The obsolete consciousness X

I am reading about the Nuremberg trial after WWII.
One of the people on trial was Hermann Göring, who was a was a German politician, military leader, and a leading member of the Nazi Party.

Göring's last days were spent with Captain Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking American intelligence officer and psychologist, who had access to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail.

Göring spoke about war and extreme nationalism to Captain Gilbert, as recorded in Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country".

This means that a conditioned mind is manipulable*. That a mind that is not aware that is conditioned can easily be manipulated using the reflexes of the conditioning.

In this case he mentions: "being attacked"....."lack of patriotism"....."danger". It goes all in the same direction: our mind is conditioned to be safe, to defend against danger, and to do it through the sense of group (patriotism).

And the lack of awareness of being conditioned, of being conditionable, makes us susceptible of being manipulated.....the whole World War II maybe was a just a big manifestation of conditioning and manipulation........is violence just a consequence of conditioning/manipulation?

Is this obsolete?

*According to the diccionary: "capable of or susceptible to being manipulated"

"Peer pressure"

A recent study shows evidence that 2-year-olds both humans and chimpanzees are more likely to copy actions when they see them repeated by three of their peers than if they see the same action done by one peer three times.

The research team built a box with three holes, each a different color. The box delivered a treat (a sweet) only when a ball was dropped into one of those three, colored holes. Toddlers, and chimpanzees, unfamiliar with the box were then allowed to watch as four of their same-species peers interacted with the box. The majority of those peer demonstrators had been trained to favor one color over the others.

When the 2-year-old humans and chimpanzee observers got their turn, they tended to favor the hole favored by their friends.

The researchers suggest that majority rule probably does have its advantages, evolutionarily speaking. "The tendency to acquire the behaviors of the majority has been posited as key to the transmission of relatively safe, reliable, and productive behavioral strategies,".

(Published in "Current Biology" 22, 1–5, April 24, 2012 by Daniel B.M. Haun, Yvonne Rekers, and Michael Tomasello)

This study gives some evolutionary support to the current observation of how difficult is to think and act outside the accepted behavior and mentality of society, and gives evolutionary support for the solidity, and in some instances advantage, of human conditioning........

A second lesson from a two years old.....

A few days after the incident described in my last entry, I realize that he behaves totally normal with me.

It is as if the incident has not been registered in his mind.

And that makes me think that in order to be hurt, you have to keep a memory of it.....

a lesson from a two years old

The twins are now more than two years old. From time to time they keep competing and fighting for some objects. In those occassions there is some violence, in the form of biting or scratching the other. As they have not seen this in other people during their lifetime, I have to conclude that it is a "genetic" beheavior, something in their genes, a reflex written from our evolutionary past.

So far I have tried to be calm in these occassions. It would be contradictory to use violence to teach them they should not be violent. I have tried that they see the suffering and pain caused in the other brother by their actions. Or I have asked them to look into my eyes while telling them I do not like they hurt each other.

But this behavior has continued happening, although occassionally.

The other morning, maybe because its repetition (there is always a "repetition" factor in our irritations), maybe because I had not slept enough (it seems it is our responsability to be well to relate well), one of those actions brought anger in me. I went for one of the twins, I grabbed him quite firmly and I raised my voiced to say "No". He was scared. I was using violence to teach non-violence, a contradiction (although frequently used with us). He closed his eyes, bent his head back, and I saw a expression of pain in his small mouth. He was hurt. By me.

At the beginning I thought I was right, but later a feeling of pain and sadness invaded me.

He had taught me two lessons:
- violence only engenders pain, in both sides. The incident produced deep pain in me and in him.
- It is quite easy to hurt a child.
- Violence can never teach non-violence.

He had been a master, taught me some good lessons. I am sorry. I have learned something......how easy is to be angry and how difficult to be compassionate......

isn't it more and more clear that we are one.....?

"Survival International" is the only organization working for tribal peoples’ rights worldwide (www.survivalinternational.org).

They have published a book called: "Tribal Peoples,for tomorrow's world".

In one of its chapters you can read:

"Our wisdom is not useless, it is the wisdom of the Earth, and it is of vital importance for the Earth to continue existing. The desire for possessions is destructive: nothing that could be sold or bought has a real significance. They can blow with the wind....."