Political Ponerology 'The Book'

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Looks like the book on Amazon is doing well. Seems to be selling, and 63 reviews. A few negative but that is really not a bad thing. Negative reviews show that the book "has gotten legs" so to speak and is reaching a wide audience. I know several people who have bought it lately, and they are getting quite a kick out of it. While I was writing my book, I had a school district psychologist look at mine and PP and he picked up on the whole issue right away. Said it was on "solid ground" and he even expanded on the subject, Robert Hare etc. He had been a prison psychologist and he was a really sharp guy anyway. He took notice of the fact that when psychopaths come from influential families they often times don't go to jail but end up running things. I can see how someone with no knowledge of psychology might have a little trouble with it though.

 

[Jack3]

Hi
I have just finished reading II-nd chapter of PP and I got confused by this excrept:

"If someone asked me what should be done to heal the
United States of America, a country which manifests symptoms
of macropathy, inter alia, I would advise subdividing that vast
nation into thirteen states--just like the original ones, except
correspondingly larger and with more natural boundaries. Such
states should then be given considerable autonomy. That would
afford citizens a feeling of homeland, albeit a smaller one, and
liberate the motivations of local patriotism and rivalry among
such states. This would, in turn, facilitate solutions to other
problems with a different origin."

Does Lobaczewski support patriotism and rivalry in generall, or have I misunderstood this statement?

Thank you, Jack.

 

[Tigersoap]

Hello Jack3,
Welcome to the forum.
It would be great if you could make an introduction post in the Newbie section and tell us how you discovered the forum and whatever you wish to say about yourself ;)

I personally don't know about your question but someone will probably have the answer !

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Hi
I have just finished reading II-nd chapter of PP and I got confused by this excrept:

"If someone asked me what should be done to heal the
United States of America, a country which manifests symptoms
of macropathy, inter alia, I would advise subdividing that vast
nation into thirteen states--just like the original ones, except
correspondingly larger and with more natural boundaries. Such
states should then be given considerable autonomy. That would
afford citizens a feeling of homeland, albeit a smaller one, and
liberate the motivations of local patriotism and rivalry among
such states. This would, in turn, facilitate solutions to other
problems with a different origin."

Does Lobaczewski support patriotism and rivalry in generall, or have I misunderstood this statement?

Not necessarily "in general". He's saying he thinks there is such a thing as healthy patriotism and rivalry, which cannot be expressed in too large a group. Smaller groups can foster a sense of being part of a community. However, given that humans are a 'tribal' species, these ideas are probably debatable. The ideal human community is numbered in the hundreds, not millions. It would have been interesting to hear more of what he thought on the subject, i.e. how smaller states can facilitate solutions...

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Interesting. I didn't remember that quote. I do recall him stating that there should be so sort of method of identifying psychopaths and keeping them out of positions of power, etc. I wonder if the US is not destined to fractionate anyway. I remember reading some economists that think this is inevitable, although they were talking about 3, 4, or 5 economic regions at most. Maybe they could squabble with each other and leave the rest of the world alone. LOL!!

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Have been thinking lately about "public hysteria" and contemporary issues. There are several "inconvenient truths" that the American public is refusing to acknowledge or virtually ignores. One of these is the uproar about the Nigerian girls but nothing about all the kids terrorized and murdered by Obama drones. Actually, the whole thing in Nigeria looks like one of the CIA's operations to destabilize governments. Odd that Boko Haram was kept off the "terrorist list." And now we want to worry about Monica Lewinsky -- please! After all the fuss about "Benghazi" there has been NO discussion about what actually took place and why. The fact is that the embassy was running guns to insurgents in Syria. This was another CIA operation that will not see the light of day until the American people start taking an interest. Once more we are only seeing the shadows.

 

[Voyageur]

Have been thinking lately about "public hysteria" and contemporary issues. There are several "inconvenient truths" that the American public is refusing to acknowledge or virtually ignores. One of these is the uproar about the Nigerian girls but nothing about all the kids terrorized and murdered by Obama drones. Actually, the whole thing in Nigeria looks like one of the CIA's operations to destabilize governments. Odd that Boko Haram was kept off the "terrorist list." And now we want to worry about Monica Lewinsky -- please! After all the fuss about "Benghazi" there has been NO discussion about what actually took place and why. The fact is that the embassy was running guns to insurgents in Syria. This was another CIA operation that will not see the light of day until the American people start taking an interest. Once more we are only seeing the shadows.

All true, I think that unless American people (other countries too) don't start seeing into their own house and back yard, so to speak, seeing reality as it is elsewhere will remain for them only in the shadows, as you say (seeing Ukraine as example). Public hysteria is so oft purposely focused into the shadows elsewhere and never really at home unless it is upon the old statuesque divided issues. Seeing fascism "over there" is not seeing it at home, and as long as the system can pump up the hysteria elsewhere, people just don't notice it where they live, and if they do, they are helped to rationalize it through a well constructed state propagandized lens, osit.

Will enough start taking interest in the human condition remains to be seen, yet it's not looking good unless it's self interest, and people are rather good at that.

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Yes Voyageur, we live in strange times but, oddly, not too much different than the prelude to other major paradigm shifts. There always has been the fact that most people are indifferent. They will complain but will not lift a finger to change anything claiming that "There is nothing we can do about it...." Those are the ones that are only drawn forward by the vacuum left behind by everyone else who has moved forward. Capitalism is destroying the entire world. It only brought prosperity to a large middle class for about 50 years in only a few countries. The rest of the time it only transferred money from the people to an elite upper class, which it was designed to do. The large middle class in the US came only after WWII and only after very violent labor movements, the great depression, etc. Once the dust settled, the elites began taking everything back as in health care, Social Security, destruction of the labor unions, and on and on. Capitalism has resulted in continues warfare. the global mass extinction which will result in about half of the species going extinct in this century, virtual slavery in the resource rich countries, and on and on.... This is unsustainable and WILL result in a global economic and environmental collapse. In fact we are seeing the beginnings of it right now.

What will emerge is the virtual collapse of most governments, and people will live pretty much "off the grid." Manufacturing and farming will go on but it will not be nearly as petroleum based as now and smaller. Small companies will be worker owned or "Co-ops" I think is the word. I find it intriguing that there have been some large corporations that have gone out of business, but the workers took them over and kept them going. There are other examples of worker owned corporations that are doing quite well, and I ask myself, "Would a Co-op pollute the environment in which they live? Or would they move to China? I very much doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, there are going to be some very ugly times ahead and it will not be easy, but I think something like this is going to happen one way or the other. I think this somewhat fits into what PP put forth as the end result of Pathocracies -- the power goes back to the people. Anyone want to add to this?

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Yes Voyageur, we live in strange times but, oddly, not too much different than the prelude to other major paradigm shifts. There always has been the fact that most people are indifferent. They will complain but will not lift a finger to change anything claiming that "There is nothing we can do about it...." Those are the ones that are only drawn forward by the vacuum left behind by everyone else who has moved forward. Capitalism is destroying the entire world. It only brought prosperity to a large middle class for about 50 years in only a few countries. The rest of the time it only transferred money from the people to an elite upper class, which it was designed to do. The large middle class in the US came only after WWII and only after very violent labor movements, the great depression, etc. Once the dust settled, the elites began taking everything back as in health care, Social Security, destruction of the labor unions, and on and on. Capitalism has resulted in continues warfare. the global mass extinction which will result in about half of the species going extinct in this century, virtual slavery in the resource rich countries, and on and on.... This is unsustainable and WILL result in a global economic and environmental collapse. In fact we are seeing the beginnings of it right now.

What will emerge is the virtual collapse of most governments, and people will live pretty much "off the grid." Manufacturing and farming will go on but it will not be nearly as petroleum based as now and smaller. Small companies will be worker owned or "Co-ops" I think is the word. I find it intriguing that there have been some large corporations that have gone out of business, but the workers took them over and kept them going. There are other examples of worker owned corporations that are doing quite well, and I ask myself, "Would a Co-op pollute the environment in which they live? Or would they move to China? I very much doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, there are going to be some very ugly times ahead and it will not be easy, but I think something like this is going to happen one way or the other. I think this somewhat fits into what PP put forth as the end result of Pathocracies -- the power goes back to the people. Anyone want to add to this?

Well, I don't think it is 'capitalism' that is destroying the world in and of itself. The global population is exponentially rising and with it, is technological advancement. More food and goods can be manufactured and produced today with far fewer workers than previously, due to robotics and agricultural technology. Service sector jobs are also becoming more automated as well. Just look at all the self-checkout isles that are in stores today. I suspect that in the near future, fast-food will become more of the microwavable variety as well. Mortality rates due to natural causes have largely declined due to medical improvements and people are generally living longer, at least in some areas of the globe. I don't think its capitalism that is the problem, so much as it is technology. I don't think the global populations have had enough time to adjust to the changing world that is a result of technological advancement.

I mean, today you can practically run a small business on a smart phone and one person can provide the services of a few employees in previous years. With the internet and software, and virtual offices I do not even need an accountant or a secretary for my small business. With amazon.com, I no longer use bookstores and I can order almost anything online and have it delivered the next day. Email, texting and skype allow me to communicate effectively without having to meet in person, which means that I can contact more people and achieve the same things in the same time that I could do if had to meet in person. Many of my administrative office tasks are automated, so I don't actually have to do those, just monitor the system and occasionally troubleshoot. If I need a script that I cannot write myself, then I can just post my job online and contract it out, usually to a technician overseas, because it is cheaper. 20 years ago this would not be possible without an office staff unless I wanted to work myself to death. The result is that I can cut my costs and lower my rates to be competitive. But, if I didn't cut my cost and lower my rates, I wouldn't be competitive and wouldn't have a small business. But the point is, is that I need fewer employees that would be required 20 years ago. There is a rising global population and a diminishing need of manual labor in the global economy. Look at energy pipelines, for example. Before those pipelines were in place, all those energy resources would have had to be transported by rail and trucks, which would have required more employees. But, after the pipelines were installed, then the workforce is cut down to only those needed to maintain and regulate the pipeline.

There are many social benefits that make having children feasible for those with low, or no income. But, getting those children a job in today's economy is another matter entirely. I think it is possible that the populations could adjust to the technological situation if given time to do so, but the situation keeps changing. Many parents cannot instruct their children in their profession as they used to, because that information becomes obsolete. I had an uncle back in the early 90's that went to a technical school to get a certificate to build and repair computers and he ran a successful business for about 6 years until technology made his service obsolete. People stopped upgrading as frequently because computer technology had advanced to a level that they were content with what they had and youtube showed them what they needed to know to do the job themselves.

Without a cataclysmic event, I don't see governments collapsing in a permanent sense, but I can see governments changing, which may lead to a collapse in the process, but not permanently. People will still need governments in some form or other. In the US, I think there will be an increasing pull for states rights with an opposite pull for federal supremacy. I don't think that issue will ever go away because of our nation's revolutionary history and will probably also bring up a reevaluation of the Civil War that will gain popularity. Because of the recent Crimean secession, I would expect this debate in the near future. And I sometimes wonder if that is the reason the government and mainstream media is so against the legitimacy of Crimean secession anyway. If they acknowledge it, then they acknowledge secession, which brings up the American Civil War and then current movements for states rights. Sort of like a domino effect. But, I'm also sure that there is more to that situation than just that. How that will end is anybody's guess at this point. But, I think if the federal government acts wisely, they could possibly avoid the issue for a generation, or two. (They can get away with anything else, but darn it just don't tax the bloody tea, or there will be hell to pay.)

But, seriously, to put a twist to your 'off the grid' comment, I think it is likely that there will be a trend of people buying their own land and producing their own food with bartering and such, and largely becoming self-sustaining. I don't see it as an abandonment of technology, but rather a hybrid of something like the Internet Age meets the Amish. In this movement, if it happens, I think you could find private socialism that is tailor made for individual small communities and families within a capitalist society. If this were to happen, I think there would be more support among the voters against government interference in their lives. But, as with everything, there are tradeoffs. This movement would have some consequences that I'm not aware of, so, if it happened, it would be interesting to see how it would play out.

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Thanks Criostoir for your input. We think so differently that sometimes I have trouble understanding your points. I can say, however, that my research has led me to vastly different conclusions. For example, there have been some technical gains in agriculture but not much. What I see as happening is fossil fuel calories have been put into getting food calories out, and at an incredible rate. About 100 years ago it was something like one petroleum calorie in and one food calorie out. Today, and this is in the US, it is ten calories in and one out. These fossil fuel calories are in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, gasoline, rubber, and on and on...

Now if we just track one of the above, pesticides, we can see how US agriculture dependence on petroleum results in a downward, unsustainable spiral. Pesticides kill insects that feed on crops, but they also kill the predators of the insects, so you have to use more and more pesticides. Further, your target develops resistance to the poison, so again you have to use more of it. And because all life is very closely related you also kill things like worms in the ground which causes rain to not be absorbed as well, which causes flooding and erosion along with less water being absorbed into the ground. These things happen because worms aerate the soil, and this means you have to irrigate more. Eventually you are using so much pesticide that you are also killing your crops and poisoning the food chain that leads to humans -- think DDT.

So, now we solve this problem by genetically modifying the crops to be able to grow crops, even when drenched with pesticides and herbicides. We can also make more money by patenting the GMO DNA as "intellectual property" only because we have enough money to buy the political influence to do this. This money largely comes from fossil fuel profits. Then we sell the seeds to farmers who cannot use seeds from year to year. US agribusiness also gives rewards to farmers who report their neighbors violating their "intellectual property" by using GMO seeds from their crops year after year. Further, agribusiness has sued farmers using their own seed because GMO pollen blew into their land. They said, and won in court, that these farmers had benefited from their intellectual property.

So now we have a system drenched in and dependent on cheap oil, and we are literally eating this oil. Some of the components in these petroleum products are similar to human hormones such as estrogen. Since they are not exactly like estrogen, our bodies don't know what exactly what to do with them. Our bodies process them but not very well. Some researchers believe this is why we are having an epidemic of sex organ diseases such as breast cancer and prostate cancer. We also have eight-year-old girls going through puberty, males developing breasts, etc. But of course the FDA has no idea about any of this. We also have people living longer than Americans all over the world. We also have one of the highest infant mortality rates, even in developed countries. Simply said our food, not to mention the rest of our environment, has become toxic.

This is the system that is now being pushed on the entire world, which I intend to write about in the future. It is unsustainable and will not last very long. It is dependent on cheap oil resulting in the recent oil wars in the Middle East and also Africa. The US no longer can rely on economic, diplomatic, and other forms of power. It is largely left with only military power and the power of fear and intimidation resulting from it. We are seeing the last stage of every empire before it.

The above is only one thread in a repulsive system created by psychopaths and characteropaths, and fits like a glove into what was illustrated in Political Ponerology. We could have followed a thread on water, the environment, or many others which lead to the same place. The very worst of us have taken over and are in charge, and what they have taken over is what could be generalized as capitalism. Not only has it been spread throughout the world but it is literally wreaking the planet and as such, unsustainable. I believe that it is critical for us to get this story out to not only the US but also the rest of the world. Actually, much of the rest of the world understands this story because they have been on the receiving end of the destructiveness of it.
There is no question that capitalism is dying. Our challenge is, what are we going to replace it with?

 

[Joe]

Well, I don't think it is 'capitalism' that is destroying the world in and of itself. The global population is exponentially rising and with it, is technological advancement. More food and goods can be manufactured and produced today with far fewer workers than previously, due to robotics and agricultural technology. Service sector jobs are also becoming more automated as well. Just look at all the self-checkout isles that are in stores today. I suspect that in the near future, fast-food will become more of the microwavable variety as well.

Yeah, economic systems by themselves don't destroy societies, but certain economic systems seem to 'select for' destruction more so than others. Capitalism, in theory, isn't necessarily any worse than any other economic 'ism', but when you take into consideration the nature of those leading society, the 'captains of industry', and the way they spread their pathology throughout society, capitalism - as in trade, industry and the means of production in the hands of private individuals with the mandate to make as much money as possible, - is a disaster that is happening right now rather than waiting to happen.

Mortality rates due to natural causes have largely declined due to medical improvements and people are generally living longer, at least in some areas of the globe.

I think that 'people are living longer' claim is a myth, or at least a distortion. What seems to be true is that children today have a better chance of survival than they did 100 years ago, but actual life-expectancy has not increased that much. In addition, I think it is safe to say that today, as people on the 'modern diet' age, their health is very much worse than it was 100 years ago. See here for more _http://www.whale.to/a/rodale.html

I don't think its capitalism that is the problem, so much as it is technology. I don't think the global populations have had enough time to adjust to the changing world that is a result of technological advancement.

I'd say that technological advancement, especially in the way it has been happening where it fuels productivity at the cost of rising unemployment and ever lower wages and living conditions for those forced to take whatever job they can get, is the child of capitalism. At least, it's continually filling the pockets of the most ruthless and conscienceless.

I mean, today you can practically run a small business on a smart phone and one person can provide the services of a few employees in previous years. With the internet and software, and virtual offices I do not even need an accountant or a secretary for my small business. With amazon.com, I no longer use bookstores and I can order almost anything online and have it delivered the next day. Email, texting and skype allow me to communicate effectively without having to meet in person, which means that I can contact more people and achieve the same things in the same time that I could do if had to meet in person. Many of my administrative office tasks are automated, so I don't actually have to do those, just monitor the system and occasionally troubleshoot. If I need a script that I cannot write myself, then I can just post my job online and contract it out, usually to a technician overseas, because it is cheaper. 20 years ago this would not be possible without an office staff unless I wanted to work myself to death.

Indeed, and unemployment is on the rise and people are being forced into ever bigger cities to look for work, which is destroying what was left of local communities and community spirit (particularly in Western nations) leading to an impoverished quality of life for many compared to the 'old days'.

The result is that I can cut my costs and lower my rates to be competitive. But, if I didn't cut my cost and lower my rates, I wouldn't be competitive and wouldn't have a small business. But the point is, is that I need fewer employees that would be required 20 years ago. There is a rising global population and a diminishing need of manual labor in the global economy. Look at energy pipelines, for example. Before those pipelines were in place, all those energy resources would have had to be transported by rail and trucks, which would have required more employees. But, after the pipelines were installed, then the workforce is cut down to only those needed to maintain and regulate the pipeline.

And we all know what happens to the former members of the work force.

But, seriously, to put a twist to your 'off the grid' comment, I think it is likely that there will be a trend of people buying their own land and producing their own food with bartering and such, and largely becoming self-sustaining. I don't see it as an abandonment of technology, but rather a hybrid of something like the Internet Age meets the Amish. In this movement, if it happens, I think you could find private socialism that is tailor made for individual small communities and families within a capitalist society. If this were to happen, I think there would be more support among the voters against government interference in their lives. But, as with everything, there are tradeoffs. This movement would have some consequences that I'm not aware of, so, if it happened, it would be interesting to see how it would play out.

What I see is a world quickly going to 'hell in a hand basket'. Those that have been paying attention to events on a global scale over the past ten years, in particular to the shocking increase in 'earth changes' and the climate craziness, should find it difficult not to conclude that something MAJOR is happening, and that our planet and everything on it is moving towards a possibly radical shift, with all that that entails. At the same time, we see psychopaths in power tightening their grip on the global population by forcing them to accept ever more blatant and egregious lies, and (most) people have responded by swallowing the lies or simply turning their face away (which amounts to the same thing).

Over the past few years we have seen many large, organised protests around the world against the 'authorities' by people whose basic living conditions have been rapidly deteriorating. The authorities, in all cases, have had no compunction about violently suppressing the protests by beating heads and, in some cases, shooting people to put them back in their place. In the USA, there is something very worrying happening among the 'forces or law and order' around the country. On an almost daily basis, US cops have been brutalizing or shooting dead innocent civilians. Some (few) people in the US are concerned enough about this trend to try and do something about it (with the predictable results), but most have no idea it is happening, but that trend, I think, is indicative of something very much 'broken' in American society.

When subjected to it for long enough, people (or whole societies) normalize pathology and ponerization, to the point that they cannot objectively assess how their society, as a whole, is doing. Of course, the falsification of history also means that people have no historical reference with which to compare the state of 'morality' in their societies at any given time.

It's kind of like your comment about "people are living longer". Leaving aside major plagues and natural cataclysms, diet is probably THE most important factor in human health. It is rather clear that today, people are eating massive amounts of chemical-laden, toxic food that has only been available (in an increasing way) since the dawn of the our techniological age some 60 or 70 years ago. In that same time frame, a host of "modern illnesses" have appeared that are taking an increasing toll on people who, ordinarily, should be living to a decent age. A high school peer of mine died last year of cancer. I know about 10 other people in my extended family or from my home town that have also died of cancer or heart disease, or 'complications from diabetes' etc. These diseases, many of which cause a horribly painful and pitiful death, are set to rise dramatically. More than 35% of American adults are 'pre-diabetic', precisely because of our modern diet, yet we are expected to extol the virtues of our 'technological society' and believe that we are so much better off than those poor people in the past.

 

[Anthony]

We might be living longer, but we're more sick both physically and
psychologically so the quality of our lives is destroyed. Plus we have a system
that feeds on all this, there's a pill for everything nowadays, endless distraction etc.

 

[Laura]

Well, I don't think it is 'capitalism' that is destroying the world in and of itself.

Of course not. It's how it is implemented. Probably the most beneficial way to run things would be for tribes to be communist, local communities to be capitalist, and federal governments to be socialist; BUT, each in a particular sphere.

The global population is exponentially rising and with it, is technological advancement.

More food and goods can be manufactured and produced today with far fewer workers than previously, due to robotics and agricultural technology.

Those two sentences above effectively cancel each other out. With the rise of technology, fewer people are needed but, as you note, populations continue to rise. And actually, there is a limit to food production and resources and we have already not only used up what was "ours", but have used up most of what belongs to future generations. You might want to read Lierre Keith's book "The Vegetarian Myth" and some of the sources she refers to about the limits to growth and how we have basically pillaged the planet and what is going on now is, ultimately, resource struggles/wars.

<snip> Mortality rates due to natural causes have largely declined due to medical improvements and people are generally living longer, at least in some areas of the globe.

That has already been addressed. The fact is that life force is being preserved in a lot of people who have no quality of life whatsoever. I don't think that's an improvement. And mortality rates have not declined. Don't know where you are getting you stats, but they are wrong.

I don't think its capitalism that is the problem, so much as it is technology. I don't think the global populations have had enough time to adjust to the changing world that is a result of technological advancement.

Any technology that does NOT require equal input/cooperation of a human being is entropic. Period.

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

I question the idea that there has been such an advance in technology that it has altered the balance of society. Although the point can be argued, it looks to me that the quantum leaps in this area came about at the beginnings of the 20th century. I still see Model T's on the freeway and they do, pretty much, what cars do today. They are not that much different. The model T could go about 45MPH and it got about 25 miles per gallon. In over 200 years how much better are the cars of today? Electricity came to America about the same time and one can easily recognize the light bulbs that are virtually identical to those of today. We have indoor plumbing (a really good idea), but then again so did they, and actually so did the Romans over 2,000 years ago. Houses were not that much different either. And the real biggie, we use coal and other fossil fuels as our primary energy source and have done so waaayyy past the time to move on to something else. I see technology as stagnant, and this situation is being forced on us by psychopaths who are making enormous profits by NOT innovating!

Cars could run on alcohol that you could make in your own back yard. And this would not add carbon to the atmosphere. We might want to think about why you would go to jail for doing this! Why is it that I have to pay Exxon Mobil, or whomever, to blow up the Middle East, steal the oil, suck it out of the ground at the cost of about one dollar a gallon, and sell it to us for many, many times that amount?? Where is the "progress through technology" here?

 

[Laura]

I question the idea that there has been such an advance in technology that it has altered the balance of society.

I agree with your further points, but on this one, I think that the main issue is "automation". That is, big machines that do the work that people used to do thus depriving humans of jobs. Giant plants that only need a few people to do the odd thing that the machines have not been tooled for, rolling out, stamping, cutting, shaping, filling, sealing, etc.

I used to think about the irony of clothes... back in older times, all cloth was hand made at every step. They also had to be washed and pressed by hand. Nowadays, cloth is manufactured in big plants though, in the case of wool, the sheep are still sheared by hand, but after that, the wool goes into machines. Next, there are giant sewing factories OR women have sewing machines at home. There are automatic washers and dryers and irons. So, what's ironic? Back then, clothes were big, heavy, intricate and everything was done by hand (usually by slave labor) and now they are short and simple for the most part.

With all the home appliances that are available, people ought to be able to have plenty of time to do personally fulfilling things, but that just isn't the way things have sorted out for MOST humans on the planet and it's bizarre to me.