On face value it does not make sense for the masses to murder good
people, yet they have done so many times. The prophets and good people
of Israel where also murdered by their own people. Moshe Rabbeinu only
survived by a miracle against his own people (if I recall).

The problem becomes: why the poeple murder the one or few who try to
help and save them. A related issue is: why do people love and worship
the people who destroy them and want to exploit and kill them. Examples
in the modern era are also plenty. For example the life of Julian
Assange gets destroyed while he is doing the honorable thing for truth & justice, while basically gangsters run the US Government more or less
in the open, completely destroying its budget, starting wars all over
the place, etc. An extreme example here is Trump, who openly calls for torturing people, which is a crime worse than murder.

It seems to make no sense, so what might be some sort of hidden reasons
that make it understandable. (I also need to deal with this seemingly
senseless hatred against me, by the way, which makes me want to find
out what is the reasons behind it. This very sentence generates the
hatred I am talking about. I can literally feel the hate, or at least so
I think, possibly based on experience.)

First to set some context to this hypotheses, or a set of hypotheses
which I regard as accepted. Humanity used to be a hunter gatherer in
small groups with limited technology, in a violent world. He hunted
animals and was also hunted himself. The best weapon was for the longest
time probably a spear, before that perhaps a thrown stone. Archery was
also invented, but all these weapons still require a lot of human body
strength and agility to make them effective. This meant that there could
still be a use for human mating violence (I mean, fighting over a woman,
such as many mammels do), so as to select for offspring which was strong
in this important aspect of survival.

Now however the humans started to do agriculture, which changes the
niche of survival humans are in. Our weapons and tools become the main
thing, the importance of physical fitness to the point of violence are
fading in importance. Animals do not threaten humanity anymore at all. A
person in a wheel chair could defeat a hurd of charging elephants with
the right equipment. It is probably already the case that a person in a
coma can be effectively defended by an autonomous weapon system. The
humans are therefore in flux, from one long established stable
condition, to another condition. The old condition was basic tools,
handcrafts, hunter/gatherer, survival mode and physicality, the new
condition will be extremely evolved tools and infrastructure, settled on
the land with ease and calm, creativity and ... *peace*. The former
stable condition required violence for survival, the latter stable
condition - which has not been achieved yet - requires peace. This whole
idea of massive wars in space is (I think), stupidity and insanity,
because once you have weapons to destroy entire planets and the
stupidity and violence to use them, you are on the brink of your own
self annihilation. If you don't destroy yourself, probably someone else
will make the decision for you.

The humans are in flux, they need to change from one stable state to
another. Some things remain important, other things will need to change,
even become the opposite. While in the old ways it might be honorable to
get into a fight if someone insulted you, for the sake of the long term
fitness of the species that is, in the new way the honorable thing is to
avoid violence and remain civilized, peaceful and decent, while also
repressing violence and criminals for the same objective of peace.

I think it is likely that some people are less far in this change than
others. Hence we get a mix of humans in their personal, family and
National development to be ready to live as settled farmers (first) and
then in even more complex versions of this settled life (which we see
today). Violent criminals would be the most primitive and least
developed. Criminals who are capable of a measure of cooperation with
each other based on conversation rather than raw power all the time,
could already have set a small step in the right direction. Ordinary
people who are generally trying to not hurt other people, but still do
because they are weak in stopping the criminals and often confused by
official propaganda are again a lot more adapted to the future than any
sort of criminals. More developed than these masses are people like
Julian Assange (I hope, I don't know him personally of course), and many
other idealistic people, who are willing to put real effort and take
risk for the cause of peace, above what they might be forced into by
group pressure.

For argument sake we could divide humanity into three groups: the worse,
the average, and the better adapted to a future of high technological
survival (which requires peace & truth). The least so adapted could be
the best adapted to a life as hunter gatherers, although this is not necessarily true. For example a rather idiotic and incompetent person
who is also extremely violent, might score high when it comes to mating violence, but survival as a hunter gatherer is more than fighting
between young males. It even involves cooperation in small groups, but
also being smart enough and creative enough. For simplicity sake, there
could be truth in the idea that people with a higher violence and
dominance seeking will are better adapted to live a life of almost
like animals (hunter gatherers) or even entirely like animals (if you
like to define it that way).

These are the ones slow to evolve. They don't realize yet that humanity
these days is planting crops and building houses. Of course they see it,
but they don't realize that this has to mean peace, especially when
the technology really starts to evolve - as it is doing today. Self
restrained, decency, truth, willingness to help others even if you don't
know them, respect for the free will (also of the females to marry whom
they want rather than to fight and force the issue), this is a future in
which humanity can be stable with high levels of technology. If you have
the power to destroy everything including your own species, you have to
have the will not to do it: self restrained and wisdom, care for others, including all other forms of life.

Now some more keywords to define these three sections, and to try to
find an answer to the first question, although the answer might already
be in there.

Worst adapted to technological future:
- Wild, erratic, ego, easily insulted, reacts violently, physical
strength & fitness.

Best adapted to technological future:
- Civilized, calm, wants the best for everyone, tries to make friends,
does not like violence, enjoys harmony and seeing others be happy.

In between this is a middle ground: confused, a bit of everything, self
contradictory, wants peace in principle but easily incited to war.
Positive behavior to friends and family, but quickly looses interest
when it comes to strangers. Lack of principle.

The middle group is special in one way in that they lack coherence. The
first group, whom today we could call the criminals and the evil, can be coherent within their own selves. They are there for themselves, and
that is it. They don't care. There is no confusion. The best adapted
group also has no confusion. They are there to be good people, to help everyone, and if need be to make the greatest sacrifices. The worst
adapted group will sacrifice everyone else for themselves and their
(perceived) dominance and happiness. The best group would, if necessary, sacrifice themselves for everyone else, although if you are truly
balanced than your own interests also weigh into the scale because you
are also a living creature. (This brings the Torah adage to mind: love
your neighbor as yourself, and God above everything - which in Judaism
means to keep in mind the perspective where *everything* has an interest
and inherent right in being happy, because it is all created by the same
God).

So we now get this:
Worst future adapted: violent but has clarity of mind.
Medium " " : part violent and part peaceful, and confused.
Best " " : peaceful with clarity of mind.

Needless to say, this is probably close to a normal distribution,
especially when defined relative to average morality. Perhaps there is
an objectivity here possible, on the quality of confusion, but for this discussion it doesn't matter. The real criminals may consist of no more
than 1% of the people, and the really good may also be no more than just
1% of the total.

I guess it is noteworthy that people are herd animals, they copy each
other's behavior, and therefore the Medium adapted may cluster around
their own culture, whereas the evil cluster around theirs and the good
in turn also cluster around their own morality and beliefs. Once you
are evil enough, kind seeks kind with evil people. When you are not good
enough to be good and not evil enough to be evil, confused by your own
will, you would cluster with the rest of your kind, and be part of what
seems to be the great masses of humanity.

What I was thinking about as the cause of the violence of the masses
against good people, is that it may be caused by the element where the
Medium adapted masses get angry about a good person seemingly trying to
push or force them into some kind of direction, and that this triggers
in them the identification of this good person as if he was a violent
person trying to dominate. This can then trigger multiple responses in
the same direction:

* The anger of someone attempting to dominate them (a self directed
emotion, "I do not want to become dominated / I want to do whatever I
want").
* The anger that this person apparently is still so primitive as to
want to dominate others (an external negative moral judgement, with
the idea that they themselves are better than that because they do not
try to dominate - or so they think in their confusion).
* The confusion that what the good person is saying is not good. (For
sake of argument we assume that good person is always proposing good
things, even though reality is probably not even close to this clean;
notice the high standards for being a good person here, different
from what the great masses believe the word "good person" means. The
masses tend to put themselves into the "good" category, which makes
sense because they made their choices based on what they think was a
good choice; but you don't see them sacrificing their lives for the
well being of humanity, or they lie to themselves that being part of
some war effort helps to bring peace, which in the end only brings
more tears to humanity etc.)

Conclusion, although this is all purely speculative. One cause is just confusion as such. The good person proposes the good to the masses. The criminals understand easier that this is indeed good, but it is not
in their interest to support it so they stay silent or come out against
it for their own reasons. The confused masses however fail to comprehend
that the good is good. They are morally confused and this affects all
their understanding. Their minds are on the choppy seas of internal
conflict, you could say, between good and evil. This is more of an
intellectual thing. "Is what is promoted good or bad." Personally I
have found however that humanity is almost entirely non-logical and non-intellectual, but almost entirely emotional and socially motivated.
While this issue should be the biggest one, I doubt that it is. In my experience the minds of people are mostly blanked out, nothing happens.
They make no determination between good and bad based on facts or logic.
What they do instead do is to take note of social clique forming, their
own anticipated position within the cliques, what will their friends
think if they either support or reject something, what is the person
wearing (clothes) who is talking to them, and of course ... are they
going to have meat on the table tonight (if the answer is yes, nothing
else matters anyway).

So the mind is blank and the opinions are weakly motivated and casually
held and discarded. Which leaves the issue: of the anger, why do they
get so worked up that they kill the Prophets of Israel, or ruin good
people their lives who risked everything for them such as Julian
Assange and many others.

A second emiotion laden cause may need to answer the question, if an intellectual determination has almost no meaning for most people. This
is how I get to this hypotheses that the masses get angry that someone
is trying to dominate them. It could trigger both their own will to not
be dominated, or to dominate themselves. A misidentification can take
place, where someone is assigned a bad identity for seeming to want to
dominate them. Identity-thinking is a big thing with emotional people,
it is all about what group do you belong to. These are strong emotions,
driving people to hatred and murder without any problem. How many of the
wars and killings of the past where merely about one gang wanting more
land, and all that mattered was that it was their flag on the hill,
because it was their flag and that was all there is to it (which fits
perfectly with strength through violence on a larger scale, which was potentially a good thing back in the stone age).

Then I thought that the unfortunatel reality is that the good people (in
this definition a tiny amount of the total, your ordinary random person
in the street is not defined as "good" in this discussion even if he
never committed a crime and tries to be normal and decent) have already
made themselves the servants of Justice and Peace, the general welfare
of the people. They already submitted to that. They already broke with
their own will to dominate. Perhaps this is beautifully illustrated by
how the Prophets of Israel never themselves become the Kings of Israel.
They don't have this need or will to dominate. They simply want to serve
the truth, justice for all, the greater peace, and if they have
something to say which they think their people need to hear - for their
own benefit that is - then they can do so without sitting on a golden
throne with thousands of troops around him who are willing to do
whatever command he gives. The latter also involved quite a bit of
violence usually, by the way. Why not just talk to a few people next to
you in the street, and they should realize the truth and tell the
others, and then if we all agree, then good things get done and we are
all happy for it, and that's that. Back home and hopefully some meat on
the table. Yay ! XD

If this is true then there is a misidentification by the masses of good
people proposing something to them, because the good person already has submitted himself to something greater (the wellbeing of all). He is not
trying to dominate. The way things are going on Earth with the many
domination problems, it is rather quite likely that the good person is
trying to do something about the problem of domination itself. The
masses however, being morally confused (in this article by definition
so, it is another thing to see how confused the masses really are
although I have to say that it looks to me that the massess are ...
massively confused about many major issues), think the person is *not*
so submitted already to the truth & justice of all, with all the
hardship and effort that it took to do that and keep doing that. They
think the person is more like them or even a criminal: just barking
randomly, trying to get attention and to dominate.

Incidentally this can also trigger the "enemy" identification in terms
of group belonging, if a good person asks something good to be done,
because it will be asking for a change from what otherwise would have
been done, which could be identified as those from inside of the "home
group". There may well be, probably are, influential people in the "home
group" of someone, perhaps even officially recognized bosses.

This is also where I wanted to drive it to (I now remember): while it
can be good for confused people to submit themselves to a boss so that
they can learn humility and develop themselves away from the primitive
ways of violence, if someone is already good enough to see the bad
things this boss is doing (perhaps even without knowing), then the good
person might be compelled to resist this boss. However the rest of the
people could again misidentify this rebellion and being primitive. "He is
too arrogant still, look he still cannot just be silent and follow
orders, what a fool ! We are much better than that already, look us
being cool and well disciplined, civilized and humble." I guess this is
a variation of where people misidentify what a good person is saying as
being bad, but now not for intellectual reasons, but for emotional and
social reasons, and even added a form of morality.

This element, where the masses think - and that may well be correct -
that they *should* submit to a boss (King, religion, whatever) for the
sake of submission itself (so that eventually they can also submit
themselves to the truth & justice for all), could be the morality of
these many Religions in the world, who have enforced themselves even on
pain of death, despite being quite insane in their intellectual content
(such as the Roman idol system with its churches), yet believing this to
be a good thing. To a degree it may well have been a good thing, if the
people are so violent and crazed that any form of discipline upon them
could have been a positive in the long term. I guess such people get
locked into their system of discipline, and even people who rebel for
good reasons will be automatically rejected, because submitting to the crazyness is the moral goal for the sake of the submitting and not for
the sake of the crazyness. The crazyness even becomes a tool to
eventually unlock the discipline, when it has done it's job.

For the more moral of the confused masses, who wish they would already
have been able to submit themselves to the needs of peace & justice for
all and done things to that end, the issue could also trigger a jealousy response. Why isn't it them proposing something good, why is it someone
else who gets that honor. How about they refuse to listen and get their
people to also refuse, so that maybe they will later have a chance to do
the same.

It seems to me that this kind of issues is behind the problem of why
good people get hated and murdered by the masses, seemingly for no
reason.

Sorry to write crazy long lol. I think it is interesting to try to
figure this problem out, because there is a reason Israel is refusing to
come back to the Torah, no matter how obvious it is that they should,
both religiously but also Scientifically and rationally.

Everything is then a question of time, since humanity is in flux between
two stable states: one wild as an animal, the other peaceful and
orderly. The question is: is it necessary for humanity to experience
more discipline under crazyness. The other question is: how much time
does humanity still have, before they destroy themselves or worse (high technological dystopian tyranny, possibly forever if all this power
falls in the wrong hands).

There is two answers I suppose. The one is from Judaism, which says the
humans have 6 000 years time to make this shift towards civilized
behavior. The other answer could be: we see the level of technology we
have now, and how quickly it is becoming more powerful, and right now
this technology is in the wrong hands (which the masses either don't
want to acknowledge because they are morally confused and cannot see how
bad the people are who are in power, or they seem to think it doesn't
even matter too much because for most of them their minds are mostly
blank anyway). How long can humanity have this kind of technology and
abuse it, but still survive above putting themselves back in the Stone
Age.

It seems to me that in both ways the question can be answered, the issue
is urgent. The humans should do at least so much peace & justice that
there is not much war or tyranny anymore. Submission to craziness
becomes increasingly dangerous, because the Tyrants have too much power.
I fear they can lock the situation in place. How do you rebel against a
high technological State, who has disempowered their slaves in endless
ways ? The technology which we could have in 100 years is anyone their
guess. I don't see much of any time left.

Therefore I propose to do this: market.socialism.nl, and/or Israel
returns to the Torah and stops lying. The Rabbis stop lying about the
prosbul and heter iska, and demand the land will be distributed to all,
and probably a whole host of more issues to be resolved according to the
Torah and what is good and true and just. Israel is also supposed to be
the holy Nation, so all this modern craziness needs to go (I don't even
want to mention what), so that the marriages are stable like mountains,
and the children are safe within them.

It is sad if anyone thinks that "I (Jos) just wants this, so I can see
people do whatever I say". You can think that all you want, but it is
not true. I was merely waiting for the Communists to figure it all out
now that the so-called Soviet Union proved to be a failure. I expected
them to come out with something, like lessons learned and a better
direction, a more evolved way. They did nothing. They just sat there
repeating the same as ever, as their numbers predictably dwindled to
nothing. Besides, I'm also always a very loyal employee when I worked
for some businesses, and they always wanted to keep me when I decided to
leave. I'm already a loyal person. It is a phoney accusation to say that
I wrote all this, merely in a hurry and without serious thinking, so
that I could have fame or money.

I was thinking about the economy, and it took some emotional effort to get
over the fact that what we on the far left have, which is that we *hate*
trade. We hate it, because the people and including us have been abused
under that banner. It was all trade, supposebly, all this hunger and
misery. Oh just trade, deal with it. That is what the bankers said and why
we hated it. However, being on the far left (that means Democracy, peace
and justice for all, not this garbage from America, thank you very much!)
and finally admitting to myself that trade (in the most simple sense) is
good and positive, you set yourself up for a whole different view on
economics. You can no longer fall for Communism, while you clearly know
how despicable and destructive Capitalism is (Capitalism means the rule
of the psychos with all the money and all the land, etc). So now you go
from one problem to another: if trade is good, but Capitalism is hell,
and Communism (Stalinism) also proves to be hell, then what ? Finally I
got a bit of a flue and for some reason things finally started to dawn
on me - I don't even know why. It ended up with a system which I think
makes sense, and I worked it out in great detail so that the usual liars
will not have their way with the people as we saw after 1917. It also
makes sense to me: you think, write and talk *before* you do something
serious, to work out all the details in advance, and then also someone
else can rethink it and improve it. Then if we are all ready and think
it is good, we go do it.

It ended up being the same economics as the Torah, and this is how I
discovered that the Torah is true. Also, I have thought a lot about the
problem of "me" in all this. It is completely false to think I don't see
this problem, the problem of a Dictatorship. I think it is real and it
is indeed risky. One thing is that in the proposed system, all power has already been assigned to specific systems, including even a King (!). A
King without much power, but I won't get into the details now. I have
concluded that the best thing I can probably do, is say nothing. The
less I say, the more the system is what it would need to be.

Incidentally I don't even care about money and power. I care about
equality. I used to hate it as much if someone was trying to dominate
me, or if someone was being subservient to me. I like equality. I have
learned however that if you boost up people who seem scared, that they
can become vicious, so that is a sad thing with people. I did write a
computer program, and was told that my father knew someone who could
turn this into so much money for me, that I would ride the most
expensive car in the whole city (this is a 200 000 person city now).
I ofcourse refused, because I'm not doing it for myself but for the
cause of peace & justice. You can - and probably should - be wary of
that, but on the other hand: can you do better ? You notice the mess the
world is in ? "The world" is not going to do the Torah, this is clear,
and the Torah also doesn't contain a State (merely a King), and that is primitive. While Israel is comparatively great, it is in that sense
not good enough either. Rather than put fault with me for problems which haven't even occured yet (even though they could), you can also ask: 1.
would you do better, or 2. would anyone else do better, and 3. what are
the risks involved in *not listening*.

I argued out everything logically, which opens everything up. It is not
because I just said something or I heard God talk to me. If that was the
case, the whole thing is closed and becomes another religion (a risk
which is there anyway, I realize that). Because it is logical, you can
test the logic, and disagree or agree case by case, point by point.
Eventually if things get done, it should become clearer and clearer
where things could be improved more, what was more important and what
was even wrong. This is not how religions tend to work, and neither how Dictatorships work. They merely pontificate, and you either shut up and
listen or reject everything. I don't see how I could have done better on
these problems. I see there is a risk involved, but I also don't know
how to reduce it further, except by dying. I will die anyway, so in the
end that gets fixed as well.

It is sad I feel to need to talk about myself rather than the issues,
but I think people are mostly intellectually empty and decide most
everything on emotions and social issues (see above), and that is why
for them the "me" of it is the *only* thing. That is the sad part. It is
the only thing that does *not* matter, but they have that the wrong way
around. The risk is great though, of dictatorship and cults and all that
stuff, which is also automatically generated by people and can
potentially not even be stopped by the person being the target of it. If
you will do better, then go for it. You don't have much time remaining
to propose something.

Ah, and you do realize of course, that "Everybody will just say
whatever I say, and because I want peace everything will be OK" is not
going to cut it, but is precisely creating the problem of cultism and dictatorship ? The problem is also a matter of projection, since this
is how a great many people will think how to solve the big problems:
"If I was in power, then ...". See, you then project this unto me,
as if this is a power grab. You dont' look, you don't hear. The power
will go to the designated people within the system, who are elected by
you and you are electable yourself.

I guess this covers, roughly, why the Prophets of Israel and good people
end up being hated and are sometimes even murdered. It is out of a lack
of humility, that is probably the key thing in it all.

It looks like time ran out on you in Israel. You are not going to be
able to run a meaningful political / economic reform program with this
kind of war going on. You still should do it of course, but political
reality is that the chances of this happening have diminished greatly
for the duration of the hostilities. I guess than we could say, you are
now too late. The punishment section of the Torah could now start to
happen against you, for not listening. Shema Yisrael ... Hashem
Elokeinu, Hashem Echad ... but you did not listen to His kind advice
in the Torah. No hearing, no unity, but war, just like the Torah said.

You have had your chances, plenty of them. Time and money spend on
dancing before a far eastern idol, to the bitter end. Are you happy with
your choices now ? Do you see the consequences, or it is all "their"
fault, someone else was bad, so now you have to kill them, and they will
have to kill you in return.

Okay, 483 lines in this editor. I think that means I am officially
crazy. Have a nice day ;-)
--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)