Comments on: The lowest of men ride outrageous myths to power, and our elites help them http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:49:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: qwerty182764 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147886 qwerty182764 Mon, 08 May 2006 03:25:59 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147886 Nice essays. I'll read them more in depth later. Thanks. Nice essays. I’ll read them more in depth later. Thanks.

]]> By: larwyn http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147581 larwyn Sat, 06 May 2006 19:30:42 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147581 qwerty182764, I really like your explanation for the ease with which some revert back to pure ENVY: <i>In the distant past we were hunter gatherers. Chasing herds around was probably a pretty tight zero-sum-game. The nature of the food source was extremely limited, and could only support a small population of hunters (perhaps even other pack animals, like wolves, included). Someone else’s gain really was your loss, and so such predatory and adversarial reaction to hardship might have been useful. If you were hungry, you attacked the guy who ate well, and stole his range. Needless to say, this is insanely maladaptive in the positive-sum industrial age. But there it is.</i> Hope you will read Robert Godwin posts at OneCosmos: <a href="http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/united-93-no-heroic-deed-goes.html" rel="nofollow"> United 93: No Heroic Deed Goes Unspoiled by the Left {on ENVY}</a> Link: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/united-93-no-heroic-deed-goes.html and also these: Post: Left and Right: What You See is What You Beget Link: <a>http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/left-and-right-what-you-see-is-what.html</a> Post: Yes, You're Offensive. No, I'm Not Offended. Link: <a>http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/yes-youre-offensive-no-im-not-offended.html</a> qwerty182764,

I really like your explanation for the ease with which some revert back to pure ENVY:

In the distant past we were hunter gatherers. Chasing herds around was probably a pretty tight zero-sum-game. The nature of the food source was extremely limited, and could only support a small population of hunters (perhaps even other pack animals, like wolves, included). Someone else’s gain really was your loss, and so such predatory and adversarial reaction to hardship might have been useful. If you were hungry, you attacked the guy who ate well, and stole his range. Needless to say, this is insanely maladaptive in the positive-sum industrial age. But there it is.

Hope you will read Robert Godwin posts at OneCosmos: United 93: No Heroic Deed Goes Unspoiled by the Left {on ENVY}

Link: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/united-93-no-heroic-deed-goes.html

and also these:
Post: Left and Right: What You See is What You Beget
Link: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/left-and-right-what-you-see-is-what.html

Post: Yes, You’re Offensive. No, I’m Not Offended.
Link: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/yes-youre-offensive-no-im-not-offended.html

]]> By: qwerty182764 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147411 qwerty182764 Sat, 06 May 2006 04:44:28 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147411 Now that I think about it a bit more, it does fit. The tyrant, the man of violence, under the tribal hunter-gatherer mode of thinking, is the guy you go to to lead you to wealth and glory. He's the guy who is supposed to lead you into battle, slay the Enemy, and take his stuff. No wonder it's subliminally attractive. If you're in the thug's gang, you're <i>important</i>. You're the true bread-winner and advocate of the tribe (back then anyways) because the only way to get food is to take someone else's hunting range. BTW, feel free to merge the comments if possible. Now that I think about it a bit more, it does fit. The tyrant, the man of violence, under the tribal hunter-gatherer mode of thinking, is the guy you go to to lead you to wealth and glory. He’s the guy who is supposed to lead you into battle, slay the Enemy, and take his stuff. No wonder it’s subliminally attractive. If you’re in the thug’s gang, you’re important. You’re the true bread-winner and advocate of the tribe (back then anyways) because the only way to get food is to take someone else’s hunting range.

BTW, feel free to merge the comments if possible.

]]> By: qwerty182764 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147410 qwerty182764 Sat, 06 May 2006 04:32:03 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147410 What do you think? What do you think?

]]> By: qwerty182764 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147409 qwerty182764 Sat, 06 May 2006 04:30:54 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-lowest-of-men-ride-outrageous-myths-to-power-and-our-elites-help-them/#comment-147409 It seems we're hardwired to believe complete nonsense, as long as it fits some general pattern that must have been useful to our pack-hunting ancestors to socially organize. Just look at the appeal of apocalyptic visions of final battles between the unquestionable and completely good in-group, and some "omnipotent" and completely evil Enemy. Look at the way modern educated people are treating, oh, say the energy issue. They don't see energy as something that you produce by building energy production infastructure. They see the current energy prices as an affliction rendered to the good in-group, the "little guy", by the Enemy, usually "Oil Cabals", though in socialist countries the government takes the place of them. What is the solution? Not building oil wells and powerplants. Lashing out against the Enemy. Sticking it to The Man. Ridiculous and irrational, but possibly it has the instinctual and emotional appeal you are talking about. In the distant past we were hunter gatherers. Chasing herds around was probably a pretty tight zero-sum-game. The nature of the food source was extremely limited, and could only support a small population of hunters (perhaps even other pack animals, like wolves, included). Someone else's gain really was your loss, and so such predatory and adversarial reaction to hardship might have been useful. If you were hungry, you attacked the guy who ate well, and stole his range. Needless to say, this is insanely maladaptive in the positive-sum industrial age. But there it is. It seems we’re hardwired to believe complete nonsense, as long as it fits some general pattern that must have been useful to our pack-hunting ancestors to socially organize. Just look at the appeal of apocalyptic visions of final battles between the unquestionable and completely good in-group, and some “omnipotent” and completely evil Enemy.

Look at the way modern educated people are treating, oh, say the energy issue. They don’t see energy as something that you produce by building energy production infastructure. They see the current energy prices as an affliction rendered to the good in-group, the “little guy”, by the Enemy, usually “Oil Cabals”, though in socialist countries the government takes the place of them. What is the solution? Not building oil wells and powerplants. Lashing out against the Enemy. Sticking it to The Man. Ridiculous and irrational, but possibly it has the instinctual and emotional appeal you are talking about.

In the distant past we were hunter gatherers. Chasing herds around was probably a pretty tight zero-sum-game. The nature of the food source was extremely limited, and could only support a small population of hunters (perhaps even other pack animals, like wolves, included). Someone else’s gain really was your loss, and so such predatory and adversarial reaction to hardship might have been useful. If you were hungry, you attacked the guy who ate well, and stole his range. Needless to say, this is insanely maladaptive in the positive-sum industrial age. But there it is.

]]>