Would you rather have peace or freedom?
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that in order to create the utopian society of world peace, we have to completely eliminate freedom. Wow, okay-crazy pants, how’d you decide on that morbid assessment?
I suppose it’s the application of basic logic to complex ideas. Simply put, to create world peace you would only have to prevent people from being violent. In this wonderful thought, we forget one important fact, Humans, no matter how advanced, are still animals, and animals are violent. So, to truly have peace, you would have to force it. You would have to control. Not just any kind of control either. I’m talkin’ the kind that sneaks up on ya. I’m talking the kind of control that occurs when a chick says “I know we’re not serious, we’re just hanging out, I’m cool with it.” Then one day ya turn around and all of a sudden without your permission or knowledge you’re in a relationship, in fact in spite of your protests and deliberate NO’s somehow you still end up there like a magician just pulled the card you picked-out of your back pocket. THAT’S the kind of control I’m talking about.
However, there is a ray of hope for world peace, because willing submission to enslavement is built into our genetic blueprint. It’s why a hierarchy of command in everything from government, to work, to home life exists. There’s one simple condition in the back of all of our minds; the enslavement needs to be subtle enough that it creates the illusion of choice and/or control. As soon as the people feel as though they look like they have no control in any aspect of their life, that’s when a rebellion starts. That’s when people break up, quit their job, or attack the government.
I’ve always believed that people want the truth, and that to seek truth is one of the most honorable paths a person can take on. Unfortunately, life never taught me that, it’s just something I believed. In my book I talk about how women prefer the illusion of control, perhaps I was wrong, perhaps it is simply people in general that prefer an illusion to the real thing.
So far, the best I can figure on why is that truth is not at the top of our genetic priorities list. This means, at least to me, that the genetic priorities encoded in our very being are the key to understanding everything we as human beings, and in reality all creatures, do. Again, the key lies in the acceptance of the fact that we are animals.
What are those genetic priorities? I’m going with… drum roll please… survey says: Reproduction and dominance. I’m sure there are others, but Reproduction and Dominance are top priority; truth and freedom take a back seat to both. Territoriality stems from the need for reproduction and dominance, and violence stems from territoriality. So, to eliminate violence, you would need to eliminate territoriality. To eliminate territoriality, you would need to eliminate the need for reproduction and dominance.
However, a world without dominance is a world without competition, without leadership. It lacks advancement and progress and falls into routine and so the species as a whole lacks direction.
A world without reproduction is a dead world.
So you need dominance, and you need reproduction, and as I’ve said time and time again, regardless of what a woman says; her actions show that she is most attracted to a dominant male. So, at least on the genetic scale, the cause for reproduction is dominance. So, for reproduction to exist, dominance must exist. Yet, these traits that ensured our survival in the primal “caveman” days are the very needs that have destroyed societies time and time again in “civilized” days throughout history.
Without direction, dominance often degrades into greed, reproduction often degrades into neglect. Destruction follows.
This is when control comes into play. If you can control dominance and allow it to exist at a level just beneath its point of degradation, you can potentially allow people enough freedom to follow their natural tendencies, while controlling them enough to prevent those tendencies from spiraling out of control resulting in destructive behavior.
The most effective tool for controlling dominant behavior that I have seen is fear. However, too much fear can trigger aggression, the natural response to an immediate act, or the mind projecting what one act could snowball into. So, when using fear, you must temper it with the illusion of the controlled having dominance in order to sneak your actions past the public eye.
If you directly try to take something away from someone, they will fight you tooth and nail to keep it. However, if you threaten to take twice as much from them, let them fight for a bit until they get tired, agree to only take slightly less than half of what you originally wanted to take, they will now view you as being reasonable, they’ll feel as if they won. Then, later, if you take something miniscule and just so happen to end up exactly where you originally wanted to be, there is little left to fight about. This is a loop hole in the human personality that has been used in everything from gas prices, to law making and so on.
The interesting part is when you interview individuals, plenty of them know exactly what is happening… yet they allow it. Why? The illusion of dominance and control remains intact, people still get to feel like they “made” that entity dial back whatever it was trying to take, so “we win”. The key is to tire them out on the big push, so when you dial it back, they don’t have any energy left to realize that plenty is still being taken from them.
It works, because people choose illusion over truth, because it’s not their top priority. They know the game, but as long as they get their little sliver of perceived control, and as long as freedoms are taken sliver by insignificant sliver, it will never be enough to enrage an individual to the point he or she feels the need to unite with other like minded people and disrupt the routine of their day by fighting back.
So, it would seem, in a sick and twisted way the use of control to slowly trickle away the people’s freedom results in a more docile society, docile people are less aggressive, which could potentially result in more peaceful people. Great.
Sadly, this is not the first time these methods were used, granted, the theater has changed, but the playbook is pretty much running the way it’s been for centuries, and for centuries societies have reached their peak and crumbled. Why? Again, we forget we’re animals.
Let’s take it back to the beginning, and look at what’s already happened to try and find out what’s really going on. In the most basic of elements, reproduction and dominance drive everything people do. Women find dominance (not control) attractive, if you don’t already know that… learn it now. Women are also the gatekeepers to reproduction. So if a man wants to reproduce, he must be dominant.
The thing is, what it takes to become truly dominant requires a man to be a strong leader with clear foresight and the determination to see projects to the very end and go all the way with everything he does. To reach that level of manhood, a man has to face his inner demons, he has to shed his emotional armor and do what almost everyone you’ll meet in your life is afraid to do; believe in himself. This is great, and when in the woods, or while hunting wooly mammoths, this made life go by with great balance.
Way back then (and today too) when you combine the desire to dominate with the desire to reproduce, you get the desire to spread. As people begin to multiply, the need to dominate the breeding grounds leads to territorial wars, and so for the collective desire for survival (which would afford all-their fair chance to dominate and reproduce) tribes begin to unite and put their differences aside.
This unity, or “peace” that followed the violence spawned by domination and reproduction eventually resulted in cities, and states, and nations. As time went by, Alpha males began to have difficulty performing their duties. What was genetically designed to be the leader of a “pack” is now the leader of an enormous mob, and so for the sake of the leadership, doubt must be eradicated. The population must be simplified to the point that it does not question (religion?).
However, when a man overcomes so much in his journey for true dominance (which is different than control, contrary to popular belief) and he reaches the point where he can “command a breeding ground”, he now sees no use for an entity designed to simply tell him what to do. He’s a thinker, a survivor, and he’ll screw up every last bit of control needed to establish world peace.
Questioning and doubt must be removed through simplification of the population. Simplification of the population is established through fear much in the same way that control is. In this case, fear is caused by confusion. Have you ever noticed how governments will create their own “legalese” language that is so difficult and confusing to read that eventually you just give up trying to understand it and thus relinquish your control, or dominance, of that government and put your trust in them to do the right thing? I dated a chick whose sister was a con artist, according to her the best con is one where the mark ends up thanking you for what you did to them. “Don’t you worry miss, don’t you worry sir, we’ll take care of all this crazy, confusing, backwards talking law for you, yep, you are welcome. Okay, have a safe trip home, thanks for stopping by… bye.” The government attempts to appear subservient to the population when in fact it is controlling the population. The worse it does at appearing subservient, the more people will defect or fight back.
Fear prevents the people from venturing out beyond their understanding; confusion shrinks their understanding offering more things for them to fear, more ways to be controlled, further shortening their leash. When the noose is tight enough, you can then begin to eliminate the desire for domination and reproduction which was, after all, the cause of this mess in the first place when you think about it.
You can impose social standards that limit free thinking to prevent any one idea from becoming dominant, you can impose laws that allow you to watch the people and observe their daily behavior. You can instate health requirements to control what they eat, and these controls all set precedents that allow you to set more controls. When everything is controlled, everything is predictable. When everything is predictable, every bad thing is avoidable.
And so, the key to peace is the complete elimination of freedom.
So far, in this wonderful utopia, one minor detail has been overlooked; genetically we are pack animals, we’re still animals. Therefore the system will always rise to its peak and crumble so long as it ignores this simple fact.
Without freedom, there is no room for domination. Without domination, there is no room for competition, which naturally refines and improves the genetic line resulting in better and better alphas. Without alphas, there are fewer and fewer women capable of finding a man attractive enough to mate with. Ladies? How hard is it to find a guy? Not just any guy, but a man? Let the guys know if they disagree with what I’m saying.
The thing is, when a woman is picking someone to romp in a back alley somewhere, she doesn’t consciously choose based on a written criteria, she chooses based on pheromones and instinct and other criteria built into us by nature itself.
Personally, I feel human beings do not have the self understanding to do a better job than nature when it comes to choosing a mate. Not to mention, often when writing down or creating a mental checklist desired traits, social conditioning plays a larger part in a woman’s decision making than it does during say… a night in Vegas. I’m not saying the only way to have a proper baby is to have sex with a random person, I’m using extreme examples so that people will completely understand what I mean when I say that we are animals and as such, need to act like them sometimes; mates should be chosen on primal attraction before they are chosen based on a fabricated criteria to ensure the best match.
However, willful submission to enslavement is built into our genetics, it’s why a woman can have sex with a man she is not truly attracted to in order to create the family life she is socially conditioned to want. Social conditioning, being one of the forms of control used to ensure peace, favors what traits? Correct; non-dominant traits. Therefore, in this new world of extremely calculated reproduction, the most calculated any society has ever been, dominance is accidentally being bred out of the blood lines by the population itself; we’re now doing the work for those who aim to control for the sake of peace. How nice of us, how peaceful of us. As dominance degrades, the quality of leadership will also degrade. Without leadership, the movement towards utopia loses its direction.
Without direction, dominance turns to greed, reproduction turns to neglect. A government’s desire to maintain the people’s illusion of control withers, and their ability to abuse their position becomes more obvious to them and so the illusion of dominance crumbles as people can plainly see their rights being violated, their money being taken away and their trust being taken for granted.
Without these and many other aspects of continuing the illusion of control the population’s impression of their ability to freely dominate and reproduce becomes warped. They begin to see the methods of control that have effectively taken away their ability to be dominant alphas and thus limited their perceived ability to reproduce, and so territoriality becomes an issue yet again, and the fight for freedom is actually the fight for dominance and reproduction.
However, the noose is now on, control coupled with the people’s illusion of dominance now dissolves into one simple thing; oppression. The oppression spawns angst and as we can see from history itself, slowly but surely, in spite of outside attackers, or plagues, or heavy metal poisoning, every society ripped itself apart from the inside out.
A free world cannot survive inside of a peaceful one.
To a point I think Rome understood the concept that people are animals, as it existed in a time when humans were still trying to separate themselves from the animals. Perhaps that was the point of the Gladiator spectacles, a way to curb the inner animal and bleed out the aggression, unfortunately, none of them made the choice between peace or freedom. Their inability to choose, or their ignorance to the fact that such a choice even needed to be made may have laid the groundwork for all other events that eventually led to its fall.
It would seem that a unified answer to a simple question would at the very least result in a clear direction for all to follow, so that even if certain leadership lost its way, it could find its way back to the goal of either freedom, or peace. I am forced to see that what is lacking in society from the very beginning is a culturally unified answer to the question “Would you rather have peace, or freedom?”
Man, life is tricky.
Which would you choose?
Would you rather have peace, or freedom?
Thanks for reading; I know this was a long one,
(copyright 2010, Kephra Rubin)