I thought I have a diverse and colorful social network or at least I did not expect that I have somehow excluded a big parallel reality of Trump supporters from my life.
Everybody in my social circle (residing in Europe, the middle East and the US) – literally everybody – is frightened and is mourning over Trump’s precidency. Where are the others who have actually voted for him? I would not be upset or sad, at all, to see them celebrating but I don’t get anything on my news feed.
Either I have Trump supporters and they hide their celebration from the world which I doubt it. Or Facebook hides it from me as their algorithms assume that this will keep me longer on their platform to click ads. Or simply, Trump supporters are nearly non-existing in my social circle. I seem not to have friends who have voted for Trump. Or I may have really few.
The thing is that I never removed someone from Facebook for being a Trump supporter and I won’t. I have taken similar wrongful measures previously when my philosophy was more tied to my reactionary political views. There and then I have happened to exclude people from my social friendship because our political views deviated. But I haven’t something like this lately, at least not because of politics, and certainly not becose of someone being a fan of the Republican party or a Trump supporter.
YET, I don’t seem to have any one in my social network who have voted for Trump. Where are they? How can I find them, befriend them and hang out with them?
I don’t befreind people in political rallies, why am I located on such a politically polarized spot now? How come I ended up with so many Clinton, Sanders and Jill Stein supporters and have I not come across anybody from the majority of the American voters? Can they be stereotyped for me to understand why not? They love country music, have family values, and call themselves socially conservative in some sense? Well there’s not any reason for me to have excluded them for any of thse reasons. Quite the contrary. And neither for them there should be a strong stereotypical reason to exclude me. But we have not come across each other, probably in any of the red states that I have travelled, or the places that I have been to. Is that so?
I will travel to the US next week and will make sure I meet some Trump voters/upporters and will hang out with them to break the social network’s self-reinforcing illusion that the world is in a full agreement with me. And well, which agreement? I was not even a Clinton supporter.
We seem to live in two parallel realities, divided with respect to the bi-partisan magnet of the US election lately. But I don’t wanna blame it on the social media’s news feed algorithms and their so-called “echo chambers”. I think the links between me and Trump voters hasn’t been simply formed in reality and social networks can’t capture something that is non-existent. They haven’t helped it form either though, which is a different topic.
Are we two parallel intertwined species minding our own business and pass each other bye only in public transport where people’s political agenda is not written on their foreheads? And then we crawl into our own bubbles to keep spreading our ideas to like-minded people?
The reality of Trump’s precidency didn’t hit me so hard as waking up to the gravitational forces of some mysterious dark energy that we don’t see but we can detect its effect on the universe, for example, after seeing the election results!
Come on people. Who voted for Trump? Let’s hang out!
I could write this in a thousand and one narratives, but tonight is the “merger” narrative. This is because this week two telecom giants merged together. Another merger, indifferent from anybody’s struggle to stop them.
This time 85 billion dollars. Let this number sink in a bit and then try to see the pattern here. You have seen it if you follow the global business news regularly:
Mergers are getting more and more frequent.
The acquisition prices get exponentially higher.
The industries involved get more diverse, which means more aspects of our lives is going under monopoly.
The rules that used to control and stop the mergers and guarrantee a minimal competition keep getting weaker by corporate lobbyists and bribed politicians.
What do we expect from these dynamics? They will slowly kill the competition and change our norms and habits. The pace of changing our internal habbits like the external environmental changes are not fast enough to be seen by the naked eye. It’s like staring at the hour hand of the clock; A 100x time-lapse can reveal it. Actually that was a while ago. We are talking about undergoing an exponential change so a 10x time-lapse is enough to make it visible for us, what change is happening around, and inside us.
But we are extremely adaptive creatures. We collectively conform to the norms around us and if they change, we change with them. What mergers do with those norms, is that when they get enormous enough to take over a whole industry at a globel scale, they kill the competition and unify the decision making between previously copeting entities. If one of the giants starts poisoning you, the other one will make a scandal out of it. But not if both are controlled behind the same dashboard. Can we comprehend the dangers here?
Megamergers are slowly changing our lifestyles, the food we eat and what it contains, the information we get, the politicians that rule us, everything! They can already predict and influence some of the decisions we collectively make and they won’t let you notice it. They think in statistics and you are just data points in their analysis. It is not even a month passed from Monsanto/Bayer merger that broke the historic world record of acquisitions at an stonning price of $65B, that this one silently came along with $85B. Can we extrapolate such an exponential growth and see what is waiting for us? Should we be suprised in three years witnessing a half a trillion dollars merger between an already merged food/retail company and another giant social network/media multinational corporate?
Let us fast forward this, fellow frogs:
Fighting cancer gets harder when it passes a certain level. Confronting mergers is increasingly harder when they get to such an gigantic size. Still, we may have a chance to bleck them now or regulate them more by antitrust regulators, but if we keep failing and wait longer, there comes a point that we cannot change the irreversible. That day we will see more clearly what is going to happen, but we will not have the power to stop it.
If things go as they are, in the course of decades if not years, the whole civilization as we know it will be acquired by one (not two) multi trillion dollar super-company or the coalition of multinational corpotations. Then their ultimate board does whatever they want with us data points. And they will have the means to do that, because we will be totally numb by then.
Did you actually follow me this far? Most people typically fail to care to this depth since they are already numb.
But you know that I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Right? When I say “the board” I don’t mean the mysterious bad guys who are sitting and plotting the apocalypse right now. Or whatever Illuminati. Don’t buy into those naive theories. Conspiracy theories, most of them, are for the kind hearts and simple minds.
Nature is not designed. It is organized on its own, based on simple rules. And it repeats the same patterns over and over. Nature is full of collapses and Doomdays and apocalyptic events. Big and small in all scales. These collapses are smaller babies of the big bang, only reversed:
Reversed in the sense that more and more things will happen in shorter and shorter times!
Our apocalypse will have many faces. “The merger” is one of those one thousand and one faces. The merger is a “winner take all” game. It is a race and we are all in it, but we don’t know who will win, however, there will be a winner. And many many losers. No one can predict who eats whom at the end of the game, but that will eventually turn out. And everyone will be surprised.
Even the people who may think they are conspirist themselves. Even those who think they are the bad guys.
There is a power above us all; It’s cancer. It’s nature. It’s evolution.
I haven’t spoiled the movie for you yet, and I guarrantee it will be full of surprises that none of us can foresee.
I think this is worth a 100$, but only if it works the way I want it to:
I need an “Esc” button to set my life free from any company that has grown bigger than a certain size and that can control my habbits, decisions and lifestyle, and shows tendency to do so, and to use controlling me as a customer to grow even bigger.
I am happy with the already purchased MacBook, although it was a forced choice in the absence of a true competition and among non-existing alternatives previously killed by giants like Apple.
But instead I will not check my Facebook feed today (Apple and Facebook are both in the range of 100 billion to one Trillion dollars worth companies).
P.S. Since this is copied from Facebook: Facebook’s AI machines should (if they already don’t) identify this post as not in line with the company’s profits and adjust the parameters to limit its spread. Next, they should discover obvious patterns of some million profiles like mine, that [for some unimportant reasons] do not contribute to the companies metrics which are supposed to drive profit fot them. So they should start adding us to a dynamic blacklist until we come back normal and contribute to those short-term metrics again.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Quite the contrary, I believe in accident, in self-organization. If you hear my opinions as theorizing a form of conscious conspiracy I have failed to communicate my message. In the absence of enough evidence, I refuse to believe that a secret society of few humans have teamed up to plot against the rest of us with a plot so seamless that no one has any direct evidence of. That a secret group of people have succeeded to gain control over the rest of mankind only because it is conceivable to persue a goal as such through technological tools like vaccines, chemtrails, or GMOs.
I am not saying that the effect is not there. Tracing the cascade of causalities and reducing the root cause to a bunch of folks around a hypothetical table sounds a very naive explanation to me. Our diverse pool of interconnections is full of false positives to fish for to support pretty much any theory that you can think of. To impose non-existing patterns upon the reality is like designing a crosswords puzzle. All it takes is to search for pieces of evidence that you need to put them together to create the pattern you are willing to see or believe. Not that I trust any longer in science as it works in rather similar ways, but the practice of making up unrepeatable patterns at its best is the work of art.
The biggest problem with conspiracy theorists is that they fail to show that randomness is not the root cause of the spotted pattern, and thus some intelligent design, albeit of human nature must have caused it. Most of popular conspiracy claims are quite unlikely when you think of how difficult it is for conspirators to execute, predict and control a chaotic system such as the modern human society without leaving a trace behind.
So having an ideal society where rulers are transparent and observed by the media and grass-root movements and whistleblowers monitor any wrong-doing or dirty plot, is there still no threat by the evil? Yes, there is. And here is the bad news:
Innocent intentions can collectively cause evil outcomes.
Sand pile experiment
There is a simple physical experiment during which grains of sands are dropped one at a time on a conical pile of sands and as a result once in a while there is a sudden avalanche. It was a Danish experiment in the 80s and was replicated by Norwegians on piles of rice in the 90s. Not so old findings yet they are the first physical experiments to demonstrate a phenomenon called “self-organized criticality” which is an “emergent property” of a complex system:
“Emergence: The larger entities that arise through interactions among smaller entities can show properties the smaller entities do not exhibit.”
The occurance of an avalanche is an emergent property for the sand pile. it is extremely unpredictable to the local sand grains and also to the experimenter. But if you could ask the local sands somewhere in the pile, what they would make out of their horrible experience of an avalanche, or its cause, they would probably blame few sands somewhere on top of the hierarchy. In fact no single grain of sand has control over the behavior of the whole pile. Even the experimenter who is God-like to the grains by having the whole picture fails to predict when and how the next avalanche will occur.
We humans are the sands in a complex sand pile, our civilzation. Based on our limited view of the local neighberhood we tend to believe that there must be a designer behind every human phenomenon around us. We tend to connect big events such as wars, revolutions, scientific discoveries and historical breakthroughs to certain leaders or public figures. Such good simplified story makes sense to our little monkey brains, cause we can never get even close to comprehend it cognitively. The best we can do is to oversimplify it in other ways, and simulate it. Our civilization is much more collective and complex than it is portrayed in the narratives of our history books or newspapers, no matter how honest they try to be.
When an unpredictably big social or political event – and usually negative – takes place, sometimes even when it clearly has a natural cause such as an earthquake or a volcano, people tend to point fingers at other humans. If we didn’t see a war, epidemic or a revolution to come, somewhere out there has to be someone who knew about it. Some one who has planned it.
It doesn’t have to be explained that way. Political events are the collective behavior of our actions, but since we can’t comprehend the details involved, we tend to believe that there should be minds, and minds of our own type, behind them all. There should be an intelligent designer behind these and that they must exhibit some form of team work behavior and perhaps in a way that we are used to in our daily organizations.
The conclusion is that secret organized societies with God-like predictive power and flawless control do not have to be the explanation for the political or societal evil that we face. Illuminati doesn’t exist in that naive form.
Or it does, it actually does. And I tell you, it is in fact me, it’s you, and it’s is all of us combined. Illuminati is our emergent property.
We are the building blocks of a complex hierarchical society and we have achieved the current state of our civilization due to two main factors that separated us from other animals: Individual and collective. Collectively the advent of language and the poewr of communications which helped us preserving our knowledge and build up a system of advanced tools by simpler tools. And individually due to the power of our thinking organ; the human brain. None of these two had to be extraordinarily different from other animals, but combined they passed a critical level that redefined our nature and turned us to something entirely different, in such a short time.
In the past fifty thousand years we have transformed our lives from tribal animals into interconnected socioeconomic beings in an advanced technological society. Meanwhile our brains has not changed much and we have arguably become slightly dumber even. Our brains, including the brains of our powerful decision makers, celebrities and politicians with a broad range of influence, is still tribal. This organ grew from 0.5 to 1.5 kg from three million years ago to some fifty thousand years ago, so two third of that brain, one kilogram, consists of programs that were shaped during our tribal life on the ground. Our bodies and brains have not changed much since then, but our collective environment has, drastically. We tend to think that we do things for truth and reason, though we only do what we do for one reason: survival.
The red button
Back in the tribal times the “red button” did not exist. Symbolically put, if Eve and Adam would push a button, at most a fruit would fall off a tree. Now there are buttons around us that if we push we could somewhat blow up things out of your sight; lives can be affected by a minor task of us. Now we can simply make changes by pushing a like button, ordering an item from a restaurant menu, buying a share from stock market, or deploying a code.
We do it all for the sake of our survival, indeed with our kindness and affection towards our local tribe. The people for which we naturally have capacity to care, are only a couple of hundred people who are around us, socially or geographically. We can never affectively reach out to seven billion people out there, and not in fact to zillions of animals and beings. Nature has simply not given us the empathic tools to do so. Despite that, in order to increase the power of our influence, we have redefined our environment and hacked the natural resources around us. Just like any other animal we do it for our survival with disregard to other beings. The difference is though we do it beyond our natural habit, systematically and technologically.
This already started from the first man who made a tool; the manifestation of grabbing and touching an object, using it, and leaving it NOT unchanged. Animals don’t do that. They either eat or kill the thing and destroy it permanently, or they let it be. We grabbed things around us with our hands and left them changed, still in our service. We made the first tools and then tools made more tools and that escalated. And well with an ultimate disregard to the nature and things that we touched, or things that we touched touched, we set up this advanced system. And now the complexity has reached a level that the mentioned disregard may come back to ourselves.
We tend to put our animalistic tribal behavior in a divine and holistic light. We are proud that we have made judiciary systems and rules, democracies and beurrocracies, technologies and computational systems to be soft and civilized and avoid the downsides of our wild tribal behavior. But are we still not let by apes like ourselves? Is the wild animalistic behavior limited to third world dictatorships and underdeveloped tyrannies, or to the ancient kings and emperors?
Now check this out. Apes and ravens are extremely social animals. As a group they sometimes team up to attack an isolated victim who did not play with the rules or to project a group failure onto that individual. When you see that for example 160 republicans (about the natural size of a human tribe) in a group act stop supporting Donald Trump, do you expect some of them to be brave enough and admit that this was not a calculated act independent from the truth of Donald Trump, and that was simply a tribal act of mimicking a group to conform? When you see such an animalistic behavior in such high levels or power hierarchy, do you really need to believe in conspiracy theories to explain evil? Let us not our problems on to the political parties or even broadly politicians. These are normal people like me and you. This is not about political parties or the individuals. It is about all of us and how rapidly and blindly we scaled up. This is what Hannah Arendt argues introducing the term “The Banality of Evil”.
Scaling up the human power to influence, without scaling its control mechanism (empathy) accordingly has been going on in waves since the prehistoric times and in each round the wave collapsed and taught us a new lesson on how to scale. Ever since we united in bigger groups than a tribe, an external force was required, after a collapse, to teach us how to scale in numbers while being in peace with each other. Depending on the size of the human populations we learned that we need to synchronize with music or stone idols, we need to invent language or religion, and that we need to set rules, judiciary systems and bureaucracies. The problem with our age is that we have never experienced the connectivity to this level, ever before. This is historically is not a good sign cause we don’t know what kind of collapse we will get after this and sadly it does not seem that predicting a collapse is enough to take measures to stop it. We need to see it with our eyes to reverse some of the aggressive and self-destructive aspects of our scaling.
Getting connected from a tribal to a global level, from a couple of hundreds to a few billions, is in fact a scale-up of a 7 to 8 orders of magnitude. Yet our amygdala has remained the same size as a hundred thousand years ago. What do we expect from such dynamics except for a catastrophic apocalypse? How can we theoretically see any other sustainable horizon in the near future when the scale-up is still going on and no one is trying to adjust it or advance it a bit more mindfully?
You see, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist or a fatalist to warn others that The Doomsday’s Clock might be ticking. You don’t need to spot and blame some conscious master minds or group for every disaster that comes along our way. The evil is not always one of us. It is bigger than us. It is our emergent property.
To put it intuitively, this video sums up the politics of our era. One doesn’t need to know more than this about politics: Scaling up the human power to influence, without scaling its control mechanism, empathy, accordingly.
We are not completely helpless though. There are solutions ahead of us. We can in fact take advantage of our destructive connectivity and design a data-driven system for functional empathy to avoid its collapse. This is not what we are doing. Nothing but a “technological self-consciousness” (interpret it in anyway you wish) can possibly save us from an exponential over-exhaustion of our limited resources and an apocalyptic breakdown.
Should we do something about that, or should we let the system collapse and wait for a new order to rise from its ashes? What’s right to do?
If you didn’t know how politics work, now you know: Some hundreds of thousands of children who are alive and fine right now and are having a safe time with their parents (from yet an unknown country) will die within few years, because of this table:
“The Act was meant to stop lobbyists from treating lawmakers and government officials to fancy dinners, or lavish parties. But the law had many loopholes — including a notorious “toothpick rule” allowing them to serve as much finger food as guests can eat.”
One of the respected guests of this lavish party, Maryilin Hewson, the CEO of Lockheed Martin and one of the top 20 most successful women on earth named by Forbes, had said before:
“volatility all around the region” should continue to bring in new business. According to Hewson, “A lot of volatility, a lot of instability, a lot of things that are happening” in both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region means both are “growth areas” for Lockheed Martin.
Someone should crash this party, and should go over to this bunch of ordinary people (when they are tipsy) and tell them that they should seriously consider to stop killing millions in other countries and to stop sacrificing their own citizens in thousands and so not to send over another massive wave of million refugees to their own countries. And not do all of these for a little more profit for themselves.
And that means they should stop everything they have in hands and do not sign whatever paper is in their offices and on their tables tomorrow (arms sale contracts). Then they should quit their jobs to work in a bar instead.
And if they ask why, you should:
“Because Eichmann. Because Hitler. Because Gadafi. Because fractal. Because history you idiot!”
Bayer proudly acquired Monsanto for $57B $66B. B means Billion.
To anyone out there who doesn’t quite [care to] understand why this is terrible news:
It’s very much understandable that we don’t like politics and it is fair that we don’t want to waste energy and nerve on potentially bad, or irrelevant news. It’s also very natural that we do not really know by heart what is the difference between $66B and say $66M. Or remembering that one of them is 1000 times bigger than the other.
Three quick questions
1. Do you eat food sometimes? Any kind of food.
2. Do you think you will be alive in 10 years from now?
3. Do you NOT work for Bayer or Monsanto or hold shares in any of them?
If your answers are positive, then yesterday’s final approval of Bayer buying the unethical evil firm, Monsanto, will hurt you and your children PRETTY SOON.
It will certainly affect you negatively in 10 years from now. It will make you and your family afford less food, in a more polluted and wasteful environment. Even if you are not a farmer or you are completely outside the supply chain.
And it doesn’t matter where you live!
Should we care?
We may not care that such mergers inflate prices. We are confident that we will afford it, no matter what. Or that they are just playing with “money” which after all is a fake entity.
We may as well not care that they make farmers lose their jobs. Afterall it is inevitable. Right? (However, on its right time and after the RIGHT process!)
Mergers will control market in the future with their monopoly. Is that the biggest problem?
The problem is that they will feed us what they want, at any cost for our body or our environment. Well, they are not our enemies. They just don’t care! They are after one profit and your lif is the cost!
That’s how they will poison you in a long run and pollute your surroundings. No cinspiracy theory. It’s simpler than that.
Industry-sponsored research and monopoly of big money
I am not a naturalist actually! In fact am pro GMOs and some of its applications. And some of the sustainable biotechnological innovations the big firms come up with. But when it comes to research there are principles.
It is a problem when big firms hijack science to rush profit instead of letting it be where it belongs to help a sustainable development.
Technology should move forward humbly, and with cafreful considerations.
Not everything that can be made should be made!
Such mergers patent natural development and abuse their monopoly later. Even worse. they make unnatural and dangerous developments that will hurt us in a long run. They lie to you too. Look at the sugar scandal that just leaked out at the same time, after half a century.
We are in trouble already. We should – today and not tomorrow – rush anything that will reverse the mess that we have made with our planet, not to make it worse. The only thing we don’t need now is a $66B acquisition like this that will end our hopes.
So you may want to read about what happened yesterday, act upon it, share some petitions, or be prepared to act against the next evil merger.
These mergers borrow from your future to add value to someone else’s now.
The most powerful nation on earth, the geography that still absorbs the best and most courageous minds on the globe, has managed to narrow down its three hundred million population down to two embarrasing choices. For their president, and commander in chief.
The two-party system is locked up. Money has reinfoced its power. In once being the land of the free and the home of the brave, people do not choose their faith freely anymore. America is no longer a democracy.
On one side the democratic party secretly back-stabbed Bernie Sanders, for a politician with a careless history of interventionism, bully and arms sales. On the other side a TV host with the scariest promises rarely heard in that level of power became the finalist of the republican party. And his rhetorics has already polarized the country in two or more hostile clusters.
It is hard to predict how the US (and the world) would look like after each of the two. But indeed harder to especulate that with Donald Trump.
Psychopaths and politics
I have no access to clinical diagnosis of Donald Trump and neither do I much belive in those labels. But Donald Trump is depicted by its opponents as a narcissist, or sometimes even a psychopath. These labels officially speaking cover the bottom one to four percent of the range of human empathy. True or false Trump has an attitude.
And I myself know of a politician who was certainly a psychopath by any possible measure. Those who have followed the Iranian politics would recognize the Ahmadinejad of Iran. Both are primitive and instictive enough to have been resembled to monkeys or alpha gurrilas.
But how can an average ape climb up the ladders of human power hirarchy and reach some of its highest tops? Showman ship? Trump is called a Narcissists who posseses not much quality and especially not related to the job of precidency, though he is good at mimicing the values around him and growing bigger by sucking the juice out of the things in their environment, without many considerations.
So if it is so that Trump has some traits of Ahmadinejad (and that he is a so-called Energy vampire) he should not morally hesitate to backstab his supports in the long-run and after they served their purpose for him.
Ahmadinejad which was the forced choice of the Iranian hardliners and took the power with coup by backstabing the rivals brutally, quite quickly started to make trouble for his companions and friends. That included eventually many conflicts with the supreme leader who had paid a big price by taking his side while they stole the votes of a nation in the Iranian 2009 election with the help of the military.
A psychopath’s strategy is defined by “self” and not so much tied to the long term goals of a greater whole, their environment, the constitution, a regime, a party, or an establishment. Their circle of empathy can be literally as tight as their skin boundaries, which enforces no commitment whatsoever, even to their closest friends. The core values of a psychopaths – self benefit – does not change, but the means of reaching those goals may change quickly by any change in the environment; A change in the environment, such as being elected.
The interaction of our politicians within the bubble around them is still driven by the primate brain evolved in the groups of 100 to 150 people. Now that the man kind is connected, such small selfish traits of parasitic behavior or psychopathy, and a minor flaw in practicing empathy can have world-wide effects and can spark terrible disasters that would destroy us all together.
It could have been a better approach in political science, to study the interaction of our politicians and how they play with the strings tied to them in their social organizations. It is crucial to follow up how people have climbed up the ladders, driven by their psychology, to see what damages they may cause in that system later.
Back to Trump and Ahmadinejad and that breed. Assuming that These folks have got no empathy, it is likely for their Amygdala (the so-called empathy center in the brain). For the moment that AI is still not that scary I think that the lack of empathy in power is the most important danger that the human kind faces. No empathy for the underdog means no empathy for the superior or colleagues and it brings pure uncertainty. A psychopath will not play within the rules. In this case Trump would probably have difficulties to show long-term commitment to any system, any party, or the establishment. He would not be committed to his fundraisers and lobyists, unless they make sure they have the means to control him during a future precidency. Do they?
If Trump is a real narcissist or psychopath he will serve himself only and this is generally the recipe to guess what his next step is. In this case he will not collaborate with other psychopaths within the system either, and will eventually make trouble for them and perhaps for the whole establishment. He would probably cause trouble for the other centers of power around him.
If Trump truly is a manipulator and his circle of empathy includes him and no further, then I think his precidency would have similarities to Ahmadinejad’s precidency in Iran, only that it is scaled up to a global level. Study the path of Ahmadinejad and may be that patterns is educational.
Clinton on the other hand, has a curropt history but she is more of a sane person. She will play within the rules and will serve an establishment. She will certainly collaborate with a good chunk of moderaltely selfish people, and will thus manage to cause some well-thought damage to the world. To optimize a local benefit of a group of elites that is quite bigger then herself. Clinton would be the continuation of the status quo. An increase the inequality gap and destruction of several other countries in the middle east would be foreseen from now if Clinton takes power. About Trump, we don’t know nothing.
One thing is that Anti Trump leftist camp fails to see that even for the main body of Trump supporters, this is a class war. And well, both sides need the majority and both play the same card this card since afterall this is still a democracy in form, and cannot be officially run by the elites for the elites, just yet.
Face-off type of comparison and focusing only on the personality of a candidate is misleading, but we can claim that if we get concentrated evil in Trump, we are getting distributed evil in his alternative. So go and especualte for yourself which one causes more damage and to which group. I don’t have the data for that.
There is a hirarchy of power anywhere you look at. Psychopath (and that term includes all of us in some levels) will cause damage for those who are on their blind-spots, i.e. outside of the empathy circle. And none of us have a universeally stretched circle of empathy. At least to keep the human kind intact and for the survival of our own species, it is important to bring to the public, the skills we ALL need to posses, in order to defuse the psychopathic traits around us, so they safely inhibit and ignore the careless harm that they can cause to a much greater whole. This way, may be we ultimately avoid or postpone the singularity that is awaiting us.
Expressed by his shaking voice saying that he takes “full responsibility” for the decision he took to participate in the US-led war with Iraq together with a coalition of 40 other countries.
This act should be encouraged and shall be taken as a responsible step forward to solve a “problem”.
And we have a problem.
All of us, every one of us citizens of the world, whether we live in a western democracy or a middle eastern dictatorship or elsewhere around the globe should come together and actively participate to solve this problem.
And what is the problem?
Something is terribly wrong with the world we live in. A world where the intelligence assemssment and sensitive information “turns out to be wrong” systematically. And the aftermath of the decisions that leaders make are “more hostile, protracted and bloody than ever imagined”, always. All the bloddy time, whether the politican is Tony Blair or Hillary Clinton in one camp or Saddam Hussain or Bashar Al Assad in another front, the outcome of the decisions that leaders make is more bloddy and hostile than imagined.
What is this stronger rule that governs them all?
Well, I don’t know.
I am not in the camp that says Illuminati and a secret society has been rulling us since 18th century and everything is planned for the centuries to come. Neither do I side with those who think everything is conspiracy. And that “mess” is an emergant property of our complex civilization and evolves on its own. And that disaster self-organizes itself a little here and there and everything will be fine eventually as long as we have good intentions in the long run.
It is more complex than that. Local democracies or military coallitions can not solve this alone. Politics in general can’t overcome it on its own. Love alone is not capable to see it or predict it. And science, solo, can not feel it or even care about it. No nation, organization, or party alone can go ahead, decide and fix this and expect good outcomes.
Many things are terribly wrong with the world we live in. And every innocent child who is born to this – before absorbing the currportion from the surrounding adulthood – can easily feel and see that the big picrure we are drawing collectively is getting painful and is getting ugly.
“Expressing sorrow, regret and apology” is a good start for all of us to admit that something is wrong. And that terrible things can come out of otherwise [hopefully] good intentions. This happens if we don’t look at a bigger picture, without understanding it, and without caring to show empathy for all the beings that will be affected by our choices.
To overcome the paralyzing forces of “guilt” and to be brave to stop legitimizing what we have been doing so far, we need to break the bad habbits. We need a “change” in one way or another. And we need a change that we choose, before a bigger change is forced upon us by the stronger forces of the nature.
And if we leave politics alone, politics does not leave us alone. So let’s focus on the problem. We don’t have a solution but this confession gives hope that there could be light at the end of the tunnel.
This inspiring Palestinian lady reminded me of another admirable person, actually from the other side of the “conflict”. An Israeli man also with disability caused by an accident, who could as well show how not to let anything hold us back.
He is a notable journalist at Wall Street Journal, who was guest to our relatives in Tehran and I later visited his home in NYC to learn more from him. This comparison makes me feel paralyzed, as I see but can’t do anything about it, that great people on both side of a conflict, are condemned to live in the shadow of mistrust and misunderstanding, probably for another hundred years to come.