The right way of thinking

 This world is really complex and nobody has the exact answers. However, worringly enough, humankind has arrived to a stage, where we have come to believe there are some people, who know how things work. In fact, the very word knowledge is very misleading: It implies the information known is correct; yet, the opposite is generally the case: namely, it seems almost impossible to think of anything we once hel most holy and did not later realize to be completely misguided. As a matter of fact, we do not need to go far into the past to find many of these misconceptions. Do you remember the world just a couple of decades ago? Everybody but the most awkward and antisocial folks smoked like chimneys. Even your primary doctor would be taking drags on his cigarette, as he lectured you on how to stay healthy. Evidently, we had a very inaccurate idea of what is pernicious and what is healthy. For instance, some of the most reknown doctors were totally convinced they have found in yogurt the secret to a long life. Ironically enough, one of these misconceptions is the scientific method itself: that is, most people believe the scientific method is some sort of true-knowledge generating engine applied by scientists to, little by little, find out new stuff. However, a description following the opposite line would be more accurate: namely, the scientific method is not meant to certify the correctness of scientific theories, but to debunk them. Indeed, by clarifying how things do not work, we slowly come closer to how things work.

Now, if our certainty in even the most nonsensical and toxic myths would not be bad enough; it is even more troubling to consider that - probably due to our sheer misconception of the scientific method - as time progresses we are not getting closer to the truth of things, but are actually moving further apart. Definitely, while the scientific method has certainly allowed us to improve our understanding of the little things; when it comes to the big questions in life, the answers we receive are getting more and more idiotic. This is so much so that today we have turned against the core of cardinal principles, those truly fundamental to a person's life and our social organization, that throughout time had proven most successful. This radical ideological transformation was crucially triggered by the American and  (even more so) French revolutions. Humankind is undoubtedly a phenomenal success story; yet in order to bind us to the fake-Democracy monster, in order for the veritably toxic fake-Democracy ideology to gain full control over our minds, it was imperative for us to know, that everything about the (autocratic and patriarchal) Old Regime had been evil. At this point in History, - as much as those at the top try hard - there is no hiding the fact that the American and French revolutions were not about the people's freedom, human rights or whatsoever. Rather, it was a matter of cold hard cash: the most wealthy families in the society have simply never wanted to pay taxes. Whether we like it or not, undeniably, the most wealthy and privileged in the society will never have any desire to give back. As much as we like to talk about brotherly love and pretend the utmost concern for the wellbeing of our fellow countryfolk, in reality, not much sleep is ever lost over other folks' hardships and misfortunes, particularly, if we have never met them before. To make a long story short, no one will ever pay any taxes, unless he or she has no choice. But, who will ever be powerful enough to force the wealthiest families in the society to give back? The revolutionary founding fathers' rebellion against the nation's autocratic figure led to the exaltation and glorification of the supreme value of separation of powers; however, historically it is well established, a strong central authority is necessary for a society to function. Only a strong central authority has the power to force the redistribution of the nation's wealth and resources, and so enable the rejuvenation of the society through social mobility. A society without a strong central authority is like a family without parents. Who is going to establish and enforce some law and order, if there is no strong central authority? There is no way around it, one only needs to consider the Middle Ages to understand, that without a strong central authority, it is the Law of the Jungle, it is a free-for-all. In fact, a strong central authority is the whole point of the State in the first place. For example, if there had not been any state, it would not have been possible to bring the tobacco industry to heel and we would all still smoke like chimneys.

True, autocratic regimes are flawed in many ways; but a strong central authority does not at all require the presence of an autocratic figure. The key lies in the Media: In order to attain a true democracy, knowledge cannot be monopolized by an elite of wealthy families, but has to be equally accessible to everybody. Once an idea has taken grip of the society, regardless of how absurd it may be, it is incredibly difficult to debunk it. When I first started studying the origins of Civilization, it really stroke me, I found it truly paradoxical to hear archaeologists and historians pointing to any sign of social inequality and stratification as the most informative marker of a sophisticated and highly evolved society; whereas we only need to take a quick look at today's world to wake up to the veritably horrifying reality of a obscenely unequal society. Our moral code compels us to view as inherently wrong the domination of a human being by another; but, as it turns out, a reasonable level of domination boosts the development of a community. This is so much so that without domination there is no Civilization. Indeed, contrary to what our ideological framework has always instruct us to believe, Civilization is not at all a matter of superior intelligence, but a product of domination. As it turns out, social inequality and stratification is beneficial in the short term; but becomes toxically detrimental as it naturally exacerbates over the long run. Evidently, a body without a head will never be able to make up its mind in the pursuit of any objective, and therefore will be severly handicapped to accomplish anything sizeable. However, once an elite of wealthy families have set up shop at the top, - other than by a gruesome use of force - it becomes practically impossible to dislodge it, in order to rejuvenate the society with new ideas. Indeed, since we exclusively follow the guidance of those more knowledgeable individuals, who we feel care for us; those at the top will only have to fake some care for their social lessers, and we will not just buy anything they say, but - consequently - also do everything they advise. Do you remember what I said above about how my research had led me to realize that it is false that some people are inherently more intelligent than others? Did you believe it? Of course you did not! I am pretty sure I have not yet been able to convince any single person of the idea. Our ideological framework has drilled it very deeply in our minds, that some people have a higher IQ than others. My counterargument is simply against everything we have always been told since we were little children. Some folks may still nod to my observation; but it is only to avoid conflict, there is no way they will ever buy it.

I recently read Graeber and Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything". I found it really stupefying to read an anthropologist and an archaeologist arrogantly dismiss neuroscientists' general observation downplaying the role of conscious thought in human behavior. I had thought neuroscience is the scientific discipline that studys how the brain works, and  neuroscientists should therefore know the subject better; but, as it turns out, scholars in the humanities are adament it is actually the other way around: neuroscientists may know a whole lot about how the brain works, but in the humanities they have a far more profound understanding of the mind. As frustrating as it is, it is of no surprise to see the enthusiastic ovation The Dawn of Everything received from the intellectual elite. The book could not be more subservient to the fake-Democracy's ideology. It is perfectly aligned to today's overbearingly toxic way of thinking. It is hard to think of any of the many grotesque myths of the fake-Democracy ideology, the book does not fuel and prosetylize; whereas it does not fall short of attacking, not just the myths, but also most of the soundest of all ideas of the old, traditional way of thinking.

Graeber and Wengrow actually start off with a fascinating indigenous critique to Western thought and civilization. The exposition is truly enlightening, as it shows to what extent the individual's way of thinking and conception of the world is completely shaped by the community's culture and general ideology. Indeed, when Europeans first arrived to the Americas during the XVI and XVII centuries, it became evident to what extent indigenous folks had a totally different understanding of the world. For instance, according to Graeber and Wengrow, for XVII-century indigenous North Americans it was as difficult to understand concepts such as obedience, as it would be for us their concept of law and justice, where, not only the culprit, but also his entire lineage or clan was held responsible for the offense and therefore was likewise expected to pay some compensation. Obviously, we always believe that ours is the right way to look at things. However, if we view it in perspective, now that our Western mentality has changed so drastically from the XVII century, it really feels hard not to give that Native Americans' conception of the world was actually better. For instance, considering the much lower levels of criminality in traditional Native American societies, their approach to Justice really seems to have worked better than ours. Oddily enough, whereas Graeber and Wengrow share indigenous folks' critical view of XVII-century Western way of thinking, they do not follow the same logic to cross-examine the many grotesque myths of today's fake-Democracy's ideology. For instance, it is really disturbing to read two such eminent scholars doggedly making a perverse case passing as beautiful times of peace and human freedom, those periods of History where there was no central authority; despite all what these authors know about, for instance, all the horrifying violence of the Middle Ages. Why on Earth do such prominent scholars fuel and prosetylize such toxic ideology? So, you are now a romantic, almost-quixotic, fully-motivated young idealist History student just arrived to graduate school, oozing lofty dreams of change and justice, and have no better idea than to tell your senior historian that his endorsement of the principle of 'separation of powers' is erroneous, since History shows that a strong central authority is necessary for a society to function correctly. Well, we will see if you are ever awarded a grant and receive a Ph.D. degree... 

Lamentably, fake-Democracy's propaganda against a strong central authority has been so pervasive, that at this point it will not raise any eyebrows. The self-reasoning reader, however, is more likely to turn to something between stupefied and apoplectic as the argument advances to an obscenely disingenuous propagandizing of fake-Democracy's fake-feminist docma. In a rather pitiful attempt to win the favor of the female audience, the prominent authors cannot find any more infantile way to flatter the female ego than to come up with the vain speculation, according to which bread was in all likelihood "invented" by a woman. If the invention of bread was in all likelihood the consequence of the "inventor's" negligence, rather than an act of genius, what is really the point of arguing whether the "inventor" was a man or a woman? Is the fox really ready to resort on any kind of argument in order to get the crow's cheese? Really, who cares if bread was invented by a man or a woman? Is bread really such a formidable achievement? Was bread invented at all in the first place, or did humans - men and women - stumble upon it thousands of times throughout History? As a matter of fact, if bread came into being because, time and time again, folks would space out, forget about what they were doing and leave the wet flour to mold in the sun; then it seems safe to say, that in the immense majority of the cases it was actually a (male) Homer Simpson, who stumbled upon it... Still, - given the vanity of what was the sex of the first person to produce some sort of bread - only a fool would take seriously such a ridiculous speculation; but where the eminent scholars really give away their hand is with the frivolous suggestion, according to which the origin of social inequality and injustice may perhaps be found in the degradation of women's working conditions in the temple factories of Ancient Sumer. For some really disturbing reason, no consideration is ever given to the male slaves that, at the same time, were being grinded to death, working under the most inhumane conditions in the quarries outside of town. 

You see, when the American founding fathers set out for ideas to rally support for their cause of liberating themselves from paying the taxes levied by the English Parlament, they did not have to consult with any rocket scientist to come up with the hoax, according to which the point was to liberate the people from the autocrat's shackles. However, being patriarchs as they were, it could have never occured to them, that they had also always wholeheartedly desired to liberate women from their husband's shackles. It shows that - contrary to general belief - the social organization we live in is not solely the result of the politicians decisions; but we are all actors. Lamentably, in heavily stratified societies, the more wealth one controls, the stronger the sway over others and, therefore, the bigger the role played. Even more than languages, system ideologies (such as fake-Democracy, Communism, Fascism, etc.) behave like living things, and naturally evolve to favor the interests of those most influential people in the society. Given that the female sex undoubtedly is the absolute focal point of any species, in order for a political and ideological system to be embraced, it needs to appeal to the female audience, particularly upper-class women. It is not a coincidence that women played such a crucial role in the French and the Russian revolutions. There is no way around it, the opinion of women has always been paramount. 

Women give life, whereas men are only good for fighting and producing material goods; so, which of the two are more important? Is not the power to create life the sheer definition of God? Yes, the rule of Nature has always been that a man should ask what is that he can do for his queen; whereas a woman should ask what is that her man can do for her. Woe to the society that dares to defy this capital law; Nature has absolutely no mercy with infractors. Much is very grotesquely and repugnantly disingenuously argued these days by our fake-feminist intellectual elite on men's natural domineering and abusive attitudes and conducts against women; yet, when all is said and done, who kneels before whom?, who has to prove the love? A woman may completely fall in love with a man - as Alia did with me -; but, for obvious reasons, she will never ask him to marry her. Rather, she will let him know she expects him to ask her to marry him. The sheer survival of the species resides squarely on women; thus, the life of a man does not have much purpose if he is not able to find a woman he can support. This subjection to women is a capital principle in the man's psyche (if not his sheer DNA), otherwise the species would not be competitive. Indeed, whereas women love to receive hugs from anybody, nothing makes a man feel better than when a woman asks him to give her a hug. Much is very grotesquely disingenuously argued these days by our fake-feminist intellectual elite on equal abilities and qualities of men and women; but, we all know, that, thanks God, men and women are considerably different. It is simply the natural consequence of Evolution, that Men are typically better suited for certain tasks, whereas women are typically better suited for some other tasks. For instance, men take more risks, because in Nature the life of a man is less valuable than the life of a woman. Clearly, the lives of men are expendable, since the death of a man can always be easily made up with another sperm donor. After all, if the guy dropped, it seems safe to say he was not very competitive anyway. Now, if a woman dies, the loss is irreparable. 

Women had never felt any need to learn how to fish; but had always been perfectly content having men fish for them. On the other hand, men were more than happy to go catch as much fish as his queen could wish for and demanded. He could only feel blessed that she would believe he was the best fisherman in the world.

Indeed, while men feared his queen would ever find a better fisherman, women feared some other woman would snatch her fisherman away. Now, there is not much one can do with fish, other than to eat it. Money, however, can be employed for almost everything. Yes, as humans became more knowledgeable, grew more powerful and rose over subsistence level, the biggest threat to our survival became other humans. In the new era, for the sheer survival of the community, men's fighting skills as well as their dedication to produce material goods gained crucial relevance. Human communities competed one against another, and only those which were able to muster the strongest fighting forces prevailed. Men have always competed for the women's favor; but now they grouped together to fight for the women in their community. The community's most ferocious warrior became the most powerful person in town, and - while the other men had to bowed down their heads - he could have any woman he desired. All what women could aspire was to bear him the child, who would inherit his power and wealth. Clearly, given that men have a bigger natural disposition to strain themselves to make money, as money grew ever more important than life in civilized societies, the lives of men likewise increased their value, in accordance to the wealth they owned and were able to make. With the advent of the French Revolution and the rise of the wealthy Bourgeoisie, violence became no longer an acceptable form of seizing and exerting power; from here on out, the upper class will limit itself to impoverish their fellow citizens to death. There was so no more any reason why upper-class women would have to submit to their male peers. Evidently, the community did no longer need upper-class men to lead the military forces in the battlefield. Upper-class women therefore set out to wrestle power and wealth away from their male peers. Obviously, there was absolutely no reason why upper-class women should have any less privileges than their brothers and husbands. Furthermore, if upper-class men had been able to rally support for their cause of liberating themselves, by promising freedom to their male social lessers; there was absolutely no reason why upper-class women would not likewise be able to rally support for their cause of liberating themselves, by likewise promising freedom to their female social lessers. Certainly, learning how to make money was a totally different ball game than learning how to fish. There is so much more one can do with money! If only women had known, however, that the game of money is always rigged... Indeed, much unlike the game of love - where women will always hold the best hand to win over their husbands - in the game of money there is no way around it: the House always wins. Nevertheless, it would be all good, if it were not because nowadays women do not have a choice, whether they want to learn how to fish or they prefer to simply rely on their husbands to catch for them the fish they need. As we all have been taught, under fake-Democracy's fake-feminist ideology, men should no longer ask what is that they can do for their queens, but what is that they can do for their nation; and women should no longer ask what is that their men can do for them, but what is that they can do for their nation. Not unlike my mother and countless other feminist women, Robyn, Alia's mother, was one of those fools, who believed feminism was about women's rights, freedoms and wellbeing.