I wrote a book (no, not that other book on the Joel Greenberg and George Santos crowd at seminolescam.com/laundering):
"Angels in the Mirror"
Belief in one's own moral superiority is a key ingredient of criminal insanity.
If you don't believe your morality is superior, shouldn't you change your morality? Isn't moral indifference its own sort of sin?Belief in one's own moral superiority is a key ingredient of criminal insanity.
The first two paragraphs of the first chapter, which are inspired by how people think on Twitter, gave me the theme for the book.I present a thesis that humans have a tribal instinct to directly control outcomes as a conscious collective. That desire, to move decisions to the executive branch, makes perjury a community act, not rogue. It's just an impulse to control the world around you.
Lying cops are a form of Marxism. Marxism is the collective will of the mob enacted through the executive branch without respect to individual rights, laws, or courts. Lying cops are the same thing, just seizing my innocent friend's life instead of businesses. Using liars to subvert courts and laws with tribal justice, is just another example of the primitive human collectivist impulse to kill your neighbors and seize control of everything. You dislike private property the same way you dislike private jury decisions. You dislike independent judges the same as you dislike independent business owners. Because you are a violent big-government fanatic.
When I first got the idea three years ago - inspired by a quote from AG Bill Barr - the book began with what is now chapter four and was called "Tribal Justice". The title more recently was "Return to Nature" which is now the name of Chapter 5. I don't remember why I switched to "Angels in the Mirror". But I decided to make it primarily a book about the law and criminal justice. Whereas "Return to Nature" would be more broad, and include things like sports and movies - leisure - and the general manifestation of human instinct from politics to cuisine.Suppose people were given a choice between two justice systems. In one, a person who everyone agreed they disliked, was tortured in the public square or in a stadium once a week. This would be preceded by an entire week of TV personalities talking about what a bad person he was. In the alternative system, people who had actually committed crimes like murder or theft would be secretly tracked down and arrested, in a process that mostly went on out of the public eye. People would choose the first justice system, because they could perceive its positive results and that they had control over it.
There is very little difference between this choice, and the choice between communism and capitalism. People choose a collectivist system where they can vote for a leader who promises on TV to provide them food and medicine, rather than leave it to private businessmen operating out of sight, supervised by "the invisible hand" of the price system. People choose a worse product which they feel they have collective conscious control over - communism - rather than a better product which does not directly involve them in all the choices. In both systems people eat, and both systems respond to the public demand and give people what they want. But one produces a terrible product, which system people nevertheless are drawn to.
Is global warming mystic lore? Can the average person who believes he should act on it prove the process?That mechanism is trusted sources which have survived inheritance or some other refinement mechanism, such as the Bible, and peer-reviewed scientific articles. There are innumerable layers and variations, such as testing sources by shibboleth, where a person who is found to agree with existing beliefs, or displays a certain flag, becomes a credible source for a new belief.