The Accidental Prophet                            

Written by: Jem  Aura (c)

I am compelled to write. The computer I am sitting at tempts me to stop writing

and indulge.  It is the portal to which I exercise several of my addictions, to

escape. Now I am trying to use writing to escape from my addictions. I find that

in the turbulent wake of the cold turkey, writing about  my addictions can

stimulate as if I were actually indulging in them. A metaphorical methadone. My

plan is to wean myself off of the ultra stimulating topics and move into other

subjects that interest me, especially ones that line right up with those

addictions (see how my mind wanders back to that comfortable place). Even so, it

allows me to do something that I perceive as constructive. Nothing related to my

addictions has ever been remotely constructive. Not even indirectly.  and yet

writing provides virtually the same level of stimulation and obsession, and

produces a deliverable.  If one writes a story about murder, it is perfectly

acceptable. Likewise with a movie about murder, with some criticism usually

heard regarding the proliferation of violence. Ah, but if you act out a murder,

well then, a whole different story.  Similarly with what I am addicted to.

Perception is everything.

It is amazing to me the amount of stimulation one can receive from a computer. I

was quite accidentally sucked into it's clutches, not suspecting that it would

not let go, or that I could not break free. If we only look at one aspect: The

computer game, whether you are racing a car, solving problems, gambling,

examining puzzles, simulating reality, or being sexually aroused, games are

designed to stimulate the brain, and that spells addiction. Likewise with almost

all aspects of the virtual landscape: Email, HTML, NNTP News, Chat, IM, Webcam,

BBS, Blogosphere, MP3 music, Video, etc.,

Storyline:  Sometime in the future, sometime consistent with the evolution of

technology and culture to seem feasible,  a political rally takes place. Present

are a wide variety of activists ranging from environmentalists, to spiritual

leaders. Not since Jesus walked the earth has a man been so able to capture

peoples' hearts and move them to act. Unlike Jesus, his words are broadcast

immediately to the world, and the world is actually listening: across faiths,

cultures, and continents. As he takes the podium, the entire mass respectfully

quiets amid waves of hushing. He speaks of his concerns for the human race and

the world.

          He is called a modern day prophet, even though he denounces religion. His

reputation is such that politicians steer well clear of him, and bash him from

afar. Any and all who have challenged him in person were methodically buried

under mountains of logic, common sense, and the minutia of a photographic

memory, only to emerge looking and feeling rather ignorant and misguided. With

the rise of generation-X, it seems the timing of his coming must have been

planned by God Himself.  Indeed, parallels and comparisons to Christ swirl in

the air around him, and yet the entire Christian community, those that were

stubbornly clinging on, rejected him out of hand. Without intending to, Albert

had pulled away a huge number, and now their numbers were dwindling.  He

denounces all organized religion, but he especially dislikes Christianity. Aside

from his general belief the terrible injustices and crimes committed by its

leaders and followers alike are a blatant indication that they are human

creations, all of the apocalyptic preaching does immeasurable damage to the

world by giving its believers short-sightedness. Under strict religious

doctrines, people are taught to selfishly worry about themselves - rather than

the world they are leaving to their far distant great grandchildren. The message

is 'save yourself' not them. After all, why should we worry about them when the

world is going to end any time now? And by the way, why should we worry about

our environment, or conservation, or our exploding population

          The public address system suddenly boomed his voice across a square mile

of audience. "Can you imagine a world..."  Cheers erupted simply because their

waiting was over.  "Can you imagine...  a world without hunger?"  Still the din

was considerable, the shushing almost as loud. "Can you imagine a world, even

now, with abundant resources?  Seemingly unlimited resources? Food, energy,

land, wilderness, housing..., everything in abundance such that no-one would be

left in need of anything?  Can you imagine?  No?    Well, I can.  Just suppose

for a moment, imagine with me that it waswere true. What would. In a world full

of seemingly unlimited resources be like? How would it change us?    I imagine

that, the stresses of competition would be lifted, and the economics of growth

would no longer apply, and as such, people would start investing in each other."

          The crowd cheered loudly, but quieted down quickly - they liked the sound

of that, even though they didn't understand what he was actually talking about,

and as such, they didn't want to miss the punch line.  Albert waited patiently

before speaking again, and only a few coughs were heard in the space. There was

a great amount of anticipation surrounding this event: There was an unusual

aligning of the planets, and that stimulated over-anxious imaginations into

proclaiming a muchdeeper, even metaphysical meaningfulness. The buzz was that it

must beit's the dawning of a new age, and even though they could have stayed

home and watched it all via satellite, therea naturally occurring pilgrimage to

this large square. Upwards of half a million people.

          Again the PA towers boomed, "There is an answer. There is a way. It is

clear, and it is simple. I am tired of listening to all of the quote 'experts'

with their varied agendas, claiming to have solutions to the thousands of issues

facing the world, solutions mired in politics and trillions of dollars corporate

windfalls".

          ." The crowd roared in solidarity. 

          "Hundreds and hundreds of these so-called experts argue amongst themselves

on talk shows, with their deep pockets and political motives, polluting the

minds of otherwise intelligent people. Polluting them with self-serving lies."

Again the din of the crowd rose to a fevered pitch, then quickly died out to

silence. "No !  Do not misunderstand me. I am speaking of everyone, even you.

You do not know of what I speak. YouWe are all among the ignorant. YouWe are all

puppets. And after I tell you, you still will not know. But hear me if you can:  

If the world's problems were likened to the trees in the forest, then they would

all be connected by the roots to a single massive tree: One simple, glaring

truth that we are all afraid to confront, because it is truly a massive tree

that we have been blinded against seeing, shading us from the light of truth,

and all we have are spoons to cut it down."   He paused for a moment, gauging

the crowd.  It was time.    "Are you ready for the truth?"

          The crowd cheered, "YES!" 

          "Are you ready for the truth?", he repeated.

          Again "YES!", the crowd exclaimed in perfect unison, and much louder this

time.

          Once more he repeated the question, and they responded with deafening

enthusiasm. He paused for affect and waited for complete silence.

          "Well, here it is... :  There are too many people...     There are way too

many human beings inhabiting this planet."   Albert Bluefeather stood looking

out over the stunned crowd. There was no united cheer of solidarity, no waving

arms, only murmuring and disbelief.  This was the prophecy? This is what they

traveled so far to be told? Well, Albert had decided, if they were going to make

him a prophet, then he was going to make his message strike at the heart of the

matter. He knew this was not what they wanted to hear. It was what needed to be

said.

          He knew it was true, with every fiber of his being. The human species had

run amok, blind to the catastrophic effect that unchecked population growth was

having on the environment. The simple fact is, that if the world population of

humans was reduced by 95%, considering that we would retain our technological

advances in agriculture and manufacturing, that every single problem facing the

world would be virtually eliminated. World hunger, pollution, energy,

unemployment, homelessness, education, wars over oil, territory,  and resources,

environmental issues including wildlife extinctions, global warming, ozone

depletion, crime, and on and on...   These facts are indisputable.

          What is disputable is: How can it be done?  Simple: Stop having so many

babies.themselves :just indelible ones      "How can you argue with the truth?  

Name me one issue facing us that would not be solved if there were just less of

us.     I am sorry for you in your confusion. I know how it feels. If you trust

me, then hear me now: As a species we are designed to procreate. We think we

have free will, but we are being controlled and  influenced by forces we are not

aware of. We are dooming millions to famine and death by war over dwindling

resources. We need to wake up and seize control of the puppeteer, and cut his

strings.

          The crowd's interest was piqued again. Murmurs of 'What?' 'Who?' 'How?'

rippled through the ranks of listeners. He spoke again, for the last time, "I

cannot explain it all to you here, now. And trying to nutshell these concepts

will ultimately render them meaningless. I have posted my manifesto today on

many different websites and sent it out in cascading emails. Distribute it

amongst yourselves. Read it. Then read it again. 

           Whatever God did to create the universe, it included the fact that

everything evolved.  The universe itself moved from a homogeneous cloud of

helium and hydrogen, and evolved into galaxies, solar systems, planets, life,

all consisting of increasingly complex elements and molecules, arranging

themselves into forms according to an inevitable scheme.  Even the things humans

create evolve: Society and culture evolve. Technology evolves. Even the things

we become addicted to evolve to continually increase in the amount of

stimulation they provide.  But along with everything else, Albert had noticed

that human perception is evolving as well - our ability to understand the

dichotomy of the motives behind our behavior, that the double-helix DNA molecule

not only contains the blueprints for building a physical person, it also

contains the blueprints of our behavior. A rabbit's skittish and nervous

behavior is just as important for its survival as its ability to run and hide.

Likewise with a cat: having claws and teeth won't catch the rabbit, it's the

cat-like behavior combined with the body that works. And no matter how hard one

might try, you will never get a cat to act like a rabbit and visa-versa. The

behavioral blueprints are just as indelible as the biological ones. And in that

way, people are no different.

          One simple and absolutely necessary design aspect of human behavior is our

ability to deceive ourselves. Deep within us we are promised upon falling in

love that extreme happiness and bliss will live on happily ever after. We have

all experienced it. At the same time, we know absolutely that the honeymoon ends

and the romance dies. But if we didn't deceive ourselves about that, we would

not have babies. Look at how we are blind to the real problem facing our species

- and how the smartest of us bury themselves in the minutia of the symptoms of

that problem - trying to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. Why is

that? Answer: Because they are able to deceive themselves. It goes against the

basic rule of natural selection for us to want to reduce the population - and

since our behavior is a product of natural selection, then it fits that we are

blinded to it. Actually, the mechanics of our blindness to this problem is more

exactly defined as our inability to see the bigger picture of sexual behavior.

We have virtually no awareness of the true motives for a huge subset of

behaviors directly or indirectly related to mating and raising a family. That

lack of awareness has us believing that a society that regulates population

would be unbearable. Not because we have thought out the actual significance of

such a thing, but because we haven't. Whenever we try to go that route in our

thinking, unpleasant emotions and feelings begin to invade the thought process,

so we simply don't go there. One thought that crops up almost immediately when

discussing population control is, 'what if that other group of people (country,

ethnicity, race) cheats and grows their population so that they can take over

the world?'  Even though in this nuclear age large armies don't count for much,

we are programmed to think that way. War behavior has been encoded into our

species over eons.

          Another aspect of human behavior that supports the idea that we can lie to

ourselves is the perception of being right. That a person can pursue a path of

thinking and behavior that is so obviously wrong, but will doggedly assert it as

being correct and justifiable (to him or herself) by singling out a reason that,

by itself, might seem to be noble enough. It is as if we have the ability to see

the world through a soda straw, searching out one rationale for a selfish

pursuit, and being blind in the periphery to the many more obvious reasons why

we should not do it. In virtually all of these situations, such as stealing or

cheating on a spouse, even though any of a myriad of justifications swirl in the

mind of the perpetrator, they will keep them to themselves and avoid the

scrutiny of others. Being confronted by someone challenging the behavior is like

turning on the lights in a room full of cockroaches - If the roaches represent

the justifications, they run for cover, leaving the truth to be clearly seen by

all.

          I recall a climactic fight I had with my first wife. We had developed a

pattern to resolving conflicts: Sometimes I would agree with her point of view,

which was rather painless. But on those occasions where I did not agree with

her, We would begin to debate. Now I'm not saying I was always right, I was not.

Only that when she really felt she was right, and truly wanted to be understood,

I would usually be swayed in my thinking and come over to her side. However,

those times when she wasn't sure, trying to support weak points and conjecture,

she would plant her feet anyway, on very shaky ground, and never (I mean never)

give in.  

          So these more heated debates went down a very predictable path: The debate

would continue smooth enough until the logic of my reasoning was laid bare, then

she would quickly sabotage the conversation with a string of cruel and sarcastic

statements. I discovered later in the relationship that there was some other

force interfering, acting upon her, against her will, and unknown to her. 

          In any case, when this happened,  I would become mad and start attacking

her back, effectively ending the discussion with no resolution, which for a long

time I believed to be her intent in the first place. But how can there be intent

if she is unaware? If we are truly able to deceive ourselves, then we must have

some capacity to compartmentalize ourselves. Those long frustrating debates had

me convinced that she was intent on hurting me, that that was her motive. Now I

know that within her subconscious was the part that was being cruel and

controlling, and that she truly believed she was right and justified in her

behavior.  I did notice that the moment she becomes defensive from losing the

argument, It was as if a switch would flip, transforming her into a child, a

brat about seven years old that had stubbornly set her mind against cooperating,

regardless of common sense and consequences.  Eventually, when I would re-open

dialogue and try to make up with her (sometimes days later), she would have a

firm, self-righteous belief that it was I who started the fight. Of course

neither of us was willing to apologize, and while she was wanting to quickly

move on, clearly unconcerned with not having resolved the issue, I would try to

go back and re-assemble the details of the conversation. She said it was to

assign blame, but I truly was interested to discover the reasons behind the

behavior, and I was intensely frustrated with the fact that she was eliminating

my ability to influence decision making for our family.       On a few occasions I

got her to sit still long enough to inevitably start homing in on the point

where she initially sabotaged the conversation, and then, the instant the

realization hits her, she does it again. She sabotages that conversation the

same way, refusing to own up to her behavior.  It was the most exhausting and

frustrating emotional exercise I have ever experienced. I know it might sound

petty, maybe it is - to some, but understand what it must be like to love

someone, being continually hurt and belittled by them at each and every moment

that I chose to be serious and try to resolve issues, and then: what? Put a

smile on when I come home the next day and pretend nothing happened? No, this

was a very important issue for me and I studied her behavior with all of the

conscious and subconscious mental energy I had to spend. My retrospective of

those arguments, this pursuit, has helped me to break through and dramatically

change my understanding of human behavior.

          To continue discussing my first wife,  I finally concluded that there was

one part of her mind that she was not aware of, it was allowing her (her

conscious self) to humor me in my pursuit of the truth while also allowing her

to believe she was right - because she always truly believed she was right. It

was not malicious, because she was not aware she was even doing it.  So the part

of her mind that she was not aware of, was fully aware of what was going on,

aware of both parts of her mind and both parts of mine, and aware of who was

right and who was wrong, while the other part, the front line conscious part,

was only aware of itself and what it was being told to do without realizing or

caring where the feelings and emotions had come from, or why. 

          You see, feelings and emotions were what she was responding to in those

moments, and as much as we would like to believe we exercise free will, we will

never be in control of our emotions. They come upon us unbidden. All we can do

with our free will is struggle to keep them hidden

          So if we are not able to consciously control our feelings and emotions,

then who or what is in control of them, and what are its motives?  I've named it

the "Puppeteer".

          That makes us the puppets.

          A few pages back I mentioned a climactic fight. It occurred when we were

going out to dinner, We entered into a discussion regarding some topic while en-

route to the restaurant . After expressing my opinion in contrast to hers, the

sabotage occurred as if it were scripted. On this rare occasion, I was thinking

clearly and did not react as I had predictably done on previous occasions,

perhaps because I could see the writing on the wall and wished to preserve the

mood of the evening.  So instead, without getting angry, I continued to

paraphrase my views. And without exception, she struck out at me with personal

attacks and pointed sarcasm. Finally I asked her calmly why she was trying so

desperately to hurt me. She denied that she was, and stated that she was mad

because I had yelled at her: This accusation she had made many times before to

explain her behavior. I had not raised my voice.  At the time it seemed as

though the sabotage was designed to get me yelling so that she could disengage

from the discussion. It usually worked, but not this time.  Predictably, as I

picked apart our conversation, still fresh in both of our minds, and approached

the moment in which she became aware of the truth, she lashed out at me again. 

I still maintained my calm and asked why she had done it. At this point, she

realized she had no where to go, and she fell silent  After a few long moments

of reflection and my insistence for an answer, tears welled up in her eyes, and

she cried saying that she had no idea why she treated me that way, only that it

makes her mad when I'm right. She apologized, saying that I didn't deserve to be

treated that way, and re-stated the she had not a clue why she did it.  Later,

long after our divorce and I had dated several women, I realized that I was

being tested by her puppeteer. He was deciding if she should stay with me or

not. If I didn't fall on my knees begging to satisfy her displeasure in me, then

I might not be suitable any more. The same way a young woman will test a young

man courting her to see if and how high he will jump when she pouts. I know this

sounds sarcastic, but it really is not.

          One of the clues I had overlooked so many times in my many ponderings of

this situation was that the feeling of being angry or mad was to her, unwelcome.

She had no inkling of why she felt angry, she just did. And she held firm to a

belief that if she feels a certain way, there must be a good reason for it,

therefore whatever she does in response to those feelings must be justified. No

need to waste time actually naming or understanding the reasons.  It took three

and a half hours sitting in the car arguing (me holding her captive) to get to

where she could finally own up to her behavior.  and that was the only time,

before or since that she ever apologized to me for anything, and she continued

to behave in the exact same manner. However, witnessing the end-game of my

pursuit of the truth with her, and her subsequent forgetfulness of the whole

affair, has brought me down a completely unexpected path of problem solving to

gain understanding into the true nature and origins of such behaviors

          As a side note, I want to offer my views as to why I would assert these

theories having never studied psychology or micro biology, or neural science,

etc. Basically my view is that everyone, including people in these professions,

are under the influence of their own puppeteer, and therefore perceiving

themselves, their motives, and the world, through a distorted and falsely

colored lens. Our innate ability to deceive ourselves and believe our own

justifications for doing things, and our inability to eliminate emotional

reactions, leaves all human knowledge suspect. If someone is capable of

answering a question without saying "I don't know because my ability to perceive

things is distorted..." is not a creditable source of information - except to

disclose how naive they are.

          So, back to the events with my first wife: what are the reasons for this

behavior? How did it evolve? I don't think anyone would claim to know for sure,

but I have a strong suspicion it is associated with a woman's relative

helplessness in our ancestral environment, say 50,000 years ago. So in

attempting to explain the "testing" behavior I mentioned earlier, can you

imagine what life would be like for a woman back then, strapped with some very

young children? She would be, by definition, dependant. Out of necessity, she

needed to exert control over her mate - If she left her man to his own designs,

he would not be a very reliable helper. His behavior is designed to be able to

focus intensely on a task and see it through even in the face of incredible

odds. His behavior is not designed to be concerned about his children's short

term needs - the mother is. It would seem that it is a poor design. A poor

working relationship. Wouldn't it be better if they both worried about the

children's short term needs? But then they would also need to share concerns for

accomplishing many of the difficult tasks required for survival, tasks that need

intense concentration and effort to accomplish successfully - without

distraction from crying children, etc. - such as hunting, defending, building,

tool making, etc. No, it seems obvious that women and men have evolved

specialized talents. But what about the working relationship? Who's the boss?

Who makes the decisions? The woman knows about certain needs that the man is not

concerned at all about. How does she impose her will on a bigger, stronger,

single-minded, stubborn mate?  It is obvious that she cannot possibly do

everything necessary for survival while protecting and caring for the children.

Out of necessity, she needed to exert control over other people - especially her

mate 

          My theory is that women are designed to be able to control through

emotional influence. Men are designed to obey.

          Of course its not completely black and white, but I believe there is

essentially a significant amount of truth in it.

          Emotional abandonment to a man is devastating. Likewise men throughout

history have been able to control through more physical, or material means.

Emotional abandonment is not nearly as devastating to a woman than physical

abandonment. I mean, look how men are designed emotionally and behaviorally: Men

typically are not mushy emotionally, they don't display emotions as often or as

well, but are hypersensitive to emotional abandonment. Women are able to

communicate emotions but are less sensitive to the effects. In essence, women

are designed to transmit emotional signals, and men are designed to receive

them. The common name for this cooperative behavior has a negative connotation:

Co-dependency.

          This topic needs expanding to support the idea better.

So, let's assume there is some truth there, and if so, it brings to light a big

problem. In the ancestral environment, this interplay of emotional influences

and threats of abandonment worked. In today's society, women have been empowered

to provide for their own physical security. Men have not been empowered to

provide for their own emotional security, and women have not stopped using their

influence.

                   In terms of natural selection of behaviors, it fits very well that

if women were using the "test" of co-dependency in men, that higher levels of

co-dependency would be naturally selected into the male behavior not only

because the woman will be more likely to mate with a male that tests high, but

because the woman is using the co-dependency to influence the man in ways that

are in the best interest of his children.

          I understand that this leaves the door open for criticism since there seem

to be such a wide variety of behaviors that defy explanation. I am simply

viewing the co-dependency aspect from the perspective that it is pervasive

enough that it must have roots in EP. And in following that theory, it seems

that other pieces have fallen into place, and that suggests a correct path. One

such piece is a theory I have that while physical traits seem to change through

mutation (and other direct manipulation by forces not understood) rather slowly,

mutations to our behavioral traits seem to occur at an incredible rate. It fits

that God's design of the evolutionary process (the part we might begin to

understand after a million more years of evolution, and right here is a moment

in which we have to fight against the puppeteer. He will try to instill an

egotistical feeling of "I'm smart and I understand everything perfectly - I'm

right !   Because that is how the puppeteer keeps us from asking the right

questions.)  So, restating, it fits that God's design of the evolutionary

process includes considerations for the burst of progress that occurs with

technological and societal advancement, thereby allowing certain shortcuts to

the natural selection process. I believe that those shortcuts are in affect and

are primarily concerned with behavioral patterns. Some of the quickly evolving

changes could include: The seemingly natural ability of people to extend their

sense of self to include clothing and automobiles - that they are a part of us

and we can't easily survive without them; That it is un-natural, harmful, or

morally wrong to have sex with a woman who is below the age of consent

established by man's own laws, but is otherwise perfectly mature physically, and

would suffer no ill affects other than those inflicted by society. The

implications of this theory, if it holds true, is that once awareness takes hold

in the scientific community, we will be able to influence the direction of

behavioral evolution relatively quickly, and eradicate the remnants of

evolutionary behaviors that no longer apply to an awakened species.

          But how are people who (apparently) have free will able to be controlled

in this way? Why can't we see the forest for the trees? How do the genetic

behaviors exert their influence on an intelligent consciousness? Because surely

if a person were aware of the origins of certain behaviors, triggered by certain

emotional cocktails within us, we would be less likely to act upon them. 

Remember, the puppeteer is listening. If we become aware, that would not help in

the implementation of naturally selected behaviors - and as such, awareness was

naturally selected out of our conscious thought.  In it's place was selected a

belief that we are aware.  Now it is not difficult to understand that if someone

believes they are aware of something but are not, then they have at some point

been deceived.

          So, back to the question:  How can these behaviors be implemented in a

very intelligent consciousness?  Part of the answer is: sometimes they aren't. 

But when they are, how is it being done?     I have found this to be very

difficult to explain, and even more difficult to understand.  In a nutshell,

here it is: In lesser evolved species, say for example a rabbit, the

consciousness of the rabbit exists in a form so primitive that we as humans

distance ourselves from any comparison. However, we were also that primitive in

our thinking, once. You see, initially, a species' consciousness only serves as

an interface to the environment. An alert presence that combines the essential

elements built into the species for its survival: In the case of the rabbit,

hunger, fear, alertness, hearing, sight, sexual attraction, and a parenting

instinct. The question becomes: Is the rabbit aware of why it becomes hungry,

why it is a good parent, why it wants to have sex, why it can sense danger and

feel fear so acutely? Of course not. And it seems there is no reason to wonder

why not - at least until we begin to question our own awareness about why we do

things, and even more importantly, why we feel things.

          Many have argued that human beings exert free will. I would agree. But so

does a rabbit. A rabbit can choose one patch of clover over another; can choose

which mate he wants to pursue and how hard to fight for her - and the female is

free to choose which male she will allow to mate with her. etc. The instinctive

impulses are the road map for the behaviors, but there is free will in acting

them out. In a rabbit, the biology of natural selection is really not much less

evolved than in the human species. But if you consider behavior to be part of

the biology, then there is a considerable difference. In answering the question:

"What is the mechanism used to impose an instinctive behavior onto the

individuals consciousness?", for the rabbit, the answer is: "A simplistic scheme

of rewards and punishments that send the animal on its quest to  pursue those

things it is rewarded for, and avoid those things it is punished for." But what

are the rewards and punishments used? Transferring our own distorted thinking

onto the plight of a rabbit we might suppose that: health and energy is the

reward for eating; babies are the reward for sex; a black eye (or worse) is the

punishment for mating with another's mate; being eaten for not running fast

enough; etc.   These are not the way a rabbit thinks. The mechanism of natural

selection is doing all of the thinking for a rabbit. The true rewards and

punishments are emotions. Emotions are the internal language of each individual

in a species that establishes the link between the genetically encoded

instinctive behaviors (biological), and the actualization of those behaviors at

the appropriate time and place within the real lives of those individuals

(consciousness).  The genetically programmed script being acted out by the

consciousness gets it's cues off-stage from the puppeteer through emotions.

          If you could represent the puppeteer of a rabbit as a being able to think,

the voice it it's head would sound something like this:   If blood sugar is low

and stomach is empty, send the neural peptide for "hungry" into the bloodstream;

If there are pheromones wafting on the breeze, send the neural peptide for

"horny" into the bloodstream; If there are other males present, send the neural

peptide for "Jealousy" and "anger" into the bloodstream.  It reads more like a

set of instructions in a computer program. This set of instructions that is

doing the thinking seems as equally moronic as the rabbit doing the bidding. But

consider that as a species grows in intelligence and the complexity of its

social structure, that the set of instructions for instinctive behavior is

growing at exactly the same rate, laying down contingency instructions for all

eventualities that prove significant to the goals of the puppeteer: the

successful propagation of the individual's genes to subsequent generations, in

as large a quantity as possible. Social behaviors are without exception directly

or indirectly related to mating - and as such are a product of natural

selection. If a particular behavior doesn't work, or hinders the success of the

species' propagation, then those behaviors are not reinforced and eventually

selected out. Consider further that a species develops language and an

incredibly complex social structure.

          When you make the leap from the scope of the set of instructions required

to manage the rabbit species, to the scope of that for the human species, then

the puppeteer can no longer can be contained within that limited definition. It

becomes a consciousness of its own. As the intelligence, awareness, and problem

solving abilities of the individual increases, the cunning of the design of the

instinctive behaviors take on a personality of their own.

                   Consider this internal dialogue for a human: If visual cortex

identifies a beautiful woman, send neural peptide for "horny" into bloodstream.

Man replies internally "wait a minute, I'm on my way to work. I don't have time

for this, I don't want a baby. What if I get an STD? I don't want a commitment,

or change diapers, or pay child support."  

          And the puppeteer sends his own messages in answer:  "Sure you do, it will

be fine, pay no attention to those silly issues, it will make you very happy. 

If you don't, you will be lonely. The other guys will call you a loser. She will

not be happy with you."

          Notice how that list of responses are pretty close to what actually goes

through our head. They play on fears and other negative feelings, and promise

happiness and connectedness. But also notice that those answers are all lies.

100% lies. Whenever a justification or rationalization pops into our head, it is

designed to mask the true intentions of the puppeteer. Keeping us in the dark.

          Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. Some couples seem to thrive amid

this irrational (and unnecessary) interplay. Sometimes the roles are reversed,

which worked just as well, for the same reasons, but still are no longer needed.

          As explained earlier, but requiring constant re-emphasis, is that the I,

we, me, you, us, etc., faction is that part of us that is interacting with the

world and others. We are the conscious interface. The puppeteer exists behind

the curtain in our mind. He decides when to influence our decisions and

behaviors by pulling the strings of our emotions. When we experience an

emotional response to a situation or event, we become aware of a wide variety of

programmed behavioral responses, but not aware of where they came from. To us,

they simply are a product of our mind: an original reaction authored by us,

through our experiences. In reality, they are built into our brain through

natural selection.  Even the most timid and non-violent person will admit to

having violent thoughts after experiencing jealousy. People rarely admit the

extent of sexual fantasies that frequent their minds. These are film clips drawn

from the archive of our DNA, with a little creative license on the part of the

puppeteer to make them fit in with current events. They reflect  what he wants

us to do.

          This is how these forces work in our minds and in relationships. It

indicates that there are complex relationships that exist between the different

factions of a single person's psyche, and the different motives.  .  It is

important to understand that the architecture of these factions is a product of

natural selection and is part of our genetic make-up.  Moral and ethical

sensibilities, and especially our happiness, are not important to the puppeteer

- only successful propagation. And beware of the man or woman who become forced

to defend themselves against low status or loneliness, because there is a

warehouse full of behaviors designed to help a downtrodden human not only

survive, but procreate as well, because preying upon the vulnerable is a

cornerstone to the warehouse.

          Aside: When two people feel 'chemistry', in reality, the two puppeteers

have had a meeting to discuss their particular tendencies toward one strategy or

another, at length, and concluded that it is a good match. This doesn't mean

they think the couple will be happy, only that they have a very good chance of

cooperating long enough to get the job done. Once the puppeteers agree to bring

the unsuspecting couple together, they pump them full of 'chemistry' and let the

rest take care of itself.  This paragraph needs to go elsewhere, but I like it.

          Albert knew all of this. This aspect of human nature: To be able to lie to

one's self and believe it. It is the concept that he needed to preach, and make

people actually believe. It was absolutely necessary. In order for the new

paradigm to grab hold, he had to make the puppet part of the mind aware of the

puppeteer.

          As painful as his own awakening was, he emerged much more contented. Most

of his internal conflicts had been resolved, and he could see why people behaved

the way they did. When it came to others, he used to take things personally, but

now he had an objective view of peoples' behavior. He could stop himself from

acting on most of the impulses the puppeteer was trying to impose. Whenever an

unexplained emotion or feeling invaded his body, he would stop and ponder what

puppeteer was wanting, instead of himself - and the answer was almost always

evident.

          However, his new awareness had distanced himself from his friends and

family. He would try to explain to the people loved why they were doing the

things they did to sabotage their lives, but they would not listen. In fact,

several times he had witnessed their own puppeteers intervene in the middle of a

discussion, pulling them away with doses of intense anger, jealousy, suspicion,

or irrational fear forced upon them.  All Albert could do was watch. Strong

feelings are an incredible motivator - because that is what they are there for,

to force action and make it look like free will. Puppet strings.

          Albert had been stewing on these problems for a long time. It had been

twelve years since he finally actually believed that he was split inside - that

there was another consciousness at work inside his head, making him believe

things that weren't true... lying to him, and that he wasn't suffering from

multiple personalities. Everyone was constructed in the same way. Although many

people seem capable of minimizing its  influence in their lives.  Awakening does

not occur through the gaining of knowledge. It occurs when one actually believes

it. Having read some books and watching a movie that toyed with these topics, it

still took Albert thirteen years to process the information and incorporate it

into his belief structure. But the process was incredibly painful, time

consuming, and confusing - mostly because the puppeteer sees it as a declaration

of war, and every uncomfortable emotion is brought to bear upon the poor soul.

Most people won't sit still long enough for the message to take hold.  The most

successful students were the ones who were already experiencing intense

emotional pain, looking for answers that will bring some peace.

          It took Albert thirteen years to deconstruct his core beliefs and face

down his puppeteer. That was twelve years ago. Since then he has been trying to

figure out how to help others do the same. But he needed a quicker way. For

years, he had been carefully studying his own behaviors. And to his amazement,

he realized that even in the light of his awareness, the puppeteer was still

pulling strings. That is the problem that he faced. Becoming aware of (and

believing in) the true architecture of the mind doesn't change it: It can allow

for free will to make better decisions, but only evolution can actually change

the genetic map from which the brain is built.

          To define free will from the perspective of having a puppeteer inside your

head, unknown to you, it would help to understand a little more about the 'we'

part of the equation, us 'puppets'.  We think we are in control of what we

think. We are not. We have influence, but far from total control. To illustrate,

lets use an example that gets everyone riled up. This example will illustrate

not only our lack of control over our thoughts, but also another example of how

we lie to ourselves. Take an ordinary man, mid thirties, at the beach with his

wife and two children. He is in line at the hot dog stand. All day he had been

consciously avoiding staring at the young teenagers in skimpy bikinis, telling

himself "I'm not a pedophile, I have no attraction to young girls".  With an

armload of hot dogs, etc., he turns and bumps into the girl in line behind him.

Through an unfortunate set of circumstances, she is inundated by falling sodas,

pickle relish, mustard and ketchup. One of the hotdogs was stuck in her

cleavage. Everyone in the vicinity, including the girl and the man, began

laughing. Like a gentleman, he began feeding her napkins and watched as she

slowly wiped herself clean. Being good natured, she made light of it and even

complimented him by saying 'I'd be a lot madder if you weren't so handsome.',

hoping to make him not feel so guilty. After many apologies and a new tray of

food, he went back to his family. However, the image of the girl's breasts and

body, and her words haunted him for several days. She was thirteen years old,

tall, and physically mature, with large breasts. He fantasized about this girl,

and had a sexual dream about her. Is he a pervert? It is a matter of perspective

and perception. What are men attracted to? The median ideal for an 'honest' man

is a woman with features exactly like those of that thirteen year old girl. That

is to say that many women in their twenties and much older exhibit the same

characteristics as the young girl. So why is a man expected to NOT be attracted

to a young girl's breasts? Is it that we are able to conceptualize that they are

attached to a child, and therefore can 'turn-off' the attraction? Do you really

believe that we have that much control over what we think? I argue that we

cannot turn off what we are attracted to - only that we have some level of

ability to look at situations and choose not to 'act' like we are attracted. Let

me illustrate an example that I believe is directly related to how men identify

sexual features in women that are attractive to them:

          First, understand that a man's sexual attractions are almost exclusively

visual. If a woman does not fit the physical appearance of what he is attracted

to, there is little chance that he will pursue a relationship. Likewise, a

woman's sexual attractions toward men are weighted much more toward status,

wealth, and romanticism. There is a visual aspect as well, but it is vastly

different in significance and flavor. Next, we need to understand that the

visual cortex of the brain is how the puppeteer sees the world we exist in. The

puppeteer gets to see everything the eye sees, and he gets to decide what is

important and what is not. On the other hand, we only get to see what has been

filtered and packaged for us to see.  Through the visual cortex, visual

information is interpreted and packaged up without us realizing it is even

happening. When we see a pair of breasts that we like, it is packaged up with

the label 'nice tits', and instructions for our eyes to focus in and take a good

look. This package is then delivered against our will into our consciousness. 

Shutting off that attraction, or choosing not to be attracted to it would be the

same as choosing not to recognize a family member when they enter the room. It

is impossible.

          Another analogy of the puppeteer is to think of him or her (I'll use him

since I'm a he) as the consciousness of the human species: concerned only with

implementing proven strategies, and designing improvements to the process of

successfully propagating new generations. Only a small part of those strategies

involve securing a mate and copulating. The real trick, (remember, we're talking

about our ancestral environment, 50,000 years ago), is how do you ensure the

successful raising of the child. Because unless the child also is successful in

raising a child of his or her own, then the line would be broken and everything

that occurred from the moment the child was conceived, was a complete failure,

(to the puppeteer).

          Basically, once one begins to believe, they have to accept the fact that

they cannot trust their own motives for doing anything. It is a great blow to

the ego and one's self-confidence. They have to re-visit all of the significant

events in their lives, and re-construct them by adding the perspective of the

puppeteer into each interaction. And before that can happen, one needs to

understand what the puppeteer is trying to do, and why it exists in the first

place.

          In a nutshell, the puppeteer is the consciousness of the species. The one

designated to make difficult and often painful decisions for the good of the

whole rather than the one. The puppet on the other hand is the selfish little

observer - the "interface". the puppeteer created the puppet through natural

selection to keep this species, dramatically increasing in intelligence, from

knowing the truth. And as time went on, the relationship became so complex that

the width and breadth of human behavior may never be fully understood. The

puppet was designed to believe a whole host of things that were illusions.

asking too many questions.

          Albert devoted most of his career to the study of animal behavior -

including the human animal. And for a time, during his darker years, he studied

human behavior exclusively. His ability to see the forces of natural selection

in the behavior of animals slowly opened his mind (or evolved his perception) to

the understanding of human behavior, even in its immense complexity.  His most

enlightened moment was when he allowed the concepts of Richard Wright, author of

the book 'The Moral Animal' to actually sink in to his belief structure. The

pinnacle concept being that people evolved the ability to lie to themselves, and

believe it. As this principle slowly navigated its way through his brilliant

subconscious mind, expelling old beliefs and neatly packaging up all of his

unanswered questions, that was when he understood the path that mankind was on,

and why he must try to derail the whole of the species and move them in a new

direction.

          As daunting as it sounds, Albert was quite confident that it was possible,

because he understood human behavior.

          Underneath any behavior are at least two motives, but often many more. One

is the one we believe to be true, and the other is the actual reason we are

engaged in the behavior. The classic and overarching behavior we engage in is

romance and sex. We tell ourselves that the motive is to make us happy - some

inner primordial desire promises us utopia, when actually, we are engaged in the

ritual to perpetuate the species. That is the true motive. All the rest is smoke

and mirrors. Truly, if anyone was able to consider themselves exclusively as an

individual, pursuing a life dedicated to self improvement and the betterment of

mankind, the last thing he or she would do is have children. How many young

teenagers, intelligent young people, chose to listen to the little voice that

having sex will make them happy? We all did. That is why the evolutionary forces

worked so hard to make sex so enjoyable - even addicting. If it weren't, the

species would die out. Or at least it would have. I mean, now that we, as a

species, are becoming competent in our technology, and the pressures of natural

selection have been lifted, (at least until we expand in numbers beyond our

technologies and resources) there is no need for such aggressive desires. Our

intelligence, along with some enlightened beliefs, will make extinction

impossible, barring any catastrophic event.

          So, natural selection has done a good job of building a fairly smart and

capable animal - but he has been lied to, and is still believing the lies. Once

we removed the natural forces in natural selection, who is in charge of our

continued evolution? Well, we are Of course. Us puppets. We need to seize

control of our continued evolution.

          It begins with acknowleging that no one in the world understands the

nature of God. We can choose to believe we do, but that does not make it so. If

there is one thing Albert was nearly certain of, it was that God exists. The

tell-tale signs are everywhere. Most people maintain a suspicious belief that

there are "messages" behind strange coincidences. That some supernatural force

is trying to get our attention. Well, if you simply look at the elegant laptop

computer I am typing on, it is the epitome of coincidence. And if so, who is

trying to speak to us? If one considers that just a few thousand years ago, man

had rocks, sticks, and bones to use for tools, how likely is it that the design

of the universe, a universe that was designed to have life and the double helix

DNA molecule emerge from it's architecture, using that life as a conduit,

reorganize the same elementals into a laptop computer. Thousands of materials

all altered to perform a task, materials that so coincidentally just happen to

be available in nature, with properties that allow for miniature hundred

gigabyte storage units and ultra crisp flat panel displays. Albert pondered

these questions in agonizing detail, and concluded that the technology being

developed by man is no accident. But what is the message behind such gigantic

coincidences occuring throughout the world, every day?  That we should shun

technology as evil? Albert certainly doesn't believe this. In fact, he is

convinced it is intended to be the way out of the hole mankind dug and fell

into.

           What Albert was wanting was a global agreement. Or at least agreement by

enough countries that the others would be forced to fall in line. Spurred on by

Albert, being the incredibly popular compass to which this generation has turned

for guidance, he intended to begin to reduce the population of humans on the

planet by 95%. 

          How? Well, that is the problem, isn't it. His idea is not to dictate the

how, only to instill the rewards, give them the why in such a way as to be

irrefutable. If we jump ahead 75 years, when according to his plan the

population would be leveling off toward 5%: Food would be abundant, employing

the best agricultural technologies. Energy would be abundant. Housing would be

abundant. Land would be abundant, So much so that huge ranges of land would be

managed back to wilderness. Wild animal populations would explode. First the

rodents and deer, then the predators. There would be a ban on harvesting wild

food. Why? It is part of our self inflicted evolutionary track. Albert believes

that once a species becomes enlightened and seizes control of its own

evolutionary direction, it will understand how artificially controlling wild

populations eventually shifts the evolutionary track of the animals away from

what is natural. In effect, humans must quarantine themselves from the rest of

the world. They need

to distance themselves from dependency and influence on other species. Even an

enlightened human species is not smart enough to understand God's intended

evolutionary direction for other species. Self regulation of the evolutionary

direction for humans is part of its intended evolution. Understanding this,

humans need to respect other species rights to do the same. We are not God, but

God did allow us to become aware of our own evolution.

          Now it is clear, and needless to say: That Albert is a devout

environmentalist, and very spiritual in his beliefs - but those beliefs don't

line up with any religion. Mainly because religion claims to know the nature and

intent of God, and sometimes claims to actually know Him personally, and Albert

believes that when it comes to God, people know virtually nothing. In Albert's

way of thinking, many an argument in favor of the immaculate creation and the

Garden of Eden, were waged by people incapable of giving God credit for being

smart enough to create us in the first place. It would be inconceivable to such

a person that God could conceive of something so obtuse (like a universe

designed to evolve) as to not fit within the mind of a man. Therefore, evolution

cannot be, because God would have to be really, really, really smart to do that.

Small minded men can easily conceive of the world as it exists today, or a few

thousand years ago, therefore they believe that that is exactly what God did, He

blinked and wiggled His nose and poof - Adam and Eve.  We don't need to

understand how the universe works in order to see that it is what it is, and God

is not trying to trick us. But as science sheds away some of the layers of

misconception, we begin to see the building blocks. Those are Gods creation,

designed in such a way as to self-fulfill the intended result - like pouring

water at the top of a hill knowing full well it will reach the bottom, while not

knowing (but being interested to watch) the exact path it will take. When

delving into computer programming, people experience the same thing.

Universities create virtual universes inside computers, dictating physical laws

and objectives, not knowing what will happen they sit back and watch and wait.

          Back to the story: I am attempting to project an accurate futuristic world

resulting from a radical movement to reduce the world's human population

dramatically - to approximately 5% of current levels. A population that is

sustainable from many viewpoints.  The purpose of all the ramblings above about

the evolutionary psychological trait of humans to be able to deceive themselves

about the motives behind their behaviors, is to enable a majority of the worlds

humans to experience the awakening and thereby be capable of pursuing a

successful policy of population reduction politically. The central theme being

that any one or any thing that attempts to interfere with a person's right to

procreate, will be met with all kinds of irrational emotional responses

representing the puppeteer's attempts to maintain control. Enlightenment will

allow people to work through the emotional reactions and resulting irrational

thoughts and behaviors, and focus instead on the new paradigm of human beings

collectively taking responsibility for the direction of their own evolution.

          Weaning the human race off of natural selection and into planned selection

requires an unprecedented level of collaboration between interest groups, races,

genders, and nations. The amount of debate spurred by the exciting promise of a

world at peace in every way energized the intellects of all of the worlds

geniuses.    Some of the leading topics include: How can we implement the

population reduction while at the same time bring the best genes forward to be

the resultant population for the distant future? At what future date should we

plan to reach the 5% milestone? How can we represent accurately the best of all

the races? Should there be an effort to maintain pure strains of the different

races? How can we best use technology and policy to ensure the fastest possible

advances in our newly planned evolution. What are the goals of this evolution -

so that we can implement the best possible rules for artificial selection? (as

opposed to the natural kind).

          The growth in depth of thought and wisdom for the species to actually

accept these responsibilities is as unprecedented as when (in millions of years)

the species will eventually be creating universes of their own.  I mean, after

all, how can you trust a species to create their own universes, ones with new

novel paths of evolution, if they can't even direct their own evolution?

          How long have we put our faith in the short term results of physicians?

The new paradigm has unexpected and wonderful side affects in that it forces

people to start looking long-term into the future of our species - having looked

down to find a steering wheel in their hands.   So, instead of trying to find a

cure for cancer, why not artificially select cancer out of the species? While

we're at it: pedophilia, alcoholism, irrational violence, dishonesty,

depression, the list goes on and on and on.

          Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not condoning killing sick babies, or

anyone for that matter. The constitution that is established in the third phase

of the new age, which I will explain to you shortly, would not allow any of that

Hitler - Nazi crap.  Let me just say that in this constitution lies the rules

for the continued evolution of the human race. Just by simply adding honesty to

the weighting of the right to reproduce, over hundreds of thousands of years of

artificial selection, there would be more honest people. Only a few points of

weight is necessary for a trait to be statistically significant when stretched

over thousands of generations Especially when the technology to cheat and help

the genes along improves exponentially with time.

          Eventually there must be a constitution. But first, three specific

policies for three phases emerged: The first is the policy to be in force during

the reduction phase; The second covers the phase immediately following the

milestone; and the third is to use the lessons learned during the first two,

along with several generations of debate, and forge a constitution that will map

out human evolution into the distant future. 

          A few policies will be:  Phase one: Each person is allowed 1/2 child. This

reduces the population by 50% each generation. The rate would be adjusted so

that the milestone of 75-100 years is met;   Phase two: At first, every couple

has the right to have two children. If a child dies from an accident they would

be allowed to have another. But for future generations, certain universal

performance measures will be kept regarding the children, including basic

intelligence, manual dexterity, memory function, overall physical health, ESP,

spatial aptitude, etc.. - That if a child exhibits significant improvements in

one or more of the measures, that he or she will be assigned to a tier where he

or she can find a mate of similar improved performance, and thus be allowed to

have a larger family, supplementing the population where shortages had naturally

occurred.  Children assigned to sub-level tiers may be restricted from having

more than one child per couple. Intense focus on developing a child's talents

would result. Extreme heights in art, culture, and technology would be reached

without the need for economic competition. It is genetic competition.

          The challenges to world leaders to map out a plan to implement the

reduction, through attrition, without experiencing collapse of many of the

aspects of human civilization. The primary concern is the utter collapse of the

world economy as it has been known, and its rebirth into something completely

different. (an economy of preferred genes,)

My initial urge was to incorporate these concepts into a fictional story that

would deliver the message in a much more indirect manner. (Albert) However, in

attempting this, I have been delving too deeply into the nuts and bolts of my

concepts, leaving the storyline drastically wanting. So I have decided to create

a different type of paper that discusses these topics at length, but omits the

fictional characters and the story. In the story, I moved into first person

narrative so often that I will be able to cut and paste large sections out of it

and into the new one.  Once complete, I might create the story as a sequel. 

 obviously this story is still in work. There were fragments and loose thoughts scatterred about. 

If you would like to show your support, all I ask is that you
write to me and tell me about your reading experience.  
Anonymous Feedback Here