We Can’t Unsee What We’ve Already Seen

Standard

The underlying personality types of all humans are fundamentally the same across our species.  The same problems, desires, fears, etc. are largely the same regardless of “race” or location.  People with the narcissistic personality type display the exact same behaviours whether they are Black, White (which includes most Middle Easterners,) East Eurasian, etc.

Up until now, we have been trying to deal with issues of racial intolerance by pretending that all people are exactly the same.  This is only a band-aid cure because differences obviously exist.  The cure is not to pretend there are no differences but to take a mature enough perspective to realize that these differences are not actually that important.

The problem is that any study of racial differences or characterization of such often gives rise to extreme prejudice, often from those within the scientific community and those conducting such studies themselves.  James Watson is not somebody who, from my perspective, takes a very mature approach to the issue of racial differences.  People like Watson, Dawkins, and many in the scientific/academic field are always assessing for the elite group they want to be a part of so any indication that a group will not be a current convenience immediately results in discrimination/prejudice.

DNA-structure

For many people, the cure to racism is to just get over it.  When you watch many reality shows, houses usually become divided based on people’s personality-types and taking race into account just becomes too confusing.  Also, I’m sure there have been time periods where people living in very ethnically diverse locations such as the Middle East did not actually view “race” as being that big of a deal (though there have obviously also been times when it’s been used to condone things like slavery etc.)

badgirls

However, there also needs to be a level where people involved in classifying/characterizing natural phenomena can discuss or do scientific studies about differences in race without it giving rise to discrimination.  This can only result from people accepting differences rather than pretending those differences do not exist and taking a mature/tolerant rather than an immature/elitist outlook.

Filipinos are known for having many gifted singers/orators.  This is likely more than a completely unfounded stereotype.  The producers of Miss Saigon scoured the earth looking for talent from the Asian community and often could not find strong enough vocals.  Filipinos ended up comprising a large bulk of the cast and were given lead roles based on the fact there were so many good singers within their population.

Does that mean all Filipinos can sing? Obviously not.  And using this to pretend Filipinos are more human than others is as foolish as arguing people on Broadway are somehow a superior breed of human compared to the rest of us.

classic-sign-co-hero.960x378

Focus on superficial traits/differences is often used by sinister personality-types (of all races) to distract from the real issues at hand.  For example, there have been aggressive right-wing pushes all across the Westernized world.  In Japan, neo-Nazis are using the ideologies of people like Hitler to discriminate against ethnic Koreans living in the country.  One quick and convenient way to maintain elite standing is to subjugate a more innocent group of people.  The Spartans did this with the Helots.  “European” colonialists did this to the rest of humanity.  It allows people to avoid issues of elitism and inequality and gives rise to quick convenience because one can easily become a king by having less privileged peoples do all the work while one reaps all the reward.

Carried_Slaveowner

Judging based on superficial traits also masks more sinister personality types within our own “races” who are far more different from average humans than average humans of different races are to one another, in my opinion.

As an analogy, it’s easy to miss the fact that underneath the superficial similarities of aquatic animals with fins, dolphins and whales are actually more closely related to us than to fish.

dolphins-jumping

Anybody who’s had to deal with narcissistic/sociopathic/elitist personalities knows it’s better to be trapped in a room with a kind person of any “race” over such malevolent spirits.

Advanced Egalitarianism: The Indus Valley Civilization

Standard
indus valley civilization - ancient history

Click for link

 

…The social conditions of the citizens were comparable to those in Sumeria and superior to the contemporary Babylonians and Egyptians.

…neither sculptures of rulers nor depictions of battles and military campaigns have been found, evidence pointing in either direction is not conclusive.

 

 

 


The Indus Valley Civilization is known for its highly sophisticated and egalitarian urban development that included multiple story houses designed to take advantage of air currents to create natural ventilation.

Many houses had wells and bathrooms as well as an elaborate underground drainage system.

Their society was known for being peaceful.  From my perspective, a society that is peaceful, egalitarian, and lacking evidence of rulers points to very limited elitism and the likelihood of statelessness.

The Illegitimacy of Academia

Standard

Another reason to guarantee a basic social income is because a formal institution for the humanities is not only no longer required, but likely detrimental for human thought and progress. It’s obvious that greater truth, honesty and insight within the “humanities” is better accomplished outside of formal academia. However, this only holds true if people are free to speak their mind rather than being scared of homelessness as a result of a refusal to pander to any type of employer (whether that be employment coming from the private or the public sector.)

A better system would be for those currently on academic tenure to live off a monetary redistribution system alongside others who contribute to art, philosophy, sociology etc. who are not currently apart of formal academia.

The only departments within the current scholastic structure I feel are worth formally maintaining are basic history (possibly including aspects of anthropology and sociology) while all else within the humanities is better done away with and left to anybody within the unfettered public sector that wants to become involved in that (as will inevitably be the case over time anyways.)

Thus, without guaranteed basic income or a guarantee of basic needs those who would have been a part of scholasticism within the humanities will either be poor or will have to change their views drastically to appease wage-keepers {neologism: any gatekeeper to income.}