Emotions as a Social Dilemma

Honest Questions! Spurring Forthright Discussion.

This is not my first rodeo where family members have chosen alternative lifestyles. One family member was not hostile, quietly adopted a different lifestyle, and lives without bullying anyone. One family member has just come of age, has chosen to live as a different gender, is passive-aggressive, and is hostile to everyone who refuses to participate in their mental disease. The first person is an abnormality in the homosexual community where bullying, bullishness, and boorishness are the standard, not the exception. The second family member has used their unhinged emotional wrecking ball to injure family and friends for the privilege of getting their way. A wholly childish and selfish spectacle deserving of nothing more than abject derision and scorn.

Several friends have embraced different genders and lifestyles, moving from friendly to bully in a relatively short time, and have remained boorish and behaviorally reprehensible ever since. One colleague was at a party, slipped a mickey, and woke up having been raped while drugged. In any other community, this would have been a legal offense; in the homosexual community, this was not even worth mentioning. A sad commentary in and of itself! Unfortunately, this incident has left my friend degraded and feeling worthless, and unfortunately, we have lost touch over the years and miles since this incident.

Many questions remain after having worked around the LGBTQ+ community for more years than I would care to admit. The number one question remaining is the following: If what you are doing is making you happy and more whole as a person, why the anger, resentment, bitterness, bullying, and boorish behaviors? To me, this is a simple question; to my friends and family in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a complicated, complex, and nuanced question, where the person asked becomes more boorish, bullish, and obstinate. So, please answer this question and tell me why this is such a complex and convoluted question.

Dear reader, I now pose the question to you. I do not care how you choose to identify, the gender you prefer, your sexual preferences, or your religious lifestyle. I do not care about race at birth or the race you choose to live. Frankly, all I care about is what you bring to the table regarding talents, skills, abilities, and the attitude you choose. Essentially, I have onboarded Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream; I judge solely by your character. I am not racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist, or any other slur you wish to dream of; respect is often offered to resounding silence or aggressive vocal opposition and hatred, yet respect remains.

Religionists, including traditional and non-traditional, I realize the issues you are facing, and I agree with a lot of your concerns. This does not mean you can be as boorish, bullish, and obstinate in your comments. My agreement with your concerns does not reduce my respect for both parties. Anyone abusing the comment section will have their comments moderated. With that said, any person choosing to abuse the comments section will face the same moderation. I do not tolerate emotionally charged bloviations. Be logical, be respectful, and explain your ideas clearly.

Bear with me for a moment. I speak for myself. I do not speak for all homo sapiens; I do not speak for anyone else but me — I research law, science, history, anthropology, psychology, and much more to form my opinions. Agree or disagree, your choice. Feel free to express your opinion, just understand I might disagree with your opinion, but I love to discuss topics with people. Do not bring emotional hyperbole and try to pass it off as fact! As I have told my wife, I do not care how you feel.

Currently, confusion has set in in global history, and I feel it is time to be truthful and specific. Women have two XX chromosomes, men have an X and a Y chromosome, and this is the entire amount of genders and sexes in mammalian human science. While some abnormalities and diseases will produce various (rare) chromosomal variations outside these two genders and sexes, there are absolutely no more than two sexes and two genders. Recently I was told I was wrong and was informed there are 83 different gender categories, not including those who consider themselves part animal. I continue to disagree pointedly!

One of the misnomers in the gender/transgender discussion is that of human choice, which is more easily understood as agency. The human, as an agent, chooses (exercising agency), and they have the right to choose, but in choosing, their consequences are not anyone else’s problem. We need this point well understood. Sexually transmitted diseases are not society’s problem; pregnancy is still not society’s problem; rape, drug addiction, depression, anxiety, etc., are not society’s problem. How you choose to live your life is your choice; like I have said multiple times in these articles and elsewhere, keep those lifestyle choices in your bedroom and home, and leave the rest of society to live as they choose.

Some of those consequences break a person’s social trust with their chosen society; we call these laws, and breaking laws has additional consequences the agent must bear for exercising agency. Breaking laws is black and white; how society’s agents apply those laws for enforcing those laws (judges, law enforcement officers, lawyers, etc.) is another topic; however, your lifestyle choices do not allow you to break society’s laws with impunity merely because you do not like a law or because that law interferes with your lifestyle. It is against the law to picket, rally, or riot in front of a judge’s home to sway that judge’s opinion! Blocking traffic is not an acceptable or legal method to air your grievances, and there is no such thing as a peaceful protest. You can either legally protest or riot, media talking heads notwithstanding!

Your lifestyle choices do NOT permit you to groom children, become boorish, bullish, or abrasive in public, nor do your lifestyle choices enable you to change laws and social norms to fit your pleasure. Everyone sacrifices to belong to society; not getting your way does not mean you have fewer rights than anyone else. Are we clear on this issue?

Equal treatment under the law means you do not get a pass on sexual predation merely because your lifestyle is different from someone else’s. Morals and values a society selects do not twist, morph, or get simply deleted because your lifestyle choices are out of sync with the rest of society. Frankly, there is nothing new in your lifestyle preferences, so start being a member of society, act responsibly, and cease your incessant whining. Finally, keep your lifestyle choices in your home; you are not allowed to teach children your lifestyle, you are not allowed to take over city streets for parades and displays, and whether you are hetero or homosexual when in public, act respectfully of others.

Let me elaborate on that final statement. I have been married for 25+ years; in public, I choose not to kiss, hold hands, or do any other action that could cause an observer to be discomfited. I make these choices from the moral obligation I owe to our country’s social fabric and the respect I have for my partner. I expect other couples to adhere to a similar standard of public behavior. Nothing is so disgusting than to be forced to watch two immature people abuse the public square by disrespecting themselves and each other through inappropriate actions in public. Are we clear, or do you want more specifications?

Having said all of this, why have you decided now is a good time to multiply sexes and genders? Why now are you demanding “rights” when you already have equal protection under the law? Why all of a sudden is the push on to change society in a warped image of your lifestyle? Please answer these questions, and let’s have a discussion.

It is time for honest and forthright discussions on these topics. Argumentative wrangling is not allowed. Insulting, calling names, and political (emotional) drivel will only end the conversation, for I refuse to put up with sniveling and whining. You seem to have a point; what is your point? You want respect, fine, you have respect; please remember respect is earned and is a two-way street. I will not participate in your mental illness, but I am always willing to discuss real issues honestly, openly, and transparently.

© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Contentious Voices – Exerting Control

A colleague of mine mentioned something in passing that has me thinking about the contentious voices surrounding our lives. Consider with me for a moment; when the last time you heard just the news was? No commentary, no hidden bias, no reporting for emotional reaction, simply a description of the events of the day, news? I cannot remember when I last heard a news report. It seems that to get the local news, I have to question the motives on the stories, compare news broadcasts for opinions and biases, tune into three or four different radio stations and compare them to the TV, and those to the newspapers, and even then, 90% of what is reported still has to be discounted.

My colleague mentioned that the efforts of contentious voices are to exert emotional control over the audience, for if the audience is emotionally controlled, they are physically controlled. If they are physically controlled, they can be bent, shaped, and molded into weapons of self-destruction for the entertainment of those controlling the contentious voices. This insight has me thinking—self-destruction through contentious voices exerting control, all through unbridled emotional understanding.

When emotional intelligence was first coming out, feel free to read the early papers and books on this topic if you doubt what I am reporting. Emotional intelligence was declared as the ability to read the emotions in a room and then control the people through their emotions. For which I have adamantly opposed emotional intelligence as a concept since inception. I have always felt that trying to control others through their emotions is wrong, in poor taste, and can easily backfire when those being controlled wake up and realize what has been happening to them. Yet, emotional intelligence has grown as a concept, has broadened in scope, and no one is asking why anymore. Well, I am, and so are a few others, but the media is working hard to keep us silenced and sidelined as “aluminum hat-wearing non-conformists.”

Yet, contentious voices continue to prey upon people’s emotions nightly and call this “learned commentary,” “democracy dying in darkness,” “in-depth reporting,” and “fair and balanced news,” among many other things. Republicans against Democrats, Liberals against conservatives, eco-Nazis from both extremes of the planet is going to hell debate, and the list of contentious voices is long and formidable. Yet, they all have the same playbook, use emotional hooks, sink the emotional hook deeply, and keep pulling that emotional hook every time a person tries to think for themselves.

Well, I would see you escape the hook, wake up mentally, and arise as a powerful individual. Capable of independent thought and able to reason and think using your own instinct, talents, skills, and innate reasoning. I am not making a plea to your emotions, and if you ever think I am playing to your emotions, feel free to call me out! I am not here to enslave your mind, but to free your soul and empower your spirit, to support your goodness, and justify you being the free-thinking person you already are!

Thus, the following reminders regarding emotions. These are not my thoughts; they originate from Robert Solomon’s incredible book “Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice,” which you can purchase from any reputable bookseller for a minimal fee or find in a local library. If you are close to New Mexico, send me an email to lend you my copy.

Solomon begins his book with a quote from Jean-Paul Sartre:
- “For the idea which I have never ceased to develop is that in the end, one is always responsible for what is made of one. Even if one can do nothing else besides assume this responsibility. For I believe that a man can always make something out of what is made of him. This is the limit I would today accord to freedom: the small movement which makes of a totally conditioned social being someone who does not render back completely what his conditions has given him.”
“Emotions involve social narratives as well as physical responses, and an analysis of emotions is an account of our way of being-in-the-world.”
- Emotions are not occurrences and do not happen to us.
  - “Emotions are rational and purposive rather than irrational and disruptive, are very much like actions, and that we choose an emotion much as we choose a course of action.”
- Emotions are intentional: that is, emotions are “about” something.
  - All emotions are ultimately “about” the world and never simply “about” something particular.
  - Feelings do not have “directions.” The relationship between my being angry and what I am angry about is not contingent between a feeling and an object.
- Emotions change with our opinions, and so are “rational” in a very important sense.
  - But the rationality of the emotion is time-sensitive, socially sensitive, and environmentally contingent. Unless our societal makeup allows this emotional crossover, emotions cannot often cross between social situations, peer groups, and environments.
  - The cause of an emotion is a function in a certain kind of explanation.
    - Contentious voices know this as a truth and use their contention to drive the emotional functionality of the arguments to spur emotional growth to your detriment!
  - The line between emotions and beliefs is often negligible and non-existent.
    - Another truth contentious voices use to spur emotional hooking in the audience to the audience’s detriment and destruction.
  - Emotions are a normative judgment.
    - We decide the correctness of emoting, based upon the social, environmental, and peer aspects at the time the information is provided.
    - Emotions are cognitive judgments of socially wired animals (humans) who use the lightning reflexes of the brain to make these judgments for personal benefits in a social situation, advancing peer associations, or to survive in a specific environment.
    - Emotions change with our knowledge of the causes of those emotions.

On this last point, consider Joe Biden and his words to different audiences on the campaign trail. To one audience, he pledged to put oil company officers in jail for unspecified environmental crimes. To another audience, he promised not to kill coal. Both declarations were later denounced as verbal gaffes, miss spoken words taken out of a larger context, and phrases that did not mean anything on the campaign trail. Yet, the words fit the emotion being witnessed, and the crowd forming the environment and peer group being addressed. All politicians do this, and it is referred to as “politicking” or “playing to the audience’s emotions.”

Finally, consider something with me, a thought, those controlling the contentious voices believe you, the audience, their slaves, for they can control your emotions, like 2-year-olds control play-dough. Are you a slave? Will you master your emotional judgments to protect yourself and your family? The choice is yours, and yours alone to make. All I can do is offer information and ask for your consideration. But I will make a promise; if you refuse to master your emotions, you will be destroyed by the contentious voices clamoring for your attention. These breeders of contention will pull you apart emotionally, creating depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other self-destruction options.

Those terrorists rioting over the spring and summer of 2020 were pawns and self-destructive actors to the contentious voices. We are all living in a time where social influencers play the most extensive role in the lives of people than ever before, and they can play this role because we have unbridled our emotions and refuse to believe that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a tool for social integration. While the masses are not taught these things, those controlling the contentious voices know these truths, but they also practice hiding this information to destroy the groups they enslave. Please, free yourself from bondage, take control of your emotions, and never allow anyone to control them ever again!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Knee-Jerk Actions – Micro-Aggression or Humor: A Choice!

Let me be clear, upfront, and personal; I am not here to tell you what to think, how to think when to think, or where to think. I will not force my opinions and ideas upon you as the global corporate media does. I will offer ideas and suggestions and how you proceed is your affair. Your choices will determine your destiny. I aim to aid you in understanding and viewing the world a little differently to improve your destination.

Action vs. Reaction

Action encapsulates intention, producing accomplishment from organized activity; action is a process of thinking, acting, and becoming. Only in physics should we ever consider every action having an equal and opposite reaction. Why; because for humans, any reaction gives control to someone else and removes intentional controls. A reaction is all about response to stimulus, no thinking, no changing, no intent, no organized activity, and no recovery until we, the human agent, retake control of our action.

Easy example, consider the toddler throwing a fit. The toddler is trying to obtain a reaction from the parents favorable to that toddler’s individual desires at that moment. However, any good parent will not respond to the toddler’s demands and usually provide behavior correction to enforce the thought that the toddler cannot make demands. To regain control over the stimulus provided, the toddler must correct behavior or will not gain control over the future individual actions without additional parental intervention, an undesirable activity. Thus, early on, the toddler will realize actions do not bring reactions but decisive action by parental figures, which is generally not the desired outcome.

Action versus reaction is an essential principle with foundations in moral agency, individual agency, and long-term consequences. However, if the parent reacts to every toddler fit, the toddler gains power over the parental figure, which is an undesirable activity for the parent. Action versus reaction is not splitting philosophical hairs or linguistic nuance; action is an intention-producing accomplishment; the reaction is an intentionless activity where self-control has been given to others.

Victor Frankl, author of “Man’s Search for Meaning,” and Robert Solomon, author of “Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice,” both speak to this action versus reaction principle in a manner easily grasped. We, as individuals, might not be able to control our every environment nor control the activities of others upon us, but we can control our actions in response. Retaining control of self, improving who and what we are, and keeping the power of intentional activity.

Knee-Jerk Reactions

The ‘knee-jerk response’ is any reaction that is done automatically, without thought. The knee-jerk reflex is what’s known as a mono-synaptic response. The impulse only has to jump from one nerve to another once. Thus, the medical definition for a social activity, a knee-jerk reaction, requires no cognitive thinking, no intention and is the worst form of response to the intentional stimulus of others.

For example, Speaker Pelosi tore up President Trump’s State of the Union speech record on live, national TV as a knee-jerk response to the sitting US President. Of all the US President’s Speaker Pelosi has experienced, her behavior to President Trump was the most toddler-like, and people quickly excused this behavior as “Trump-Derangement Syndrome (TDS).” Thus, we can drop the “knee” in knee-jerk responses and describe the activity aptly as being a jerk. No thought, not intentional activity (even though the action has intention, the brain does not register cognitive effort), and the reaction to the stimulus is mono-synaptic.

Micro-Aggression and Macro-Aggression

Micro-aggression, according to Webster, is “a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority).” What is missing in this definition; individual perspective. Micro-aggression is a personal choice to take offense at “a comment or action that” is judged to be “subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally” expressing what is considered by person one to be “a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority).”

Macro-aggression is the complete opposite and are “obvious, intentional, above-board insults, where there is no chance of a mistake on the part of the transgressor to be provoking, insulting, or otherwise discourteous.” But, again, the definition does not include the fact that the person claiming another person’s activities are macro-aggressive is a personal choice, a judgment, and a socially powered decision.

Micro- and macro-aggression are often claimed to be “triggered” by specific words, colors, foods, waters, fruits, and a host of other items. Essentially using fear and envy to demand people act differently or the consequences are toddler-like fits and fussing, picketing, rioting, looting, e.g., acting like a terrorist. Thus, micro- and macro- aggression is nothing but the toddler throwing a temper tantrum because they are not getting what they want at that moment. While claiming their aggression is on behalf of someone else, and their acts of terrorism are excusable because the aggression was triggered by someone or something else. This is like the eight-year-old older brother or sister throwing a fit that the toddler was punished and claiming they are behaving irrationally in support of the toddler’s tantrum. How many parents will buy this logic; I do not!

Humor

Love them or hate them, comedians have changed since I was a kid sneaking peaks of comic relief on cable while washing dishes late into the night. Comedians now carefully pick their materials based upon their perceptions of the audience. Thus, we have classes of comedians, including “Shock Comedians,” who try to be as offensive as possible and still get laughs. We have political comedians; some come down equally on both sides of the political aisle, others are as cemented to a political agenda as they can be and use their “comedy” as a tool to influence their audiences towards that political agenda. We have a host of comedians dedicated to helping people laugh and others who see themselves as able to influence, regardless of consequences.

I am not providing marketing to any comedian by giving examples of the statements made above. You can certainly use a search engine to find these examples for yourself if interested. You might even be able to think of several instances from history, especially recent history, that fit into the descriptions provided. As I said in the beginning, you remain empowered to think as you prefer.

My point is that humor, like every other emotion, can be a tool to build or a tool to destroy, and the choice of build or destroy rests in the user, but the consequences rest in the hands of the audience. Consider this for a moment, how fast would a “Shock” comedian change their tune if the swearing, foul and degrading language, and behaviors manifested on stage did not get a single laugh, or worse, resulted in people standing up and walking out? Some would change quickly, others it might take a little more pushing, but the result would be the same, a changed comedian. Why; because capitalism works!

The comedian is the greatest example of capitalism at work in the world. People will pay money for entertainment, but if the entertainer insults, denigrates, and derides, that entertainer is history and is told to find a different line of work through capitalism. The pattern of comedians can be witnessed and applied across the spectrum from politicians to judges, from businesses to non-profits, all because capitalism works.

Why?

Why this article; why now? On Monday this week, I received an email talking about micro-aggression. The author used greeting cards and their sayings as representations of trigger events for micro-aggression. We have the US President (Fraudulent or Not) being hostile and aggressive towards unvaccinated people. But unvaccinated people are not spreading the Delta-Variant COVID virus; vaccinated people are. We have social unrest in Cuba, where nobody is taking notice because for too long, the social elite has said that Cuba, as a Marxist-Leninist country, is a good thing and cannot stand watching their lies become evident.

Like the disc-jockey’s of my youth said, “And the Hits just keep on coming!” Pick a spot on the globe, and you will find problems, issues, and concerns driven by micro- and macro-aggressive people who refuse to understand the difference between action and reaction—leaving this article as an attempt to aid in making better decisions. How you choose to respond to the day’s events informs the political leaders and social influencers if they are winning or losing. Thus, choose better, knowing that the social influencers and political leaders want you to react, not act! Hence, choose to act. Choose to use your moral agency and individual agency as a tool to intentionally choose your following action in the process of becoming who you want to be and not what others want you to be for their selfish gain.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

The Proper and Improper Role of Government – Chapter 5: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, and Envy

As a kid, the USSR loomed as an ever-present force that could at anytime wipe America off the map with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Of course, America would retaliate with nuclear weapons, and this would create MAD or “mutually assured destruction.” People understood MAD was bad, but the communists among us were more insidious about portraying communism. The news media showed bread lines, soap lines, and the bitter pictures of enslavement under communism. Thus, socialism was the way to go, and the communists were selling socialism as the better way to government.

Except, socialism is communism light, and when the socialists run out of other people’s money, communism takes over. All because under capitalism, the results of one’s choices and consequences are harsh and cannot be hidden. Those preaching socialism and communism were envious of the capitalists who achieved and wanted what others possessed but without the hard work required to obtain benefits.

One other reality is critical to understanding the role of socialism; there is an axiom that states something like, “today’s students are tomorrow’s government policymakers.” This is precisely what has happened; the students of the 1960s are now setters of government policy, holding onto the reigns of power through sheer willpower, to see America die before they do. Socialism has been taught in the classrooms of government-mandated schools since the early 1900s to purposefully bring down the liberty and freedoms of the citizens of every representative government, out of envy for those in power in communist countries. Refusing to believe that under communism, less than .01% are powerful, rich, and mighty, whereas everyone else suffers, grovels, and struggles!

Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism – Detailed for understanding.

What is communism? Webster relates that communism is “A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which the people equally share all goods.” Except, everywhere communism has been tried, one-party rule leads to sycophants and ideologues ruling and taking what they want, while everyone else suffers, held in power by hired guns. Cuba was an incredible island nation, then Fidel Castro came along, and now Cuba is a cesspool of suffering, misery, and stagnation. Venezuela used to be the crown jewel of South America; now, it is a war zone, a catastrophe, and a pit of wasted potential. Czarist Russia was no picnic, but it was much greater than the vulture of communism that feasted on the body of Czarist Russia while it poisoned the world. China before communism was enlightened, capable, able, and has joined the ranks of failed communist planning and operations.

What is socialism? Socialism is defined in Webster as “Any of [the] various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” As well as, “The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned, but an utterly classless society has not yet been achieved.” Is the connection clear as to why socialism is referred to as “communism light?”

One last point about socialism, “legislation intended to improve the condition of the working-man. Among the measures include the insurance of workmen against accident, sickness, and old age, and the establishment of cooperative associations under state protection.” Envy of other countries having benefits has caused legislation that never should have happened in America and many other representative governments due to costs, loss of liberty and freedom, and the destruction of fundamental processes in the “Rule of Law.” How expensive has unemployment insurance been in non-monetary costs? Jobs have been lost forever, the expense of hiring has pushed jobs out of America, the expense has reduced wages of those lucky enough to be hired, but the growth of government and the millstone of bureaucrats has cost more than money, we have lost liberty, freedom, and potential.

What is capitalism? The common definition of capitalism in Webster states capitalism is “An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned, and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.” Webster’s dictionary has come under the same influence of plastic words and liberal ideology. Webster also defines capitalism as “The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.” Do a few condense capital; yes, no doubt. Except, when there is less government, and people keep their envy to themselves, capitalism brings the most freedom to the most people better than any other form of government attempted in human history. So, while capitalism has its faults, which are legion, capitalism is not the problem as it embraces private property ownership. Private property ownership is freedom from government oppression!

Please note, it is entirely acceptable to reach a level of financial comfort, look around, see suffering, and want to aid in the relief of suffering. This is a good thing and expected in a capitalistic system. Those paying for the relief of suffering are not government officials hired through forced taxation. In a socialized system, the money is stolen, legally, through forced taxation, then handed freely to those suffering, with several cuts made for wages and benefits of the workers doling out other people’s money. In a communist system, political leaders get fat and enjoy all the benefits, while everyone else suffers without relief. Yet, too many people would see you in a communist system and suffer, for there is no envy. If you believe that, I have a gravity-resistant bridge to the moon for you to buy.

Envy

Envy has been one of the seven deadliest sins for a reason; it breeds violence and discontent. Webster shines a light on envy describing it this way, “A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.” Fear is disgust and envy paired for the weak to overcome the powerful. The disease of envy includes admiration, jealousy, discontent, disbelief, lies, and a host of emotions that overwhelm a person’s mind to the point where they become irrational and hostile. Another resource claims envy (from Latin invidia) is an emotion that occurs when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desire it or wishes that the other lacked it. Aristotle defined envy as pain at the sight of another’s good fortune, stirred by “those who have what we ought to have.”

While academics continue to split hairs between jealousy and envy and strive to create more distinctions, what has been described regarding envy is sufficient for my purposes. The purpose of discussing envy is to aid in clearing the confusion surrounding envious people who have a modicum of power, as they perceive it, and then abuse that power for their own benefit. For example, Trump Derangement Syndrom (TDS) was already a disease long before President Trump left the private sector for the political arena. TDS remains rooted in envious people acting violently, abusing power, and acting unethically and immorally because of the envy they feel for President Trump’s success.

Consider Speaker Pelosi (D), who ripped her copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech up in front of cameras. She was jealous; her pride was hurt, and she felt envious and lacked a weapon to harm the president, so she acted immaturely and disrespected the sitting president. All this because, at heart, Speaker Pelosi (D) is nothing but a shallow and useless person, stuck in Congress and hating every minute of her tenure there because she could not obtain a higher office. She is envious of the Americans she despises and works 24/7/365 to destroy America, all because of her envy of other people’s success.

Social justice warriors, including President Obama, are full of envy and do everything they can to obtain revenge for self-inflicted wrongs. Envious people hate consequences for the choices they make. Envious people turn to drugs, alcohol, and other forms of self-medication, which in turn makes their self-loathing and self-hate worse. Then, these same envious people curse the success of others while demanding that someone else pay for the help they need to overcome their self-inflicted consequences.

I recently talked to a gentleman who was severely upset that democrats stole the 2020 elections, stuffing ballot boxes, allowing illegal immigration, and a host of other crimes that occur for votes. While I can understand his distress, he was envious of a political party for their success at suborning American Law. He left the conversation mad because he could not understand the role of envy in himself and what he was observing in others. Worse, the belief that justice and mercy are alive keeps him from acting to help change the situation, shift the paradigm, and improve the problems he mentioned to a solution. Envy captures the mind, placing shades and shutters over logic while unlocking emotion, many times without the person realizing what is occurring until that mind is chained in the captivity of envy.

There is a reason why envy is a deadly sin in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, mentioned in all the ancient books as a problem, and continues to infect people who refuse to learn. Unbridled emotions are captivity, not freedom! There is danger in the extremes of everything. Envy is in the extremes and imitates a minimal issue to capture the mind and control the person. Consider this, capitalism is the best, and envious people implement socialism to chain capitalism while rooting for communism to come in a takeover, thinking they will be better off and the “rich will finally pay their fair share.” Reality is always disappointing for envious people, and the result will be that everyone detests them when their plans come to fruition.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Fear – The COVID Tool

Thoreau is quoted as saying, “Nothing is so much to be feared as fear!” From February 1918 through April 1920, the globe experienced an H1N1 viral infection, which came to be known as “The Spanish Flu.” Stories abound regarding the Spanish Flu, how healthy people went to bed and woke up dead. Stories abound about what governments did, how people reacted, and the science involved in this global panic. The media during this period was not yet a mouthpiece for radicals and tyrants, and elected representatives and unelected representatives of government worked to stabilize their populations, care for the sick, bury the dead, and recover the financial losses. Eventually, the world will experience the “Roaring 20s” because of the world leaders’ efforts to recover.

What changed in the century between the Spanish Flu and COVID-19; fear! Fear has become a tradeable good, a tool for beating people, and a method of communicating lies and half-truths as the ultimate word in human communications. Why was fear allowed to go from being disregarded into something that can control every population across the world, except for a small minority?

Fear Defined

From Psychology Today, we find this gem of information regarding fear. “Fear is a vital response to physical and emotional danger that has been pivotal throughout human evolution, but especially in ancient times when men and women regularly faced life-or-death situations.” One of the many pathways to fear leads through the badlands of disgust as an emotional response. Understand something; emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a social construct. How to emote correctly in that situation and environment is part of a survival trait and popularity tool to connect to other people (Solomon, 2003).

Social Aspects and Mental Connections

Matthew D. Lieberman (2013) authored “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect.” This book discusses how and why people connect and also disconnect. The following quote from philosopher Jeremy Bentham discusses the biggest issue in connecting as social beings, “Pain and pleasure … govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.” With the brain wired, hard-wired from birth, towards a lust for pleasure, and avoidance of pain, the third aspect of hard-wired encoding is being social. We need each other to completely experience pleasure and avoid pain.

However, it is also clear that emotions are a choice, a cognitive, conscious, and clear-cut choice. We learn to read social situations as children, and these early experiences teach us about proper emotions in social situations. Since our emotions are a social construct and choice, the connections to society, pleasure, and pain become our reality if we allow emotions to rule our minds, which is also a choice, with social influences and a judgment for basic survival. Fear, especially as it applies to COVID-19 and other viral infections, we must understand our brains’ hard-wired coding and social aspects, plus the emotional decisions we consciously make. If we fail to understand these connections, we miss how every person was manipulated and propagandized into a method of thinking and acting during a viral infection with a 99% survival rate and why COVID reactions were one way, and every other viral outbreak elicited the exact opposite response.

There is an entire branch of science dedicated to studying these connections and responses called social-cognitive neuroscience. I am barely scratching the surface of these topics to provide the COVID response explanation, and I encourage further research if you doubt or would like more information. I am not a social-cognitive neuroscientist, simply an industrial and organizational psychologist who works to understand the why in human interactions.

Lieberman (2013) points out some interesting aspects of fear; in the top ten lists of fears, three categories emerge, fear of physical harm and death (including emotional and mental harm), the death or loss of loved ones, and public speaking. The hard-wiring of reward and fear, pain and pleasure, and our need to connect are physically exhibited through oxytocin release and the septal regions of the brain. fMRI’s have reflected this physical connection and hard-wiring in every person’s brain. When oxytocin is administered, humans show favoritism towards liked groups and strangers but increased hostility towards disliked groups — making the connections to fear being a product of disgust.

Daniel Kahneman (2011) authored “Thinking Fast and Slow.” In discussing how the brain works, Kahneman (2011) introduces intuitive heuristics. A heuristic or heuristic technique is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation. Intuitive heuristics is problem-solving using intuition. In the US Military, we called these “WAGs” or “Wild-Arsed Guesses.”

In reviewing the literature on the social dynamics of Spanish Flu and COVID-19, we find two main concerns. The early stages of both health crises show leaders acting with intuitive heuristics, trying to solve the problem, e.g., avoiding pain, through educated guesses and flat-out WAGs. The second dynamic is the social fear spread by, influenced with, and spurred to new heights by corporate media and politics. We all remember how Dr. Fauci was first for and then vehemently against hydroxychloroquine, even though Dr. Fauci’s research had reflected the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine since the 1990s against viral SAR-Cov (coronaviruses) viral infections.

Where we are today – Nowhere Good!

Israel announced they are planning to re-enter restrictions for wearing a mask inside your home as a government mandate due to a COVID-19 mutation called “Delta.” The vaccine news continues to discuss whether or not the original vaccine developed will be effective against the new mutations of the coronavirus or if a booster vaccine will be required. We have a causal relationship between giving children and teenagers the vaccine and a rare heart disease. There are still doctors worldwide reading Dr. Fauci’s research and trying to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and being thrown in jail or facing ridicule and loss of license to practice medicine. Worse, we still have doctors who recommend doing nothing if exposed to COVID until you cannot breathe, taking the lackadaisical approach to practicing medicine.

All of these stories have a similar root cause, fear! The politicians fear losing their job, so they overreact. The media stirs up fear in a populace, for scared people are easier to keep emotionally distracted than logically thinking; hence fear sells advertising, and the media knows how to sell advertising. Fear drives irrational purchases, like packing your garage full of toilet paper and bottled water. Fear drives avoidance and acceptance of freedom stealing government mandates.

Fear drove a recent business interaction, where a person hard of hearing had removed their mask to lip-read during a conversation. The business leader demanded they both put their masks back on per “company policy.” Only later was the hearing impairment made known to the business leader. What has been the company response, investing in transparent and expensive masks. Fear driving irrational business decisions based upon fear of risks rather than proactive methods for conducting business.

One of the most problematic aspects of COVID has been accepting fear as a valid reason to take action, report your neighbors, and make wrongheaded business decisions. When COVID-Hysteria finally concludes, how foolish will people feel for blindly following instead of logically thinking and acting? Worse, what will the fallout be from being made to feel foolish? Long-term, does the feeling of foolishness and fear change how people listen and follow government mandates in the future? What laws will change social interactions and societal morals due to the fallout from COVID?

Honest questions, to which the answers must be sought and explored before the media decides the populace is too stupid to think for themselves, and they force solutions onto the politicians through shoddy statistical lies. America and every representative government globally, we the owners of our governments, need to become more proactive before we wake up one morning, and freedom has been lost, rights trampled, and liberty was stolen for the power of politicians and the media. Not fear-mongering. Just a concerned citizen looking for answers.

References

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. NY: Oxford University Press, USA.

Solomon, R. C. (2007). Not passion’s slave: Emotions and choice. Oxford University Press.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Let’s Stop Being Afraid of Language – Communication and Freedom Lessons From Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Communication presentation is the careful and concise logic behind selecting words to communicate an idea—the rules of grammar and punctuation aid in communicating correctly to enhance the sense and communicate the vision. Language is a grand and glorious tool for sharing ideas, empowering motivation, and building ideas into action items. Yet, for some reason, words have become cheapened by political positions, and I would see this trend cease forthwith. Presenting the first and second principles of language and communication:

“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

“The best of a book is not the thought which it contains, but the thought which it suggests; just as the charm of music dwells not in the tones but in the echoes of our hearts.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Consider two emails; the content is identical, the first is titled:

“How To Learn and Master Things Faster – Five Tips”

The second email was received later in the day and is titled:

“How To Learn and Excel At Things Faster – Five Tips”

The second email also came with an apology:

“Apologies for churn. The original email today used a non-inclusive word in the header. We apologize for this error and are re-sending with the corrected content.”

The content of the email did not change at all, only the titles changed, and the apology suggests that there is a “non-inclusive” word in the original title. Some people will erroneously claim that the term master is automatically a negative term and base that assumption upon slavery, especially with Juneteenth celebrations abounding this weekend. Except, master and mastery are not negative terms.

As a point of reference, a male teacher is a master. There are master degrees; master also appears in religious texts as an honorific. A master can be a highly accomplished person in a trade or craft, or a role model from history. One having authority over another to force compulsion is much lower in the definition lists. Hence, the wordsmithing for “inclusion” is a myth; yet the fear of potentially appearing to be exclusive forced the title change in this email and was 100% wrong!

We must never forget the following:

“My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [emphasis mine].

The fear of thought police drives a lot of other problems in society. Choose the wrong word on an advertisement, and college children (thought terrorists) have been known to storm the business, ruin patronage, anger the entire community, and force the business closure. All because they presume the mantle of “Master of Thought Police.” Who gave them this authority? Where are their charter, endowment, and power originating from? Who granted permission; this last one is easy; the license to become a terrorist was self-assumed! Necessitating the following principle:

“The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Please note, I am not against wordsmithing to increase the potential power of communication to reach an audience. Nor am I against the careful selection of words to provide clear context and empower a collective message through editing. I will certainly not be upset because someone chooses one word in a message that I might not have used had I been in their shoes. Why have we, the adults in society, allowed the children in the community to act like spoiled brats and create fear and division over word selection and placement in a message?

The following two quotes contain more than simple support for the principles of communicating but reflect how those principles of freedom and communication operate in society.

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

“Certitude leads to violence. This is a proposition that has an easy application and a difficult one. The easy application is to ideologues, dogmatists, and bullies–people who think that their rightness justifies them in imposing on anyone who does not happen to subscribe to their particular ideology, dogma, or notion of turf. If the conviction of rightness is powerful enough, resistance to it will be met, sooner or later by force. There are people like this in every sphere of life, and it is natural to feel that the world would be a better place without them!” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [emphasis mine]

Is the fear of the mob so significant that even without a mob, fear is spread, risks must be avoided proactively, and thoughts curtailed? I say NO! I defy the entire argument that word selection can cause exclusion. Why; because understanding is a choice! The only person who can choose to be insulted over a word is you! You own the emotions of the moment, and your emotional choices are not my concern! Do we understand this concept?

Audience selection is the first job in designing communication. Identifying the primary, secondary, and tertiary audiences is the job of the communication initiator. After drafting that message and sending the ideas out, the audience is left to choose what they do moving forward. How you choose is your power, and I am not responsible for your choices. The communication initiator is not accountable for your preferences and selections.

But what about those messages specifically designed to inflame, insult, denigrate, and deride? What changed? Nothing! The communication initiator desired to rile the primary audience, deny them this power over you, choose different emotions, and retain the moral high ground. The best response to a communication initiator who wants to rule your emotions is to deny them that power, and then that person goes away as irrelevant.

Opposing thoughts expand our minds with both experience and the force to make a decision. If all we ever experienced were ideas and thoughts we agreed with, change, growth, opinion, all the spice of life would be lost. Worse, envy would overcome logic, and the world would undoubtedly be a more violent place as a result.

“I have no respect for the passion of equality, which seems to me merely idealizing envy – I don’t disparage envy, but I don’t accept it as legitimately my master.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Is the ability to choose emotional reasoning supported sufficiently to empower you? One of the great tragedies of life, since the 1960s, has been the call for “equality” when the worship of envy was the actual message. Worse, these ideas have been planted and carefully tended, and the fruit is poison. When I moved to the western US as a kid, I was introduced to cedar trees for the first time. A cedar tree is the place of choice for pregnant animals to have their offspring, as the cedar slowly transforms the ground under it into a sterile environment. The air is affected, the earth is involved, and the grove of cedar trees holds tremendous power for generations inside the forest of cedar trees. The cedar tree is an excellent example of the power of envy worship. Call envy equality if you prefer, but the fruit will kill and poison the minds of those choosing to plant the seeds for generations.

Taking the concepts into the final thought:

“Liberty is often a heavy burden on a man. It involves the necessity for perpetual choice, which is the kind of labor men have always dreaded.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [emphasis mine].

Like the expanded mind, choice leads to decisions, decision spurs action, and action will result in consequences. How you perceive the effects will drive the next series of choices, decisions, activities, and consequences. Liberty and freedom allow us the glory and the horror of choice and consequence. Thus, I plead with you, stop allowing your emotional decisions to be controlled by others! Cease the turmoil over language, speak simply, communicate clearly, and then rest knowing you have not intentionally caused harm. The audience is left to choose, and if they choose to be offended, those are not your consequences to suffer!

“Reason may be the lever, but sentiment gives you the fulcrum and the place to stand on if you want to move the world.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Indifference

Military commanders are taught there are two great sins in planning operations; one is waiting, and predictability and the other is indifference. Today, business leaders are instructed well by academics about the problems with waiting to make a decision, failing to act, and the costs of blown opportunities from taking too long to make a decision. But few have ever considered the costs of indifference. I intend to close this gap in education, using some recent examples and some history to reflect why indifference is a corrosive acid on the souls of men.

Indifference

Indifference is all about a lack of interest, not having or showing concern, and refusing sympathy. Webster has also referred to indifference as unimportant. When discussing the sympathetic aspects of indifference, please remember, sympathy is part of the emotions of ruination. Many people continue to become lost in showing empathy and sympathy when choosing not to emote or become involved in the feelings of others is a better course of action. Lacking sympathy might not be a terrible thing in a particular circumstance and does not reflect indifference.

What is the distinction between choosing not to emote and indifference?

Let’s take Robert Solomon’s position that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a social event. Indifference is not distinguishable from other emotions and remains a choice, a judgment, or a social event. Except one is not left trying to distinguish between indifference as emotion and indifference as lacking interest or caring. More to the point, if indifference was simply an emotion to choose, then indifference is apathy, and apathy is another emotion on the path to ruination.

Hence, there must be more to the concept of indifference to make the separation between indifference as emotion and indifference as an action. Let us pause here for a moment mentally and keep one principle firmly in mind, indifference, or the activities that reflect indifference, are a choice, a decision, and judgment about the social situation. Choices have natural consequences that cannot be escaped. The consequences of choosing indifference cannot always be controlled or directly understood as lines of congruence from the choice of indifference to the consequences of indifference. These principles remain valid for all emotional choices expressed by humans. Worse, the valuation of the consequences can vary wildly from person to person, creating additional consequences that snowball into major social events quickly.

Solomon makes a classic point in tying indifference to defensive mechanisms used in choosing emotional interactions for social situations. Indifference can reflect envy, resentment, hate, disdain, and the “opposite” of these emotions: love and respect—indifference embodying the individual’s psyche through emotional choices. When angry, frustrated, or time-pressured, how many times has the words “I don’t care” slipped out as the position when at another time the decision would not have been indifferent? Is the defensive aspect clear?

Please note, when using the term opposite, I am trying to be easily understood. The problem when discussing emotions is that there are no clear-cut opposites to emotions. For example, the opposite of light is dark; but light shades include darkness to set emotional states or moods. Opposite always depends upon the context, e.g., the social situation of human interactions. Another aspect of emotions is the transformation from one to another, the speed of transformation, and the social context forcing a change. Thus, making distinctions between emotions remains ambiguous and always will depend upon context and the social environment.

Finally, please remember that positive and negative are valuations of consequences, not emotional choices. The emotional choice will have consequences, and the social situation, the judgment, and the choice will be reflected in the consequences experienced. The emotion itself cannot be judged without the consequences, and the valuation of the consequences is deeply personal. Hence trying to characterize an emotion is simpleminded and detrimental to all aspects of emotional valuation. The emotion cannot be evaluated or valued, but the consequences from that emotional choice must be considered and given value. Does this make sense?

People seeking to control social situations employ emotional sophistry to plasticize the emotion and the consequence into weapons to force those they select to either come closer or move further away. Where indifference is concerned, the aspects of defense remain the most influential aspect of emotional choices leading to action. The cost and constraint of emotion are all found in the consequences of that emotional choice and social environment. Defense mechanisms work to protect, but as the axiom goes, a good defense is supported by a good offense. The best defensive drivers drive offensively and defensively, balancing the offense and defense to protect themselves, as a continuous string of decisions while driving.

I realize this was a long explanation, but understanding the consequences of choosing to emote, choosing to be indifferent as a defensive position, and employing other emotions in social environments to judge others, are all connected emotionally speaking. Remaining interconnected and the failure to describe these relationships does not produce the understanding for evaluating the situations around us properly. Let me be clear, the difference between choosing to emote and indifference is the defensive aspect of indifference when applied to a social situation.

Indifference in Action

Consider the teenager who, when given a choice, screams, “I don’t care.” When they calm down, who will care a great deal but are stuck inside their choice and consequence cycle because they chose to defend when they needed a different emotional response to a particular situation? My wife, when we got married, discussed how to decorate the home. I decided that the home looks and the decorations making a house a home were beyond my purview, realizing I have no taste in furnishings and am happy with bare essentials. This decision has aggravated and grated on my wife for our entire marriage (20+ years), but I refuse to budge.

I am not indifferent to what the house looks like, but I have no interest in the minutia of decorations and decorating. Hence, my simplicity is not indifference, as my wife has judged, but a recognition that there are more important aspects to life than choosing colors and styles of curtains, where furniture goes, or how to light a room. My consequence has been that sometimes I might not like her ideas but live with them due to the consequences of my choice to stay out of decorating decisions entirely. I have also had to move furniture I did not particularly like because she prefers a style and shape. My decision has also led to a host of other consequences. Since I refuse to budge on helping to decorate, I remain indifferent to how the house looks and push all credit onto her while accepting the blame for anything out of place or undesired in her home.

Public examples of indifference abound; one of the most obvious was the Beer Summit. President Obama’s indifference to police officers during the Henry Louis Gates arrest debacle in July 2009 reflected poorly in a socially political aspect for all his faults and all his other decisions. Thus the “Beer Summit” was held to improve the appearances of indifference towards police by the sitting US President. Except, the “Beer Summit” was as empty as the calories of the beer consumed for the next time a police controversy arose, the sitting US President went out of his way to blame police before all the facts were known. Leading to the question, what is President Obama defending by showing indifference to police officers?

Another aspect of indifference has been the Federal Response to individual states legalizing cannabis, a trend that took off under President Obama. The executive in charge, the sitting US President, reflected indifference towards states broadening the “state-approved legal” use of cannabis. Was the sitting president indifferent due to a defensive position due to his history of drug use? Are the stories true that President Obama smoked cannabis in the White House? Is there a connection between indifference showed by the US President and the rise of states legalizing cannabis?

President Trump was criticized for caring too much about war zones and problems outside the United States, while the infrastructure crumbled and the poor suffered. President Obama was criticized for his refusals to enforce “Red Lines” being crossed with impunity and where internationally illegal weapons of mass destruction were employed. Which one was a reflection of indifference? Why? I am not getting into political discussions here; the topic is indifference, and recognizing indifference and the consequence from indifferent actions remains crucial to improving decision-making. Both presidents inherited situations where American Troops were in harm’s way, and these troop conditions rightly took priority in decision-making short and long-term. Yet, which president was indifferent? Why? Does indifference change solely because of political leanings? Why?

President Biden was criticized for being indifferent to National Guard Troops sleeping in parking garages during his ascension and confirmation as US President in January and February 2021. When the political appearances could no longer be sidestepped, token measures were taken to improve troop comforts. What is President Biden defending where US Troops in the US Capitol are concerned?

Indifference surrounds us in every social situation, every day. Do we understand the role indifference is currently playing in obstructing development, hampering growth, and destroying lives? Since Feb. 2020, the globe has witnessed governments running away with stealing freedoms and liberties from the citizenry, issuing mandates and restrictions without due process, all because of a “health emergency.” The indifference to science by the politicians stealing liberty has been deafening. The indifference to the citizenry and the judiciary has also been deafening. To fight indifference, we must first understand what we are witnessing and then address that indifference at the source. We must realize our own indifference and determine why before we can begin to understand the larger applications of indifference and force change.

Reference

Solomon, R. C. (2007). Not passion’s slave: Emotions and choice [Kindle 6]. Buy your copy here: https://www.amazon.com/Not-Passions-Slave-Emotions-Passionate/dp/0195179781

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Progressive vs. Regressive – Sales Taxes

Any time a debate about taxes arises, the terms progressive and regressive get thrown around like popcorn in a food fight. Whether or not those speaking, even know, or care about the definitions, implications, and repercussions are different topics and one I will not hazard a guess. My intent here is to help you know and better understand the terminology as we discuss the broader topic, sales taxes. Please note, since the early 1900s, the word progress has been twisted by tyrants, plasticized by the media, and manipulated into means one thing to one person and a different thing to a politician. Of all the terms plasticized for tyranny, progress is one of the most egregious examples. Just like the term “Buffalo-wings.”

Progressive

Progressive and progressivism is a political philosophy that empowers a more extensive and more intrusive government, a government without any shred of decency, and a government that is as intrusive as possible into your daily life. Progressivism has been the catchphrase for all sorts of political hooliganism and liberty theft at all levels of government. These abuses by the government have been made possible because, as everyone knows, progress, the root of progressivism, is a good thing.

Progress is defined as moving forward or onward towards the desired destination. Also, progress can be advancement or development towards a better, or more complete, “modern condition.” Archaic definitions sometimes provide critical insight into a word, and in this instance, the archaic meaning of progress was a state journey or official tour, especially by royalty.

Without the political connotations, Progressive means something relating to or characterized by progress, making use of new ideas, findings, or opportunities. In the classroom, progressive relates to an educational theory marked by an emphasis on the individual child, informal class procedures, and encouraging self-expression to the point of sacrificing educational opportunities. The meaning of progressive also refers to making progress, moving forward or advancing, increasing in severity or extent, expanding the base rate of something, and a few other definitions specific to the sciences of computers and lenses for glasses.

President Woodrow Wilson (D) was a progressive, and many of his political detractors were regressive. The distinction was drawn on a political scale to aid in differentiating and scorning political opponents who were concerned about the spread of government. We need to be clear, any time anyone talks about progressive taxes, they are discussing expanding the base tax rate. Making tax increases sound more pleasant is a key to twisting the meaning of words and exercising tyranny on a population.

Regressive

As you might have probably guessed, regression is the exact opposite of progression. Regressive as an adjective relates to the production of regression, decreasing the rate as the base increases, and is characterized by simplification of structures in an evolutionary process. Regression is the action of regressing, and regressing relates to the act of reasoning backward, moving backward to a previous, and possibly worse or more primitive state, but it is also a privilege of going or coming back to something.

Emotions and Language

The terms progressive and regressive are a perfect example of how emotions and language mix. Without knowing all the definitions of a word, people will choose to use the sound of the word to decide whether the word sounds harsh or pleasant. For example, progression sounds good, and regression sounds bad, but progress has roots in royalty taking a trip, and regression is a privilege or returning. Hence, one of the main themes in these articles has been and continues to be how to control your emotions to improve your decision-making, the need to read, the opportunity to learn and keep learning words to empower conversation and knowledge.

When emotions rule, people like President Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Bush II, and many others with conspiring congresses get away with fundamentally destroying the fabric of America. One of the tricks used against the citizens of America and in many democratically elected governments across the globe has been using language and emotions to enact reigns of tyranny. Let us face facts, the IRS and the Federal Income Tax are not progressive; America did not move forward by paying a tax that fundamentally hurts people in their wallets. Education reform and progressive schools did not improve America’s ability to compete globally on reading, writing, and arithmetic. The progressive ideas from the late 1800s to shut down literacy among government-mandated schools did not improve America! Frankly, we should count ourselves lucky to have the opportunity to regress on these fronts.

Sales Taxes

Of all the progressive ideas needing to be eliminated, the sales tax sits at the highest pinnacle for regression. Consider this, in states with the highest sales taxes, the sales tax is a pyramid where the final consumer winds up paying taxes on business-to-business transactions, dynamically increasing the price of the final goods or services delivered. Business A buys raw goods from Business B and sells these goods to Business C to make small parts. Business A buys these goods from Business C and sells them as finished goods to a consumer. In a sales tax pyramid, the government gets paid at the end of every transaction; thus, a product in Vermont will be less expensive than a product in South Dakota, due precisely to the sales taxes paid by Businesses AB, B, and C during the manufacturing process. Thus, the top five states in the United States with the highest sales taxes have a tax pyramid scheme in place, and the end consumer pays through the nose for everything!

In states with a less broad sales tax base, the sales tax remains egregious but more silent in how it steals your money! According to the states with tax pyramid schemes, those with a less broad sales tax base are considered regressive, and those with the highest sales tax base are called progressive. Either way, the sales tax continues to be the silent killer of ingenuity, innovation, job growth, and so much more. Because people expect to pay a sales tax as a condition of making a purchase, the sales tax has become the majority of the fuel price paid to power a car, the hinge upon where jobs are produced, and part of the reasoning for populations to flee from.

From an article on sales taxes by the Tax Foundation, we find the following important information:

“Narrow sales tax bases reduce collections, but more importantly, they make the tax less neutral and less economically efficient. Many states exempt certain goods (like groceries or clothing) from the sales tax for political reasons, excluding many consumer services (such as dry cleaning, haircuts, or tax preparation) largely by historical accident. Most states instituted their sales taxes during the Great Depression when services made up a much smaller portion of the economy. Since then, the portion of total U.S. personal consumption dedicated to services has grown significantly, while the purchase of goods has declined. This trend has contributed to the erosion of states’ sales tax bases over time, an unintentional base narrowing that puts upward pressure on sales tax rates.”

Remember, sales taxes going up are considered progress. Reducing or eliminating the sales tax, which is the right path forward, is deemed to be regressive, based solely upon the sound of the terms being used. Broader tax bases are not equitable, but many economists, especially those Keynesian Devotees, will claim broader tax bases and pyramid tax schemes are progressive, equitable, and helps the rich pay their “fair share.” How can a person tell that sales tax schemes do not work to make “equitable” tax bases; “Curiously, a policy expressly designed to inject progressivity into sales taxes—an exemption for groceries—largely fails to accomplish its purpose. Studies suggest that the exclusion of groceries beyond the necessary exemption for food purchased using SNAP or WIC does not favor lower earners.”

While the Tax Foundation does an admirable job pitching for “right-sizing” the tax base to make sales taxes more “equitable,” they miss the forest for the tree. Sales taxes are a silent killer and need to be regressed from American purchases at the earliest opportunity! Taxes never produce progress! Write that on your hand, and use that hand to correct the behavior of politicians who want “progressive taxes,” a “federal sales tax,” or want to improve tax burdens progressively. When did American goods stop being traded, and manufacturing jobs were exported when the income tax started! Why do people not want to live where they pay high sales taxes because of the progressive nature of sales taxes, the other progressive tax structures, and the only entity winning is the government.

America, we need to regress from the state where the income and sales taxes have taken us. We cannot afford the government largess stolen from workers anymore. We cannot afford the size of local, county, state, and federal governments. Until the taxes are regressed, which would be a huge opportunity to realize, we will continue to be treated as the property of the government, and I, for one, am done being owned and forced into indentured servitude just to pay for the government who abuses me!

NO MORE BS: Apathy, Empathy, and Sympathy – Chapter 2

It never seems to change; the powers that think they run the world want everyone drinking the Kool-Aid of emotional entanglement. August 2020, I wrote the first chapter on apathy, empathy, and sympathy; unfortunately, the events of this past week have shown that a return to this topic is both necessary and urgently needed. What worries me is that too many still feel they must share emotions to prove their care towards something or someone else, an idea that is 100% false!

What is Apathy?

Apathy is all about a lack of enthused concern. Being apathetic is a choice to show no concern, emotional connection to an issue, or interest. The choice to be apathetic is personal and does not indicate that a person is heartless; simply that the person being apathetic is making different choices where emotion is concerned on a topic. Choosing a different emotional response to a situation is a good thing and reflects intelligence in understanding emotional pitfalls and emotional problems leading to problems and chaos.

What is Empathy?

Empathy, of all the emotional pitfalls, empathy is the most devious of this list’s emotional responses. Empathy is all about acting like you understand another person’s emotions, and you have a personal desire to share those emotions. Empathy is fake; empathy is a choice one exercises in the attempt to control a person or situation through emotion. Being empathetic is a skill set learned as a manner of defense or, for the more nefarious, to control others. Empathy is nothing more than faking concern. By encouraging empathy, a person with authority is looking to steal control over enough people to contain a group through that group’s emotional connections. By choosing to be empathetic, control over the cognizant emotional choices is given away to someone else for momentary social gains. Shift the social environment even slightly, and empathy becomes foolish. Still, people will continue to look for something to emote about, even after being caught feeling ridiculous about being empathetic for social gain.

What is Sympathy?

Sympathy is a process of coming to a common feeling in a social setting or group. The emotional pathway journeyed by people or groups to feel the same emotions for someone else’s emotional state. Sympathy is the most dangerous of the emotional tools on this list, not for the one experiencing the sorrow or misfortune, but for those who jump in with the person feeling the sadness or experiencing adversity. Understand, the sympathetic person attracts other sympathetic people, like moths to a flame or lemmings to a cliff. I have met people who were so sympathetic with another person in my travels that they thought they had contracted cancer, become pregnant, or had an addiction to dangerous drugs.

Examples of runaway emotional hysteria.

The 800#-Gorilla in the news is COVID-19; the corporate media is using sympathy and empathy to garner support for the government to continue the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the economic decline, and to refuse and refute those governors in the U.S. who want to return to business as usual pre-COVID. Sympathy for the dead, empathy for the families left behind, sympathy for those in hospitals, empathy for those first responders struggling with COVID cases, and so much more. The logic is never equal to the emotional marionette strings, and heaven forbid someone approaches the media with facts. Want more proof that the media is only interested in the emotional gamesmanship of sympathy and empathy; look to historical records of Ebola in the US, Swine-flu, Avian-Flu, SARS, MERS, annual flu outbreaks, and other viral outbreaks. You will find headlines blaring a need to sympathize, empathize, and emote in a specified manner, or you are considered heartless, uncaring, and a host of -isms that make no sense, except to those demanding an emotional response.

Consider the “influencer culture” that has gripped the world for more than two decades as social media has swept the world. In case you missed the definition of “influencer culture,” it is all about people with above-average influence on an audience. The best influencers have built their reputation online for being an expert in some particular niche or are cashing in on their popularity through sports, politics, or Hollywood. They are similar to key opinion leaders but usually have gained their reputation more informally through their online activity. Consider the emotional diatribes regarding Lady Gaga’s dogs being stolen. Heck, I don’t even know who or what a “Lady Gaga” is, but I know a dog theft is not that big a news item. Yet, how many days has your newsfeed been filled with this story? Worse, BBC and Time have run follow-on stories about dog thefts and tried to raise “public awareness” of a problem, demanding empathy and sympathy from the audience due to influencer culture.

I saw a headline in my newsfeed that had me laughing, “What the U.S. owes Iran?” authored by Ryan Cooper. My answer was first a low-yield nuclear bomb, at about 150’-agl, and a smile! My second answer is not fit to print. My third and fourth answers were similar, but to have the author advocating for the fraudulent President Biden to “budge first” was an absolute farce! Still, even on this topic, the author begs the audience to have sympathy and empathy for Iran’s citizens and political structure before America and the rest of the world, who have been victims of Iran’s tyranny and terrorism over the last several decades. Is the pattern clear; when emotions of empathy and sympathy override common-sense and logic, control of the audience is no longer individually held but collectively controlled.

My newsfeed has been clogged by some spoiled brats who fled a palace in the United Kingdom for fame and fortune in America and some stupid interview with Oprah. Beyond that, I have no clue what their pampered beef is and could care less. Yet, this entire week has been filled with demands from the crown for sympathy and empathy, cries for sympathy, and empathy for the runaway pampered couple in California. As well as cries for Oprah who is not a big enough girl to stand criticizing memes and people who use her as a meme are “digital blackfacing.” Digital blackfacing, what a plastic term of useless indignation which is masquerading as a call for sympathy and empathy.

How do people move forward?

The following are suggestions; I employ them for my own sanity. I make my own choices and live with the consequences, and I urge you to consider the same:

1. 1. Restrict the media flow into your life. I do not watch TV, listen to the radio, or allow any specific corporate media channel to infest my digital devices or computer. I have five specific news provider applications, but it has taken a lot of time and effort to stop being a news junkie!
  2. Robert Solomon wrote, “Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice.” Make some time to read this book. I am not saying everyone has to follow everything Solomon claims; I am saying that being more informed about the role of emotions and conscious choices is empowering, sanctioning, and liberating.
  3. Are you aware of your emotional investments? I have two people I respect, but they hold opposing views and emotional investments. Both have grown children, but one allows their children space to act as independent agents. The other tries to be a helicopter parent for the kids who now have kids. Worse, the helicopter parent cannot catch the hint that the kids do not want anything to do with their parent. The helicopter parent is so emotionally involved that they have physical health problems from the emotional wasteland’s stress and anxiety between the kids and the parent. Thus, I ask, do you know where your emotional investments are? What is your return on investment for emotionally investing?

I promise as you review and reduce your emotional investments, you will experience a feeling of liberation like you have never known before. Stress levels drop, time becomes available for other activities, and a more conscious choice of emotional investing makes you a better person to be around. Stop giving away your emotional liberty to those who would control and destroy you, be they children, friends, employment, media, politics, etc.; you can be free of emotional chains.

For Those Confused: The Emotional Intelligence Farce!

A colleague and I were recently discussing how emotional intelligence has taken over as a phrase with power but lacking definition, clarity, organization, and foundational logic. Included below is my answer to my colleague and some thoughts on avoiding the constant maelstrom of business jargon passed around as useful tools for management.

In the world of business today, many people remain confused by current ‘buzz words,’ ‘jargon,’ and flat out misnomers fulfilling Rand’s description of “mental disintegration” (Locke, 2005, p. 430). One of the most popular ‘buzz words’ in today’s business environment is ‘Emotional Intelligence (EI).’ Which in itself is both a misnomer and a confusion generator, where even professional researchers cannot pin down a definitive definition of ‘EI.’ Many of the descriptions about EI dwell upon variables that cannot be controlled by an individual, namely, the emotions of those people surrounding the problem. The definitions purport the claim that a prediction of other people’s emotional reactions can occur through knowing one’s own emotional responses.

Many of the explanations for EI support the claim that improved leadership occurs as a result of conquering one’s emotional decisions. Several of the definitions go so far as to promote that improved emotional control mitigates problems. Concluding that if everyone were trained in emotional understanding, the world would be more productive. What all of these definitions have in common is the assertion that emotions can be chosen (Solomon, 2003). All the while castigating, Solomon (2003) who insisted that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and connected to social variables based upon historical interactions. What is missing is the value of choosing emotions as a logical process in evaluating the problem socially and the consequences of acting emotionally when logic would be preferred.

Locke (2005) reported the continuing shift of researchers developing a new definitive definition for the same biological process of emotionally reviewing a problem, analyzing the variables, making decisions based upon the data discovered, and calling this emotional intelligence. Thus, the question arises, what does emotional intelligence mean? More specifically, can EI be measured and quantified without a definitive definition? Finally, is emotional intelligence even worth studying, or learning, when, as a misnomer, the biological process of intelligence works best without emotion to clutter the mental landscape required to consider variables and make decisions rationally in a social context like employment situations?

Hence the conclusion that emotional intelligence is a misnomer and the process currently labeled as ‘emotional intelligence’ is nothing more than intelligence being confused with emotions (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough 2005; Locke, 2005). Antonakis, et al. (2009) and Locke (2005), both of whom supported the claim that emotional intelligence is a confusion of intelligence with emotions that creates chaos when applied together, supports the conclusion that emotional intelligence does not work as a concept. Thus, in employees’ identity transformation, using any emotional intelligence model remains wasted time and energy for the business leader already stretched thin on resources.

Breaking down the term emotional intelligence is key to understanding why Locke (2005) aptly calls emotional intelligence a misnomer. Emotion is a choice an individual makes as a response to social situations, their relationship to the environment, and a conscious decision for a response, as Solomon (2003) detailed. The author described the mental and emotional choice relationship extensively, and Solomon (2003) is highly recommended for the business leader to read and understand. Smollan and Parry (2011) enhanced the emotion as a choice discussion in elaborating upon followers’ emotional responses to leaders in change management. Inherent to the research of Smollan and Parry (2011) is that emotions do not affect intelligence.

Lewis (2000) and Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, and van Knippenberg (2010) completed research where emotions of a negative type were selected and employed, then measuring the motivation and influence upon the team members were measured. The study reflects similar conclusions and supports Solomon’s (2003) position that emotions are a choice and that emotional inclusion in a situation does not influence the intelligence of those involved, even though the followers’ emotional decisions are recognized as pieces to the social environment and relationship in small teams. Neither Lewis (2000) or Van Kleef, et al. (2010) investigated the social connections between follower’s emotional response choices and the emotions in the situation, even though social interactions do influence emotional choices (Solomon, 2003).

Before discussing intelligence, Yalom (1980) adds a key variable to the discussion of the transformation of identity and small group development, individual agency, or the power of an agent to choose cognizantly, their response to external and internal stimuli, and environments. Boler (1968), regarded as the seminal authority on the understanding and application of agency, concluded that agency is a concept, and the need for people to have choices free of external influences and agency’s motivational power without control to spur production to greater heights. When people feel their choices are honored, that person, acting as an agent, will work harder to reflect their desires to be of worth to another entity. Essentially, when I, as a leader, provide members of teams the ability to choose, they work harder and smarter as an extension of their agentic choices. Naturally, they will decide that which empowers them and the team, and the team builds cohesion faster, all because of individual agency, not emotional intelligence mine or theirs. Thus, the second part of this discussion becomes apparent; there is no need for an emotional intelligence model or emotional intelligence competency in the identity transformation process when agents are provided the ability to choose, without undue influence, the direction they individually want to travel.

According to APA.org (2018), intelligence is nothing other than the functioning of the intellect an individual possesses. APA.org (2018) discusses how to compete more effectively through proper sleep, diet, education, etc., in intelligent functions; apparently, feeding the brain improves how the brain functions, thus increasing intelligence opportunities and competitive skills against others on an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) standardized test. Locke (2005) explored the intelligence side of the misnomer emotional intelligence, further supporting that an individual’s intelligence, even if focused just on emotional responses, cannot and should not measure the intelligence of the individuals involved in a situation. Finally, Joseph (2016) imported that understanding the leader-member exchange (LMX) and working to improve the LMX remains more important than being, whatever definition is currently accepted for, emotionally intelligent.

Thus, I conclude that agency in employment situations is more critical to building team member identities than a false claim of emotional intelligence. That emotional intelligence remains not just a misnomer, but a complete fallacy is supported by research. Even if all a person currently knows is their emotional choices as they respond to environmental stimuli, their potential to learn and become more intelligent remains independent of their individual emotional choices. Locke (2005) mentioned the final reason for emotional intelligence being a misnomer, echoed by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2004) among many others, emotional intelligence remains defined by each individual researcher, and the power to influence emotional intelligence remains in the popularity of the researchers, not sound science. Hence, it would behoove every leader to flush emotional intelligence as a current business “buzz word” from their vocabulary and return to describing emotions as a choice separate from an individuals’ intelligence potential.

Poerksen (1995) argued that plastic words provide no strengths within any field of endeavor, only weakness in word application, weakness in logic, and produce weaknesses in the audience to think and reason. Poerksen (1995) analogized the plasticity of words as “Legos,” a building block system designed to thwart the audience’s intellect, instead of building the audience to understanding. Poerksen (1995) remains adamant that stopping the practice of plasticizing words is not pessimistic or optimistic, merely a need to transmit messages of context and content, not flavor-of-the-month plastic words and phrases. Words have meanings, and these meanings need to be grounded in a foundation of accepted definitions. Thus, the researcher who would succeed should focus on employing words properly. Finally, it should be realized that intelligence has morphed into one of those plastic words that everyone knows, no one can define, and every researcher, and practitioner, will plasticize for their own benefit. A working definition of intelligence that I prefer is “The ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills, to continue learning and growing; through the manipulation of the environments surrounding the seeker of intelligence;” while not scientifically supported, this is my definition as based upon fundamental research. The problem is that many researchers will have a different definition, and more practitioners even more definitions; hence the example of plastic words is demonstrated (QED), and the futility of emotional intelligence debunked.

How should a business leader avoid the maelstrom of buzz words, jargon, and popular beliefs? The business leader wanting to avoid the vortex would first never stop learning. Read a book. Read peer-reviewed articles and decide upon their veracity by watching the effect on people, as individuals in your organization. Engage in a debate with loyal oppositionists. One of the best leaders I know has the most violent debates in the boardroom. But, his team of C-Level leaders are friends, they are tight socially, and they all possess confidence and independence to act. One would think the opposite was true, but in debating ideas, the team has grown to trust the others’ logic in which they work. This trust is communicated down through the business organization and is reflected in motivated employees of all levels and responsibilities.

Emotional Intelligence will die as a concept when the researcher’s and practitioner’s social popularity begins to subside. What will not disappear is the continued use of plastic words to describe, detail, stretch, contort, and deceive people. Hence, the third suggestion to avoid calamity brought about by jargon unleashed is to recognize plastic words, and if in doubt, refer to the first suggestion, read a book!

References

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006

APA.org. (2018). Psychology topics: Intelligence. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/topics/intelligence/index.aspx

Boler, J. (1968). Agency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 29(2), 165-181. doi: 10.2307/2105850.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 453-466. doi:10.1002/job.321

Joseph, T. (2016). Developing the leader-follower relationship: Perceptions of leaders and followers. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 13(1), 132.

Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 221-234. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<221::AID-JOB36>3.0.CO;2-0

Lievens, F., & Chan, D. (2017). Practical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and social intelligence. In Handbook of employee selection (pp. 342-364). Routledge.

Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431. doi: 10.1002/job.318

Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional

intelligence with the MSCEIT™ v2.0. Emotion, 3(1), 95-105.

Poerksen, U. (1995). Plastic words: The tyranny of modular language (J. Mason, & D. Cayley, Trans.). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press

Smollan, R., & Parry, K. (2011). Follower perceptions of the emotional intelligence of change leaders: A qualitative study. Leadership, 7(4), 435-462. doi: 10.1177/1742715011416890

Solomon, R. C. (2003). Not passion’s slave: Emotions and choice [Kindle 6.10 version].

Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., &van Knippenberg, D. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1827-1834

Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d05e/ba9b468ea6cdfa15b882ff3ed0977369562c.

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this: