[02/07/2016 minor clarifications on text (3rd paragraph from end); will add another chapter later, when get a chance.]
Cowardice in Group Dynamics: singular Resolution
Everything I have written about previously, is not mere conjecture or ‘theory’, but as the result of actual, real world experiments involving Governments, Security Services and public . Even the S.S. cannot deny that I did everything I could to avoid involving the public, the Government got what the Government ‘wanted’ – including public involvement; ironically, this strengthened the nature and consequences of the ‘experiments’ beyond anything otherwise done.
Welcome to the world of ‘Black Experiments’; ‘Black’ is the generally used term for anything that Governments wish to express ‘deniability’, except of course when it’s perceived to be of political ‘advantage’. This (operationally/experimentally unnecessary) public involvement alone would make it ‘Black’ from Governments point of view; the consequences of this abuse of authority will ring ever louder as people grasp the subtle and profound implications of the Eq – of which I was fully aware, and made full use of.
None whatsoever; that I was able to ‘sift’ out the opfers (Government/s ‘Agents’) from the social background noise only created a reinforced ‘feedback loop’, that and the ‘public’ became willing active participants in all that occurred.
Did I forewarn the Governments of the nature and consequences of their actions?
Yes, absolutely. The ‘experiments’ were carried out to the highest standards; even the active participants were ‘blind’ to what the actual experiments were; a remarkable achievement in itself, Governments ‘profiled’ and used a very particular mindset without revealing to those involved WHY they were ‘chosen’. It was an entirely unique opportunity to advance and base a theoretical model, upon real world conditions; the fact that I am here today able to write about these things is testimony enough to the depth and efficacy of the Equation.
This particular experiment, is rather important in that it showed a remarkable ‘weakness’ in what should be an incredibly strong position, both numerically and authoritatively. In order to appreciate the qualities of the circumstances that I was in, let me describe the situation: homeless, no money, no ‘friends’ or family, no ‘contacts’, no work or income, abroad, under constant and hostile 24 hour attention from Governments with NO recourse or hope…
Not exactly ‘ideal’ circumstances for conducting experiments, it might well be considered. So, how the fuck did I get into such a position? Well, it wasn’t my ideal choice, that’s for sure.
It did, however (if nothing else, but for absolute necessity) open opportunities for clarifying certain theories about the ‘power’ structure described by the Equation; how ‘choices’ became solidified/locked in as a Universal/Class ‘rule’ to be bound by all. ‘Free will’ is bound by historical choices, but how?
In a group people are ‘brave’, not exactly cutting edge research or novel insight there; with the opfers (Agents) I questioned them about ‘grounds for causing suffering’. Whether it was OK to cause misery/harm to someone if there was no grounds for it: their answer (in a position of power/strength with Government support) was ‘yes, and don’t care’ (they believed they could get away with it).
Well, that simply confirmed that I was to all intents and purposes screwed; fortunately for me, I had some expertise in ahem, ‘esoteric self defense’, and this could be ‘turned around’ for pro-active purposes.
After further interrogation (allowing some re-enforcing of their self belief), I ‘isolated’ individuals from the group and then posed another possibility: So, it’s ‘OK’ causing suffering to someone with no consequences or accountability (demonstration of proactive ‘technique’)…?!
It is curious how people change their minds when faced with the realities; suddenly they changed their minds and ‘agreed’ that ‘accountability’ was a ‘good thing’.
This is a somewhat shortened version stated here, but the main point was (in accordance with the evolution of the Eq.) that even ‘Selfish’ individual choices can comprise a binding group agreement. ‘All’ that is required is a bit of forethought, and preparation. It doesn’t matter whether or not there is ‘belief’ in a system structure or ‘rule’, it works in the ‘background’.
More later (running out of time…)
Segue Fulcio Radicitus
… it works in the ‘background’.
A list of ‘questions’ can define the principles of Social Ethics surprisingly well, when the advantages of the applied principles are made clear to a ‘Selfish’ cell. These core ‘principles’ are the basis of Ethical Socialism, which – ironically – define the ‘best’ outcome for any individual, in the longer term.
Ask yourself: do you think it is ‘fair’ for someone else to benefit by taking ‘your’ resources’ even, after a long time after the initial ‘theft’?
Ask that of a S. (‘Selfish’), and they may well declare otherwise, till its pointed out that the same could occur to them repeatedly with no ‘compensation’; hold on you might say at this point, surely that would make ‘you’ (the ‘taker’) no better than the original ‘thief’?
Quite possibly, so, let’s take a slightly different tack:
A small group of like minded and forward thinking individuals agree a Socially Equitable set of rules, essentially: fair division of labour, fair division of rewards.
Being only a small group surrounded by S., the S. take as much as they want with little or no regards to others; thinking about it as a group, it isn’t ‘very fair’ is it, so what to do ‘ethically’?
Let the group warn the S. what they are doing is ‘wrong’, but ‘allow’ them to continue building up a deficit of social inequalities – “Weakness and/or madness” I hear you cry!
Maybe, but this ‘deficit’ gives a another kind of currency that can be used in this form to ‘convert’ into stronger group unification: let us now return to previous situation and question the S. over this ‘debt’, this time showing the consequences of long term accumulated ‘theft’.
How do you think the S. will reply when faced with the consequences of their own actions/choices being directly applied to them, will they continue selfishly or choose to ‘accept’ reasonable rules (especially when pointed out, they can use it against those that ‘steal’ from them)?
The thing is, there can be dozens of such little social groupings, each maybe having there own variations upon a theme; but unifying to a common base set of rules – Game Theory, the same laws apply regardless. It is ‘simply’ a case of recognising such ‘laws’ and applying them; of course, by ‘agreeing’ to such ‘rules’, doesn’t force them into ‘obeying’ them; in fact, in a resource rich environment (with regular ‘rationing’) those with a predominantly ‘selfish’ outlook may go their own way in the ‘good’ times – then ‘cooperate’ in harder.
Whom do you trust, those who work together in good and bad times, or just those who ‘cooperate’ in the bad times?
Surprisingly quickly, even in a large (and growing) community, fundamental forms of Social ordering (laws, rules) are quickly brought to bear; always with the proviso, even though ‘bound’ individuals are ‘free’ to choose otherwise – and regularly do when it’s in their perceived self-interest. Of course, those that consider the longer term benefits, are much more likely to be Socially Bound by their actionspersonal/group History.
Question was, how does this relate to today’s society, and can it be ‘proven’ experimentally? (Hint, ‘Class’)
By playing by the ‘rules’, automatically weakens those that (even though ‘stronger’ in short term by breaching such) that do not; it is like creating fatigue in a metal, by understanding the properties of the ‘metal’ and playing within those strengths and weaknesses you will extend the life-usefulness of the product. Whereas, ‘abusing’ the product creates weaknesses that can be exploited by the wily and knowing Master, to the downfall of the ‘abuser’.
Opfers often considered my actions as ‘madness’, even when I had explained the reasons for doing so… Why explain, surely keeping them in the ‘dark’, ignorant would be even better?
Indeed, but ‘ignorance’ can be used as a form of ‘denial’; by carefully explaining the consequences and nature of what is happening, this ‘get out’ is denied (ahem) to them. It also pisses them off no end, and racks up the ‘culpability’ factor to a very high level; experiments continue to show, they cannot change the nature of their choices even when it is in their own interest!
This modus operandi of ‘allowing’ the S. to continue doing what they want, is surprisingly prevalent within corrupted belief systems; only the Government/s ‘God or belief system’ is entirely hypocritical in allowing corruption to continue whilst saying ‘God will forgive you for it’!
Which is exactly what one would expect from an entirely corrupt definition and application of a false ‘God’, that benefits not the Socially Ethical, but the bigoted deceitfulness of temporal authority!
A Socially Ethical ‘God’ however, puts responsibility, accountability and culpability right back into the hands of those that make up this section of Society – a true ‘God’ of hierarchical Attainment through application of fundamental Game Theory and its consequences.
Which one is your ‘God’?