by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Not everyone realizes, yet, that we are in a police state. For those who do realize it, I offer two ways to get out of it. The first has to do with understanding the biological roots of authoritarianism and aggression. The second has to do with acknowledging the biological basis of law.
For the record, I am not sanguine about our chances; it looks to me that our future is bleak. Still, I feel helped by John Whitehead’s new word — “pathocracy” – to describe the condition of the guys who are running the show. Cleary they are disturbed, as their work is bound to end the very civilization that they enjoy!
PART ONE – The Biological Roots of Authoritarianism and Aggression
We see around us today a very anti-democratic, unconstitutional government. Can you imagine a US government telling businesses to lock down!
It’s well established – I won’t argue the case here — that a behind-the-scenes government has been operating for over a century in America. They meant to take over the country and were smart enough to use the educational system to deprive kids of the once-standard knowledge of our civic values.
They also knew enough to corrupt the three branches of government via bribery, blackmail, and/or intimidation. The “splendid” result of their work is that we citizens can no longer effectively turn, for help, to the judges or to the people we elected. Indeed, it almost looks like those people have resolved to mistreat us.
It is hard to know who belongs to the “secret” government. Some names that are known are Rothschild and Rockefeller. I’ll call their entity “the cabal,” for lack of a better word. The cabal must have formed at least as early as 1770 in Europe. Some contemporary parts of the cabal seem to be the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), and the IMF (International Monetary Fund)
Certainly the six major media corporations are in it. I think the cabal has also got the US military brass in their control. You may think there would be competition among the top cabalists, as commonly seen between mafia groups, but it’s possible that they all cooperate, instead.
Their achievements so far, even if evil, are breathtaking in scope. Credit does not belong only to that elite; it belongs to us all, the human species. The goings-on could have been predicted by a study of the DNA, as I shall now argue.
Some animals travel in groups, such as wildebeest, but those groups do not have a structure. Some insect species, such as ants and bees, have terrific social organization. However, the brain of the individual ant or bee is wired to perform socially in a certain way, they can’t look around and strategize about what to do. Humans strategize – even long after the purpose of it has gone sour!
Evolution of Male Bonding — Lionel Tiger’s Theory
A few primate species have male bonding. Anthropology professor Tiger of Rutgers University, writing in 1968, gave a name to the “product” that may come about from two or more males working together. He said it created a “spinal cord” for their group. Human groups today, such as nations, have incredibly strong and complicated spinal cords. So, let’s look consider what Lionel Tiger (b 1937) suggested. He is a careful scholar, but I’ll give only a broad-brush rendition, with page numbers from his book Men in Groups.
p 27. In baboons, as studied by Devore and Hall, “certain of the adult males closely associated with each other and tended to support each other in aggressive interaction with other males. Some of these males were scarcely ever observed acting independently of each other in such episodes.
p 33. In langurs, the basic structure is the stable male hierarchy. Langurs are arboreal. Tiger thinks the move onto the savannah required better social structure. Tinbergen held that male bonding was a consequence of pre-hominid adaptation.
p 35. Dominance behavior involves cortical and amygdaloid parts of the bran. Michael Chance says there was a need for controlling the group’s aggression so cooperative hunting could occur. Tiger suggests that male bonding in humans is innate for defense, food gathering, and social-order maintenance. In a 1917 book, Carveth Read proposed that man is violent, as a result of hunting.
p 43. The specialization of hunting widened the gap between male and females. There were changes in posture, perception, and brain size. p 47 Robin Fox said that for evolution to have worked so fast there must have been selective breeding. In some primate species, members of the dominant bonds have priority access to estrous females.
p 47. The separation of humans’ ancestors from other primate stock began many millions of years ago. Chance says the development of inhibition (the holding back by sub-dominants) was crucial to the enlargement of the evolving human brain. The presence of weapons may have helped! (Misbehavior could lead to death.)
p 48. Perhaps guilt — a distinct experience of the human being — was important for modulating community behavior patterns. From interaction between individual and group we got the sense that actions and loyalties could be chosen. Tiger’s thesis is that the “spinal cord” gives location and structure to communities.
p 49. To have the physiological mechanism underlying male bonding is a precondition of reproductive success. In 1963 Margaret Mead observed that men are so domesticated they do not have time for national defense.
p 51. Teen boys have crushes on role models (girls do, too). p 55. Men act apart from women in armies, sports, the economic hierarchy, politics, and secret societies.
p 60. From a hierarchical linkage of significant males, communities develop their intra-dependence, their coherence and their continuity from past to future. Lowie formulated that territoriality and male groups are the basis of political activity.
p 60. Schapera thought that politics is the result of the occupation of territory with maintenance of law, and that law represents the cumulative decision-making and tradition of the dominant males. Tiger notes that the separation of the judiciary and politics is a relatively exotic notion and is incomplete.
p 61. We see that crowding has effects on health. Man’s need for an amount of space may be a biological given. Ardrey defined the biological nation as “a social group containing at least two mature males which holds as an exclusive possession a continuous area of space and which isolates itself from others through outward antagonism, and through joint defense of territory achieves leadership, cooperation, and a capacity for concerned action.
p 85. Defense and social order are satisfied most effectively by soliciting subordinate or cooperative relationships with adult males. It is an ethological principle that behaviors accompanied by strong ‘emotion’ are likely to reflect situations which are very important to the survival of the animal.
p 86. Males are more directly socialized to accept and use violence. As for differences between male and female humans, it is the result of more than cultural practices and tradition. The pattern of male-bonding is anti-female. p 87. Maleness stands for the invariable prosecution of ends by means.
p 126. In secret societies, initiation ceremonies are often bizarre and cruel. Tiger states that he assumes openness is preferable to secrecy and that all-male groups are likely to act prejudicially to the good community. He also thinks concern with homosexuality has hindered social scientists from developing notions about the positive value of male bonds.
p 130. The stress in secret societies on the division of labor and the gradation of their members with great finesse and thoroughness suggests the close links between social affiliation, the creation of hierarchies and male bonding. Secrecy protects members from detection by authorities.
p 131. The secret society has the capacity to stimulate aggression. So do official secret groups such as the CIA or the NKVD – thanks to their unwillingness to yield to open authority and expose their workings. As Lorenz has speculated, animals who bond are animals who aggress. A good example is those youngsters who, having cooperatively formed teams to play games, then set about asserting one team’s dominance over another.
p 135. Candidates for the Great Hung League in China, circa 185 a.d. uttered this oath before mixing their blood: “I swear that I shall know neither father nor mother, nor brother nor sister, nor wife, nor child, but the brotherhood. Along where the brotherhood leads or pursues, there shall I follow or pursue; its foe shall be my foe.”
p 125. But secret societies have also been the agency of severe social change and the instrument of political revolutionaries. … Any group of persons who join together and hold secrets are committing an aggressive act which is bound to incite hostility and fear.
p 137. The Masons, the mafia, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. have been held, rightly or wrongly, to be the hosts of treason.
p 188. Not all men feel equally strongly about their male bonds; some will perform with strenuous loyalty, others with fear, apathy, or outright rejection. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, in wartime deserters will be shot. Yet men still desert, particularly where they feel hopeless or if they see uncaring and incompetent leadership.
PART TWO – The Biological Basis of Law
I began this article by saying that we are in a police state and that a pathocracy is running it. I promised to outline the biological explanation for authoritarianism and aggression – which I did, kindness of Lionel Tiger – and then sketch the biological basis of law.
I claimed that I can show a way out of the police state. Let me say now that “the way out” consists merely of our coming to see where we have been, and why. Once we get the picture, we should be able to think up something for the human future that is more worthy than a police state.
Remember when the Soviet Union had a police state? It began in 1917 and ended in 1990. Human knowledge has come a long way since then. Thanks to the Internet we have cracked open many secrets.
For more than four decades, I have been a student of the biological basis of law and morality. I read EO Wilson’s book Sociobiology in 1976, and did my PhD thesis on it in the 1980s. Some readers have a religious objection to evolution and thus cannot enjoy the amazing and beautiful creation of species that took place over millions of years. This is a pity as evolution supports morality.
How did morality come about? Earlier I mentioned that ants and bees have strong social organization. I guess you could say that such insects make sacrifices for others and are faithful to their tribe — behaviors that are moral in our species. But they don’t have an emotion that can cause them to take an interest in morality.
In humans, there are two developments that didn’t have “rightness” as their raison d’etre, but which happily paved the way for it. The first is our “stupidity” at birth. Unlike some other mammalian species, the young of Homo sapiens can’t go for a walk on the first day of life to fetch some food. They are wholly dependent on the mother.
She has to teach them everything, and therein lies the chance for the kid to find out right from wrong. In order for the young to be trainable, for survival, they have to have an innate emotion of distress when they get a disapproving look from a parent, and a happy feeling when they get congratulated. Later, if the church tries to sell them the Ten Commandments, they will buy it.
The other road to morality came, according to Robert Trivers, from reciprocal altruism. Humans make deals. Each human has a keen sense of having done a helpful act for “A” and wants “A” to return the favor. Thus, we can put ourselves in the shoes of any neighbor and understand if he has been wronged. The method for calculating justice is innate.
When I say that we ought to acknowledge the biology of law, I don’t mean that the content of the law is always good. I mean that we are biologically predisposed to want to have law in our society. “Ubi societas, ibi jus” – where there is society, there is law. People use the force of numbers to win justice.
As for the actual content of the law, it gets tended by people who are fascinated by it. Theologians and lawmakers have done wonders over the centuries to examine all the possibilities. They want to see how to encourage goodness and discourage folks from succumbing to temptations.
To repeat my statement above: I can show a way out of the police state … that “way out” consists merely of our coming to see where we have been, and why. Once we get the picture, we should be able to think up something for the human future that is more worthy than a police state.
During the COVID pandemic of 2020, the citizenry has been suddenly told that they are nobodies. They have been told that “for the social good” of containing an outbreak of disease, they must forget all their previous ideas of the dignity of man and simply obey government. Meanwhile, the government itself will not be made to follow any rules.
What? How did this happen? How did we not see what was taking place? Numerous writers have been trying for decades to expose government corruption. For at least a few years we have known that the US government is a front for someone else. Members of all three branches take their orders for On High. This must stop.
I am not sure we can stop it, since many people do not understand the political tricks. But at least we can say that, as Lionel Tiger proclaimed, secret societies are bad for us. What secrets are they keeping?
Surely the biggest secret they keep is about their own guilt. Note — they actually pay homage to law by hiding their crimes! It seems they do know right from wrong. They don’t want to geta disapproving or accusatory look from Mom.
Also, in order to cover it even from their own eyes, the biggest secret society today has made up a clever “theology” that says that disobeying the law is virtuous! So, do they worry that God will punish them? Hell no. Their god is the devil.
In my understanding of sociobiology, males form hierarchies and once an individual is pretty high up, his main concern is to avoid falling. I have long thought that the mad rush for control in our political system has got everything to do with that issue – concern about falling.
I recommend that we offer our overlords a safety net to fall into. They, today, have got unbelievable weapons with which to hold us bay and/or exterminate the lot of us. We probably have no way to conquer them physically (unless our military and police see the light and refuse to help them).
Please go back and read those 20 paragraphs from Tiger’s book, Men in Groups. You will find in them all you need, for diagnosing the “pathocrats.” Try to be sympathetic. After all, none of them who are living today are the inventors of the big plan for our destruction.
Each of them was born to a Dad who saw it as normal, or if no family tie was involved, the silly lad got sucked into it without a real appreciation of where it was headed. Most likely each new recruit was focused on this amazing way for his career to take off and for him to have club protection.
The “brains of the outfit” have long had an easy time of telling lies. Lies are so easy to tell – most people believe whatever they hear. My guess is that the whole thing sort of snowballed. Even if an intelligent observer pointed to the absurdities, which of the “big” boys would dare to say “Yeah, I see. We ought to cancel out.”
Folks, do we want a police state? Do we want the air to be filled with drones that both spy on us and zap us with pain? Do we want to tell our children that any art they may create will have to pass a censor? Do we want to have only two social classes – billionaires and paupers? Must we continue to prop up the secret societies and kowtow to their mentally disturbed members?
Somehow we made it from a Neanderthal cave to the Berlin Philharmonic. There’s no law that says we have to go down a foolish, ugly road now.
It’s not all over till it’s over. K?