How Democracy Came to Rule the Earth and The Three Natural Instincts of Man that Began the Philosophy of Inclusion

How Democracy Came to Rule the Earth and the Three Natural Instincts of Man that Began the Philosophy of Inclusion

By John H. Wormser

 

The following narrative essay has a non-fiction element, the Philosophy of Inclusion that is wrapped inside a fictional story setting. It is presented in this form to make a more readable explanation of the Philosophy of Inclusion. The mission of this work is to direct a possibly change in the future course of man. The Philosophy of Inclusion was an idea invented by me to help man understand and control his natural instincts. After you read about these natural instincts, it is my hope that you will understand that it is due to these natural instincts that man behaves to different degrees in a selfish manner. With that knowledge and understanding, man can make better decisions to create a peaceful world.  This theory is based on sound logistical thinking.

On the following pages I introduce this philosophy with the use of a fictional name as its founder. By this use of a story format I can also explain the potential outcome of its adoption. The story is set in a classroom of the future.

 

 

The Philosophy of Inclusion

By Nhoj Resmrow

According to The Philosophy of Inclusion, it is the responsibility of a democratic government to recognize and create rules of law to keep in balance the three natural instincts of man. The different degrees of these instincts in people make each of us unique. The government must recognize and make laws that regulate the wide degree of normalcy that occur in individuals with these three different degrees of instincts. The three natural instincts are:

  1. Every individual has some degree of the will to survive. (In the modern world to survive also means the making and accumulating money.)

 

  1. Every individual has some degree of a pleasure drive. (This means the need to not only reproduce but also the need to climax.)

 

  1. Every individual has some degree of a need to be part of a group also known as the herding instinct.

 

Explanations of these instincts and a new law that democratic governments should impose follow in the story;

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter One

 

 

“The three main tenets of the Philosophy of Inclusion that are written on the white board above and the law that it recommended to be ratified by the people of the world are the basis for this class. It is one of the most important documents since the United States Constitution. That is a bold statement until one realizes the POI helped people understand why they behave as they do in their different life settings. The POI taught people to understand their own personal makeup. After reading the POI it was common for people to say ‘I have too much of the survivor instinct in me’ or ‘that my large socialization instinct makes me talk too much.’ People were now able to understand and recognize the significant part of their own nature. Understanding your own strongest instincts was the key that led to less selfish behavior in individuals.  People being less selfish led to people being able to compromise their belief systems. That led very slowly to the start of world peace. The POI as it is commonly called was created by Nhoj Resmrow. As the philosophy he invented and the laws it recommended became well-known, it steadily spread by way of social networks to every corner of the world.”

Rauol Baskin listened intently. The POI had always intrigued him, but sports and life in general had kept him from learning more about it. He had heard many times that it had changed the thinking of people but he never understood why or what was so great about it. After all it was clearly only logic that it offered, the kind of thinking that should have been common thinking to begin with. He looked over at his twin sister Roshonette. She was an expert on POI. She had written papers on it in high school.  He studied her appearance, appreciating her stunning beauty. The medium brown skin, her black hair pulled back and held by a faux pearl encircled stretch hair band. She was wearing a loose-fitting white pleated sleeveless shirt and jean shorts. This lecture must be pretty boring for her he reasoned.

She saw her brother’s eyes looking at her and smiled back at him and then she nodded her head at the professor. It was meant for him to stop looking at her and get back to listening to the professor. He returned his focus to the lecture.

“The POI is based on the fact that every individual has three basic instincts. The degrees of these instincts are what make people different. One of these instincts is the will to survive. Mankind through trial and error of many forms of government has discovered that democracy is the form of government that best fits this human instinct. Democracy equates man’s basic human instincts the Will to Survive fits with mans’ goal to acquire money which in turn allows him to buy food and shelter to survive. Accumulation of money is the modern-day equivalent of the survival instinct. This new understanding of man was the basis that helped the people of the world realize that capitalism worked and other forms of government like communism, dictatorships and monarchies stunted the human spirit and did not motivate them enough to compete against people in democratic societies.  Slowly, through the global interconnectivity of social networks, and the will of the people of their respective countries, they overthrew these other forms of governments. The adage of survival of the fittest that formally meant survival of the physically strongest and still does in species that live in the wild, now means those who accumulate the most wealth are usually the fittest in the human species. Raoul do you understand how this basic instinct affects you?”

Raoul was a well-known highly recruited athlete with closely cropped hair. He smiled at being recognized and called by name although the smile mainly revealed his natural personality of affability and not conceit, “I think so. Since I am good at athletics and superior athletes make good money in today’s’ world, I have a superior or should I say a high degree of survival instinct.”

Now it was the Professors turn to smile. By way of looks he was not your typical college professor. Perry Temple was built like the solid ex-marine he was. At five eleven and one hundred ninety-five pounds and a full head of gray hair, he had caught the eye of many a college coed not that anything had ever happened. He had sown his wild seed years ago and was completely devoted to his wife and two kids. “Correct,” he answered, “but only because today’s’ world highly rewards great athletes monetarily. In the unlikely event something were to happen to change the current reward system your athletic skills would not help you much other than to get you a good physical labor job.”

“Roshonette can you tell your brother why he has little to worry about when it comes to earning a good living because of his physical prowess?” Temple knew the twins by reputation. He knew she had a perfect academic resume and probably could answer the sophisticated question.

“The answer is that mankind loves competition, whether it be politics, business or sports. Sporting events is one vehicle that provides pleasure for individuals to experience the adrenaline rush, whether you get that good feeling from participating or by watching or even in anticipation of the event. Therefore superior athletes command top salaries for their entertainment value and their ability to win competitions.”

“Very good, but how does this relate to the Philosophy of Inclusion?” Perry asked.

Roshonette slightly embarrassed at not giving the complete answer on her first attempt raised her hand and was recognized.

“Democracy is like sports it makes us try to beat others by doing the best in our work.  It allows the basic human instinct of wanting to survive come out in us as we compete in our jobs to earn a living. Earning money is like scoring points. It feeds the soul and gives us pleasure when we win.”

“Exactly! In the original doctrine in the POI, Nhoj Resmrow wrote, ‘democracy is the natural government of the human race because it fits with the basic human instinct of competing to survive.’ What is the next fundamental element of POI? Please give your name before you answer.

“It’s got to be the one about sex,” blurted the dark-haired rather short at only five feet nine inches tall middle linebacker of the football team who is known for his quick sense of humor. He continued, “Nhoj knew what he was talking about when he said, ‘sex is the one of the most powerful natural forces in the universe’. It could reduce a three hundred pound lineman to tears if he couldn’t get it up. Oh yeah by the way my name is Louis Gullote.”

The classroom erupted in laughter. Perry chuckled too and waited for the class to settle down before he continued, “Okay Louis so number one is the will to survive, why is sex considered the number two?”

“It’s number one with me!” Louis cracked to more laughter from the class.

“My bad,” said the Professor. “You are right there is no particular order of priority. The POI recognizes that we all have different degrees of each instinct in all of us. The sex drive can be stronger in some people than the will to survive. There is proof of that in nature. Take for example a species like the honeybee, after the male mates it dies. Not much survival instinct there. In one chimpanzee society their whole clan structure seems to be based on sexual climax. They do almost everything for each other in exchange for sex. In some humans the sex drive is so strong it inhibits their thought processes and it negatively affects their lives. A good example of this is to think of a rapist. His sex drive controls his mind. He disregards his survival instinct in order to have sex. What law does the Philosophy of Inclusion recommend to limit the sex drive of mankind in our world of today?”

Perry looked for a hand to be raised from one of his college freshman class students at LSD. He passed on Roshonette who had raised her hand again and called on a cute Asian American sitting in the back of the classroom.

She identified herself as Sue Teng. She cleared her throat and with a surprisingly strong voice for such a small young woman said, “The POI explains the sex drive of individuals through its law of accepting that humans have a range of normalcy in sexual behavior. The POI recognized and accepted that the sex drive is different in all people and that different forms of sexual behavior should be allowed by governments.”

“Correct, Sue. Louis you ought to know what type of sexual behavior is not allowed. Can you tell the class what is against the law?” Perry asked.

“How did you know I am an expert Professor?” Louis said with a grin.

“Just a lucky guess,” the Professor returned the smile.

“The only laws that I know of are it is illegal for adults to touch kids under seventeen or do it with animals. That’s about it. You can do whomever you want with as many people who consent to it, but you can only marry one person,” he said to a smattering of chatter throughout the classroom. “Oh yeah, there is a law that you can’t do it with family members too.”

“Correct Louis after the POI was accepted worldwide it slowly closed down the sex trade of minors throughout Southeast Asia. It caused the universal legislation that allowed the acceptance of same-sex marriage, but only after a worldwide debate that found that homosexuality was prevalent enough to make it a part of the wide range of accepted normalcy.

All this was started by one document published on the Internet. Isn’t that amazing?” Professor Temple said with a look of pride on his face. After all he had helped it become universally known by pushing for it to be studied in schools. “Does anyone know the third tenant of the POI?”

Professor Temple pointed to a slender man with thin light brown hair who had raised his hand. He introduced himself as Homer Planter. He was a young-looking thirty something year old man who could easily pass in age for barely twenty-one. His piercing blue eyes were a key element to his magnetic personality and the success that he had already achieved in life. This was the only class he would attend and he had not legitimately signed up for it. “The third tenant of the POI is man has a strong instinct to be part of a group. That basic instinct is proved out in nature by many animal species that live in groups from prairie dog colonies, to flocks of birds, to herds of cattle. Like other animals, people are generally happier in a family unit and after that as part of another group or groups as well. The POI calls it the need for socialization.”

“Very good,” replied Temple.

Professor Temple had not recognized the name on his class roster. He would have to remember to check that later. “What is the range of normalcy accepted by the POI in this third tenant? Homer can you define those for us?”

An awkward smile crossed Homer’s face as he said, “Accepting those that believe in living like a hermit to accepting those that belong to huge religious organizations like Catholicism. Even Muslims are accepted.”

The way he said even Muslims are accepted was said with a distasteful mocking voice that disturbed Temple. But Temple continued, “That’s right, Homer. No one cares what religion you have as long as you do not hurt yourself or anyone else.

The Philosophy of Inclusion that so dramatically changed the world back in the early part of the twenty-first century boils down to people understanding and then accepting that all people have the three base instincts in them. They are survival, sex drive and need for socialization. It goes on to add that all humans have different amounts as well as different kinds of these drives in these three instincts causing normalcy to be in a wide range of acceptability.”

Roshonette shot up her hand and was recognized. She asked, “Professor what was it like in the world before the Philosophy of Inclusion was adopted?”

Temple looked around at his large lecture class of several hundred students and said, “The world was a mess. As was the case throughout most if not all of history the people with the strongest survival instinct were in charge of the world’s money. All countries had not accepted democracy yet and also there was not a complete acceptance of the diversity of humans. I know that is hard to understand from a perspective of today’s world, as it is rare to see acts of hatred towards any ethnicity. But back around the year 2016 there were terrorist attacks between these groups of people Muslims, Jews, blacks, Catholics, gays, and Asians. People did not want to accept people of different ethnicity. The POI had not been invented yet so people did not realize the root causes of the conflicts. The people who followed the forces of past traditions and the people who followed the force of a strong survivor instinct– to possess large amounts of money were constantly on the edge of war. It was a major problem in all civilized nations.”

Raoul raised his hand and was recognized. He asked, “How did the POI stop the class warfare that broke out in 2018?”

Temple smiled, “The POI understood that the strong survival money people had created too wide a gulf between the average working man and the wealthy. The name for it was called a divergence of income. It had been going on for years in the United States and other free market countries until the POI offered a solution. It provided a law that satisfied the classes and left capitalism intact.”

A student stood and without identifying himself asked, “Can you explain why corporations were to blame for class conflict?”

“Good question. And before I explain the new law I will give that statement some background information. First, understand that corporations were originally invented as a means for man to build roads, canals, and other types of public construction projects. If there was any money left over from these projects, it was returned to shareholders. Later private businessman convinced governments to allow them to form corporations to enlarge their businesses. Through the corporate structure individuals who sold shares in their business raised capital. The benefit to the government was that corporate businesses were able to expand thereby creating more jobs. The benefit to the majority business owner was that while he controlled over fifty per cent of the shares he never had to pay the money back to investors. Nor did he have to pay interest on the money his company took in to expand. Through the years alliances were formed between directors and corporate executives and many corporate swindles took place. To be fair there were also many honest and hard-working people in the corporate world that played by the rules and built good corporations that benefited the world. Their fortunes were earned through hard work and the rewards generated by the corporate system. There are many good and successful corporations that have done mankind great deeds. Unfortunately there are others that used the system simply to build personal fortunes.”

“Laws like limiting corporate contributions to politicians did little to stop the greed and fraud available to executives in the system. It took the Law of Thirty to change the course of history.” Temple looked up as the same student from before stood and asked another question.

“Was the minimum wage first enacted to placate the divergence of income that had developed in the United States at that time?”

“Exactly, unions had formed to force corporations to pay workers better wages and benefits, but no one spoke for the common man until the government created the Minimum Wage Act of 1938. In actuality the existence of a minimum wage law was the basis that was used by the U.S. Supreme court to uphold the challenge that the Law of Thirty was constitutional. The court ruled that if government could dictate to business the minimum salary it had to pay workers in all the businesses in the country then it could cap salaries of entities that it had granted the right to exist namely corporations.”

A blonde blue-eyed dimple cheeked girl raised her hand to be recognized. Temple nodded at her and she shyly stood up and identified herself as Roseanne Jackson. In a sweet voice she said, “My family has never liked labor unions. My Daddy said they were just after the workingman’s money. My question is… were unions bad?”

“As you know since the passage of the Law of Thirty unions have become less necessary. You have to remember two points. When corporations were first formed corporate owners and their friends were making so much more money than their common workers, their greed or over abundance of the survivor instinct, forced the workers to organize unions to get fairer compensation. Unions recognized that corporate executives were getting far wealthier than was fair. They had abused their government created entity to create great big profits through the economies of scale.

To make matters worse at first corporations treated shareholders fairly but through the years that went away. Throughout the course of the history of corporations examples can be shown where the management received a much greater proportional share of the profits than was returned to the investors! Company executives forgot that they worked for the shareholders who are the owners of the corporations. Their argument was that their work was the driver of corporate profits. It did not matter that they were already being fairly compensated. For many years investors were satisfied with little or no dividends since the investor made gains in his share price. Share price manipulation became a huge problem as greed and fraud ran rampant on Wall Street before the institution of this new law.

That brings us to what the Law of Thirty is and what happened after its’ passage.

The Law of Thirty was passed by the United States in 2018 to take effect in 2019 stated that all public and private corporations that are now in existence and that may be created in the future may only provide pay for Directors, Corporate Officers and any other of its employees in the ratio of thirty times that of its lowest level employee. It further stated that dividends paid by corporations to employees of corporations do not count in the ratio of compensation restrictions. It further limited all public bodies including the Congress, the various Federal departments, and military institutions to be covered under the law. Although technically corporations were still free to make as much as they could, they no longer had the benefits of a sanctioned government entity to operate under unless it adhered to this new regulation.

The first objections raised by this rule were that it would constrict free enterprise, stifle American ingenuity, ruin corporations and hurt the American economy.

It did none of the above. Let me explain why and what the U. S. government did to keep that from happening.”

“First people still wanted to be in that upper income bracket. There was no drop off in new patents or creative enterprises. People realized they still had the same opportunities to move into a better life with this new law. It did make it harder for people to become super rich but still not impossible.”

“Secondly the economy of the United States skyrocketed due to dividend payouts. When you think about what this law changed, it did nothing to restrict corporations from making huge profits. It just restricted officers and directors from paying themselves too much of the profits. In most cases they could still make the same amount of income they just needed to declare a dividend to receive it. Of course, they had to own stock in the company. Dividend income was now taxed as ordinary income. This created millions of dollars in spending money for the economy as corporations begin to pay bigger dividends to a wider population.”

“In the cases where corporate officers did not own enough stock to replace the income that was lost from the new law, the government set up a temporary special agency to help these individuals adjust to their new lower-income level without them having to declare bankruptcy. The government agency also dealt with the few government officials who were suddenly in a lower tax bracket. Yes, it was another government bailout but this time it was for individuals that were caught unexpectedly in new government regulation as opposed to a bail out caused by malfeasance, greed and criminal acts.”

“What happened to the pay of doctors, lawyers, commission salesman and small business owners?” Sue asked. “Also how did the law affect movie stars and pro athletes?”

“Those that owned their private corporate business simply paid themselves a dividend. The big hang up was commission salesman. If they made more than thirty times the rate of the lowest paid employee, they had to carryover their excess earnings into future years. The new law stated they could collect up to three years of future earnings for a period of two years. At the time of passage of the law most commission sales people were happy if they collected thirty times the minimum pay rate of their lowest paid company employee. The new law was the same for all public and private corporations from oil corporations to small restaurant corporations, to get paid more money than thirty times your lowest paid worker you had to get the money through a dividend.”

“Movie stars and pro athletes were considered contract labor and free to negotiate their salaries.”

Sue followed up with another good question, “Aren’t the owners of the businesses taking huge risks and therefore should be hugely rewarded?”

“That is the beauty of the Law of Thirty. It does not prevent the founders of the corporations from reaping greater income. It just changes how they can collect it. Since most founders keep controlling interest, and own the majority of shares, it affects them in a relatively small way.”

Again Sue asked, “But wasn’t the complaint about dividends that people were being taxed twice, once on their corporate profits and then on their dividend income?”

“Yes that was a common objection at first it was mainly brought up by the corporate people who stood to lose their money machine. But shortly after the government saw the good effects of the law it eliminated corporate taxes altogether as was originally recommended by the POI. One last bit of information concerning what happened when the Law of Thirty was passed. Some small corporations simply changed their business from a corporate entity into a sole proprietor or into a partnership. This was the way for the small businesses and individuals to get around the Law of Thirty.”

Sue again asked the most poignant question of the pre law era. “Instead of the Law of Thirty, why didn’t shareholders simply revolt and vote out directors that unwisely paid excessive bonuses and compensation?”

“For one it was too expensive for the average outraged shareholder to fight corporate boards. And the United States government realized to promote a widespread shareholder revolt was not in the best interest of the country nor would it have had much chance of success. Secondly, without the law new corporations could still abuse the system. Here is a short explanation of that; Scientist A comes up with a new drug. He forms a corporation and goes to Wall Street to raise capital. He sells 49% of his corporation to get financing for drug approval and expanding sales. He pays himself a huge unregulated salary. The new drug receives approval by the FDA. And the corporation is a huge success. He gets wealthier no dividends are paid. Investors are satisfied because stock price rises.  No dividends are paid back to investors. But after the new law was passed this is what would have happened; Scientist A comes up with new drug. He forms a corporation and goes to Wall Street to raise capital. He sells 49% of his corporation to get the financing for drug approval and expanding sales. He pays himself the maximum regulated salary. The new drug receives approval by FDA and the corporation is huge success. He gets wealthy. Investors are happy as they get a dividend and a stock price increase. In the latter example the original scientist still gets wealthy but maybe not super wealthy depending on how successful is his new drug. The point is the government finally realized it needed the new law to control individuals with too much of the survival instinct.”

“Who first opposed the Law of Thirty?” asked Louis.

“At first it was split between party lines. Republicans against it and Democrats favored it. One of the Republican catch phrases was simply we don’t need more government regulation. The official answer was that it is the government’s responsibility to see that the economic playing field was level for all individuals.

As the public came to understand that corporations had gotten so wealthy that small independent businesses could hardly compete with them, they began to favor the law. Support grew further as the public began to realize that the new law would not stop corporations from the freedom of making as much profit as possible. The ones that were really against it were the few who held investment banking jobs and had before the law gotten the big bonuses. They had trouble understanding that the corporation was not their personal gold mine. Many of the high paid executives threatened to quit their jobs and start new competing businesses. A few did just that but it did not cause any great corporate collapse as there were many qualified people to step in to fill their positions who were happy to receive the maximum salary ratio.”

“Wasn’t there concern that corporations being forced to pay dividends that it would stifle the growth of the corporation by draining the cash flow?” asked Sue Teng.

“Yes that was an argument but it didn’t hold water. If the company had an expansion plan, it simply did not pay the dividend or paid less of one. The same business planning went on in corporate board rooms as it had before the law.”

Sue followed up with this question, “What if the CEO worked extremely long hours and he or she was mainly responsible for the company profits or even a corporate turn around, shouldn’t he or she get more of a bonus?”

“If a corporation really had a super executive that they wanted to keep happy, they could continually bonus him with a ratio of thirty to one shares of stock. Eventually when a dividend is paid and/or as the stock price increased he was rewarded for his extra efforts by the larger amount of stocks he had received.”

“Was it true that corporations were the main cause of inflation?” Louis asked.

“Yes it was in large part the main cause of inflation. Let me explain. As we know the survivor instinct is in all of us. Our health is important to us and we are willing to pay almost whatever health care professionals charge to extend our lives or the life of our loved ones. In our society some of the highest paid individuals are physicians. And I might add rightfully so. Through the years inflation was mainly caused by higher health care costs. It was driven by health care professionals charging more to keep up with the lifestyles of wealthy corporate executives. The executives are not to be blamed. It was part of the corporate culture to get as much profit out of your product to satisfy the shareholders. In some cases the profits were wasted through excessive compensation and bonuses sometimes leading to corporate bankruptcy. In others they were reinvested wisely to expand the corporation. In either case the inflation cycle began. It sounds like an oversimplification but the logic behind the principal idea is undeniable.”

“How did corporations get so wealthy?”

“Corporations got wealthy from the ability of corporations to make large profits by using economy of scale.” Temple answered. “To the credit of many corporate executives in our country they were able to build profit machines with their ability to manufacture more products at lower costs. They organized workers to work more efficiently to make more profits and rolled those profits into bigger profits. Gradually corporate executives began to take more of the profits and return less to investors. It finally reached the point where a movement called Occupy Wall Street was started to protest against the corporate establishment. It wasn’t until the POI came out that the Occupy Wall Street people understood how to change corporations.

Once again the POI was not against the profit part only the fact that investors had allowed themselves to be taken advantage and were now practically powerless to change the system. The government or should I say the politicians that ran the government had allowed corporations to make huge profits and let them distribute the wealth to a few insiders. One of the main reasons corporations became so rich is through favorable tax regulations. That makes sense since politicians were getting large campaign contributions from corporations when they were first created. Politicians were not about to rule against corporate greed and limit the way corporations were allowed to pay exorbitant salaries to executives. It took the Occupy Wall Street movement to create enough havoc in the world about the divergence in wealth that led to the passage of the Law of Thirty.”

“What happened in the United States after the Law of Thirty went into effect?” An unidentified student asked.

“Prices of luxury products began to drop. Homes, automobiles, luxury motor homes, yachts, jewelry, designer clothing, expensive dining, and eventually entertainment costs such as sporting events and movies all went down in prices. Once again the banking system was under stress since it held mortgages on homes and loans on inventories that were suddenly devalued due to a marketplace that had many less qualified buyers. There were many individuals that were being paid the larger salary and were suddenly placed in a position that they could no longer afford the high-priced items they either owned outright or were mortgaging. It would have been un-American to force these honest people who had earned these perks or ran their businesses correctly through hard work to suddenly take big losses. Thus the government rightly stepped in to help people who were negatively affected by the new law. The government had to send money to the people to pay off the now inflated mortgages. It sent money to businesses that owed on inflated inventories.”

“Where did the government get the money from to pay these wage adjustments?” asked a studious looking student.

“At first the U.S. simply printed money increasing the enormous debt load of the government. Later as billions in cash was unlocked by corporations that were now forced to pay investors part of the excess profits, money came back to the government in the form of higher tax receipts from individual investors.”

“One last comment on the Law of Thirty, the POI did not set the corporate maximum pay ratio at thirty. The Congress set the rate at thirty for now. Congress can reset the ratio annually.”

 

Chapter Two

 

Temple looked around the room and saw there were no more questions about the Law of Thirty. He asked, “Besides the obvious laws like murder, stealing etc., why does democratic governments have to make laws that govern man’s need to socialize?”

The class was silent a moment before Roshonette answered, “Through out history there have been individuals that have had large degrees of socialization skills. Many have used those skills to create and organize the great religions of the world. Others came together to create this great democratic form of government. There have been some with high degrees of the socialization instinct that formed empires based on their own view of the world and with their own best interest in mind. It is the obligation of democratic governments to allow the people to be free to follow their own belief systems. It is also the obligation of democratic governments to have the money from taxation to provide armies to stop a highly skilled social organizer from forming a group that would seek to divide people based on his or her belief system.”

“Excellent! Some examples of people with great socialization skills that wanted to make a better world are Moses, the twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church, Mohammad, Buddha, Luther, John Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and many others. The list of leaders with great socialization skills that had what we now consider the wrong way of leading people includes Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro. It is understandable that the people of their nations first accepted the new form of government called communism. The basic idea sounds good but it doesn’t work in reality. It does not take into account the will to survive instinct that individuals have in different degrees that push some people more than others.  But I digress. The point is democratic governments must be on vigil to protect us from people who use their skills to try to shape the world to their personal viewpoint.”

“Is Adolph Hitler an example of the type of person with high socialization skills that we need to have a military to protect us from a person of that type from gaining power again?” a student asked.

“Exactly, Hitler was the epitome of selfishness and probably something else very important we haven’t mentioned yet. That will be the starting point for our next class.” Temple answered.

 

 

Chapter Three

 

 

It had been an interesting couple of days since he last dismissed the class. He had done some investigation of the so-called student named Homer Planter. He definitely qualified as one. He prepared himself for that possibility.

“Good morning class,” Temple said. He heard a few good morning mumbled replies.

“We left the last class without talking completely about the biggest problem that has and always will continue to challenge man. It is the thinking of the individual man. There will always be those who can lead others for their own selfish interests. Hitler was a good example of that type of leader. Jim Jones was another. There are also the lone wolf thinkers like the Unabomber Ted Kacyznski. Equally as bad and dangerous are the deranged assassins from John Wilkes Booth to Anders Behring Breivik of Norwegian infamy. Finally we come to the unable thinkers. These are people who are not willing to accept change. They follow their leader blindly. It took many years for a majority of people to finally accept the POI. The main reason was unable thinkers were not able to give up the traditions of the past. Like the over active survivor instinct in the wealthy, the strong socialization instinct of not wanting to be broken up from the herd was a large part of the problem.”

Temple looked at Homer his eyes were wide but his demeanor looked calm. Maybe his estimation of him being a deranged thinking fanatic was wrong.

“What happened in 2017 that changed enough people to accept the POI?” Raoul asked.

“Great question,” Temple replied and said, “Unbelievable as it may sound but television ratings were a key to the acceptance of the POI. The more the networks covered it the higher the ratings they received. Gradually commentators realized that they could not rely solely on the strength of the Christian majority to bring them higher ratings. The majority of the nation grasped the understanding that belief in religion and the holidays associated with them was an acceptable part of the nations’ fabric. The POI did not want to change the good feelings people received from attending their faith observances. It only asked that people accept others that believed differently. Even atheists gradually understood that it was acceptable for governments to accept the past traditions of religious observances. The world realized that there will always be some people who need to have a higher being to worship. Someone to pray to protect their loved ones and give them hope in times of need.  This spawned the term Moral Therapeutic Deism. It became known as MTD. It became a popular phrase and started to get wide-spread approval with a strong following.”

Perry looked around the room and asked, “What else did the third tenet of the POI recommend?”

Hands shot up around the room. Perry called on a new face that identified himself as Bill Hapman. “The POI recommended that schools teach socialization skills.”

“Can you clarify that please?” Temple asked.

Hapman continued, “As part of understanding the need for socialization, the POI recommended a program for young adults to understand their emotions. Young people in general lacked confidence. It recommended a course of study that would teach kids why they drink and do drugs to excess. The course taught them how a little change of mood was acceptable behavior. Passage of this course of study would allow students to get a license to buy alcohol when they reach the age of eighteen.”

“That is correct,” said Temple. He continued, “Nhoj was again perceptive to the problem of alcohol and drug abuse that was hurting people. His idea was to create a course of study that not only showed movies of fatal car crashed after drinking but also showed movies that helped people to understand why they enjoyed using alcohol or drugs. Nhoj had a video produced with kids drinking and interacting with other kids in different situations. He would stop the action in the video and a famous Hollywood star appeared who explained that alcohol gave you temporary confidence. It made you think you were invincible and feel far less inhibited. It then explained that people generally kept consuming more and more to keep this feeling they have of invincibility and confidence throughout the occasion. This movie went on to end with the over consuming teen getting into a fight because he thought he was invisible.

Another movie explained over consumption was also often used as an excuse for misbehavior. This video went on to explain that your physical size usually mattered in the quantity of alcohol you can consume before harmful problems occurred like accidents or even unprotected sex. A third film the program used taught that wanting to impress the other members of the group often got in the way of a person’s better judgment when it came to over consumption. It was this program of videos and class room study that Nhoj invented that brought a significant change in the way people thought when they used alcohol and drugs that made a beneficial change in society.”

“How many of you had the program invented by Nhoj and have received a permit to buy alcohol?” Temple asked. As usual nearly one hundred per cent of the class had taken the program and could legally drink alcohol before their twenty-first birthday.

“What else did the POI recommend that was controversial?” Temple asked.

Strangely enough Homer stood up and answered the question without being called upon. He said, “The POI recommended that faith-based initiatives of charitable activities be changed to simple charitable activities banning exhortation of religions at these activities.” He sat back down clearly perturbed by the facts of what he had just said.

Temple attempted to explain the statement, “The POI understood the need for man to question his reason for existence on earth. It understood that man searched for rules of order and that people of the same degrees of natural instincts tended to flock together. Religion was a necessity of man but also a divider of man. In order to reach a world with peace it recommended that faith-based charities be allowed to exist only if they agreed to not bring their religion to the people they helped. It was a hated idea at first and scoffed at by many until people analyzed the benefit it brought to the world. It slowly ended the reason that people used to separate themselves from others. It left militant religious leaders void of a reason to call for violence. Still it took many years to change as people were reluctant and in some instances scared by their religious leaders to give up past traditions. It took years but finally the law led to peace in the world.”

Then it happened.

Homer pulled a gun out of his book bag.

 

Chapter Three

 

Students screamed. Panic spread instantly as the gun was seen and the full realization of the situation unfolded.

Temple looked Homer in the eyes. His military training took over. He quickly rationalized that Homer could already have shot him if he had wanted. Homer must want to say something before he shoots.

Temple held up his hands and said, “Settle down Homer. Talk to me.”

Homer wavered a moment then said, “The POI ruined many good people too. You need to tell people who…”

“It was not the POIs’ fault that people read it and changed,” Temple answered.

That was not the response he was looking for as he raised his gun and aimed it Temples’ chest. Temple ignored the act and he continued fearlessly looking Homer in the eyes. He said, “The fact that the way people changed left smaller opportunities for religious leaders to gain wealth through large tithing was not meant to be an outcome of the POI. I understand that your Father lost a lot when the POI started taking effect and his congregation shrank in numbers.”

“How did you know that?” Homer asked while lowering his gun.

“I also know that you lead his former congregation now. I also know your gun is not loaded.”

Homer dropped the gun to his side with a defeated look on his face. He collapsed back into his desk.

Temple walked over to him and said, “Homer many people were affected by the change that the POI brought about in the world. Accountants had less work with the changes in the tax code and consequently there were fewer jobs in accounting. Many religious leaders lost positions as people dropped off in religious attendance. Naturally at first it was hard on those that were at a later age in life. The change in the thinking of the majority of people had to have a ripple effect in the economy. One thing remains unchanged. There will always be people who need others. That is where you come in. Be understanding of that. It is the job of leaders like you to help those that are needy and not your job to convert others into your belief system.”

“Are you going to have me arrested?”

“Not if you promise to help others and be satisfied with the good feelings that work brings to you.”

Homer smiled, “I understand. My survivor instinct cannot overrun my socialization instinct. It is all about not being selfish.”

“Right…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was a Nervous Man

He paced the room looking at his wife who suddenly looked old to him. In fact, he felt like beating her with a stick. He knew he wasn’t the type to beat his wife, he was more the throwing up kind of man. That didn’t make him a weaker  person, or did it? Focus, he told himself. He had read all the books about not worrying about the future and to stay in the present, but he could not still his mind. Once again his mind raced off to a few more predictions of how the meeting with his lawyer, his accountant and the government tax agent will turn out All he could think of was financial doom and that the government would somehow find a way to financially ruin him.

Nervous minds like the one briefly described in the paragraph above, occur in people all over the world. Usually they are produced by people who are more concerned about their own lives and they continuously worry about the future. That would make them a person with a high degree of the Will to Survive Instinct. They are so worried about their own existence that they can’t think of anyone else. It might help  him to think that his mind was being controlled by his large Will to Survive instinct and that he should try to be more giving and charitable. (I am not saying this would be easy but we have to start somewhere.) By acknowledging to your conscious mind what instinct is motivating your actions and feelings in the moment  we should be able to hold back bad decisions.
For a more detailed explanation of what these instincts control and how we can try to harness our minds for the betterment of the human race. go to my wordpress.blog http://www.ThePhilosophyofInclusion.com

Would you have ever owned a slave?

A very serious subject, my answer to that question seriously and truthfully is I don’t think I would have. The reason I said,” I don’t think I would have” is that I like you and most of us could not stand to see that kind of treatment being done to another human. To use the argument that other people were doing it so it must be ok as the reason or excuse you would make to say you would have owned a slave is really unacceptable. Only people that are too lazy to do work themselves would ever consider owning slaves. They are people mainly controlled by their Pleasure Instinct. Read more at http://www.ThePhilosophyofInclusion.com

Why should we not listen to Louis Farrakhan?

We should never follow someone who uses his platform to divide the human race. He claims that the Jews in Hollywood use their platform to promote the LBGT agenda. And that white people in general hate people that do not look or believe like they believe.

First let me dispute the former charge. Most of the world has come to accept that people can have different sexual inclinations. The one issue that is in unanimous agreement is that children should always be protected. They should be left free to find their own sexualty and have that choice be accepted by all.
On the latter charge white people overwhelmingly have shown that they accept people of different colors and religious beliefs.
The people of the modern connected world will one day never listen to someone who preaches hatred of one group or another based on their beliefs or appearance. To read more go to my web site http://www.thephilosophyofinclusion.com