has pervaded the west. Many westerners themselves feel this same spiritual vacuum - in fact I would venture to guess that this sense underlies much of the political lefts apparent scorn for their own western tradition. Put simply they are seeking meaning, and not finding any spiritual meaning in capitalism, they have become nihilistic. Others - like osama bin Laden and extreme fundamentalist right wing Christians are attempting to deal with the spitual vacuum associated with modernity by reverting to strict fundamentalism. Both extremes are unnecessary and are fueling the "clash of civilizations". Anyone interested in resolving this mess needs to find common ground. It is found in the Perennial Philosophy and in the mystical tradition of each religion. I urge Christians to familiarize themselves with Christian mysticism (esoteric chirstianity) and I urge Muslims to familiarize themselves with Sufism and I encourage western secularists and atheists to familiarize themselves with Perennial philosophy (try Krishnamurti for starters). Then I think we'll see that as human beings we're all speaking the same language.

Ecumenism describes bringing religions together. And perennial philosophy ropes in atheists:
http://www2.austincc.edu/adechene/pphil.pdf

The way to prove tolerance and acceptance of Muslims as equals is by the people in power taking the initiative via the institutions. Here is where I will be petitioning the Australian Government to join:

http://www.oic-oci.org/

I ask for all other countries in the world to take a similar initiative immediately. This is the way to show humility and forgiveness.

I respect Prophet Mohammed and those who fight in his name, do you?
I believe Islam is a religion of peace, do you?

I follow Moatazila. He said we should pledge loyalty to our brain first. Basically if you see something as obviously wrong such as the UN authorizing genocide in Darfur, you need to use your brain instead of blindly following the rules. None of us are evil. Not even Saddam. Let us now all try to help others using our brains first.

E.g. there are people dying in Iraq right now, for no reason. We know that we're not trying to subjugate people. But they don't, they just see themselves as the "out group". We need to forgive and forget, just as we would a lion or tiger. Amnesty for anyone who is genuinely contrite about what sins they committed in the past.

Allawi is the one who can make this judgement call. Forgiveness for anyone genuinely contrite and apologizes to their victims. The behaviour we are looking for is to FIGHT subjugation of humans upon other humans. Subjugation to God is the only thing acceptable. And the best evidence we have for God is that we exist. This massive universe is unlikely to have been created as some sort of practical joke gone awry.

And the left wing has understood the concept of the powerful subjugating the weaker. This is actually genetic, they can feel it. However, they have a dogma that the powerful are doing it because they are evil, when in fact the powerful are rarely any such thing. Competitive for sure. As we should be. There is nothing wrong with that. But we should be competing for the right reasons, not the wrong ones. Competing not to subjugate but to put as big a smile on everyone's face as possible. And that includes the competition winners, whether it be in sport or charity or economic growth or intellectual achievement.

No-one is to blame for following our genes. Our behaviour is predictable. If we aren't behaving the way you want us to behave, then suggest an alternative, using your brain. If you don't blame a lion for eating a human, don't blame a human for subjugating another human. And so I think it is about time I finally forgave my parents, after several years of refusing to speak to them for crimes against humanity committed while I was a child.

That is what I have been competing for. I spent my whole life looking forward to the day when I turned 18 years old and would get human rights. I was watching my watch and when the time ticked over, I was suddenly so happy that I was no longer subjugated. I always wondered why no-one cared about human rights for children. When I watched "AI: Artificial Intelligence" I actually cried because I had empathy for a machine. I was wondering why no-one afforded me the same compassion in my life of being bullied and living in fear. From science, I now know why I intimidated people intellectually (because they were in my out-group intellectually) and why they would never drop their various dogmas.

But the genetic desire to control things without fear is tempered by empathy if taught by religion. That is why religion was created, because people were shocked by what others would do to each other. But it was treated dogmatically such that no-one bothered to question whether we were maybe born evil after all. It's not evil, it's the same as every other animal. If it's me or you, it's you. But the winning ideology is to fight subjugation, which is what has emerged from our liberal democracies by evolution. But I wanted to know why some people developed liberal democracies while others didn't. Having spent my whole life looking for an answer to this question, I can see that the Arabs are not different from us "culturally" and can't be the same as us and want to live in holocausts. In actual fact if I hadn't spent my life searching for an answer to this question, Wolfowitz would have just continued his task, introduced rule of law, and then the Iraqis would eventually pledge allegiance to the rule of law. And we would have written the Arabs off as "Saddam is evil". But I know that there are many people who showed me no empathy at all until after I had defeated them in battle. I wanted to know what the reason was that while they pledged allegiance to Christianity, they actually didn't follow it, while I as an atheist followed it. Some people have been taught sufficient lessons like "be nice to people" that they don't subjugate others (but don't help those who are subjugated). Some people have no morals because they think God will wash away their sins so they subjugate the weak, like I appeared to be to them (unwilling to fight back even though I was bigger than them). And others have been taught to fight subjugation. That is what Australia did on a world scale, and I was hoping that that would explain individual behaviour.

So we have three different categories of people:
1. Those who subjugate
2. Those who neither subjugate nor help those that are being subjugated.
3. Those who fight subjugation.

In India, if someone is robbed, everyone rushes to help, because they have been taught to fight subjugation of other Indians.

In America, America has only been taught to respond to subjugation of others if they are first attacked or there is some selfish reason. This was the wrong lesson from Vietnam.

In Australia, we have been conditioned to respond to an attack on an ally. We have also been taught that you shouldn't fight war for selfish reasons. But some people saw America as being selfish in Iraq because they could clearly see the DECEPTION. But the neocons were not racist and were looking at an opportunity to secure human rights. The left-wing had a dogma that the powerful subjugate for selfish reasons only. They couldn't shake it off. That's why they hate "rich cunts".

I wanted to know why people hated others, or acted in such a manner. It is not hate, it is genetic desire to subjugate. Women have this genetic desire too, but are unlikely to have the power rush that comes with trying to seize control for personal honour!