List of Chapters

Site Notice

List of Articles

Email Author

The Nature Of Man - The UT Instinct Chapter 12 The Oppressed and The Oppressors If this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Introduction The oppressed are not any morally 'better' because of the fact that they are being oppressed. The oppressors are not any morally 'worse' because of the fact that they are the oppressors. It just so happens that there is a more dominant UT Group taking advantage of their dominance. Often groups which are being oppressed are, at the same time, oppressing others. Whether oppressed or oppressor the UT Instinct is in both in exactly the same measure. Many oppressed male workers didn't consider their spouses (or females, in general) as being equal and oppressed them - they would consider this as being 'natural', certainly NOT selfish. They would consider their oppression by the employers as being unfair but would consider their oppression of the females as being fair. It is the same evaluation mechanism persuading the employers that the 'arrangement' is fair as is persuading the male employees that the 'arrangement' at home is fair. Each can only evaluate from within their own subjective blinkered UT Group. The Middle-East A striking example at present is the conflict in Israel. The Jewish people have for generations been oppressed and yet when they obtained 'their own' nation, by taking from others, they oppressed and subdued the Palestinians. The rights of the Palestinians are trampled upon and as yet there is no justice for them. And, to the Israelis, they can justify their actions! Of course, they can! The Hightribe would understand their arguments totally! The only difference between the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s (the oppressed), and those of today (the oppressors), is that the Jews today now, because of the State of Israel, have the opportunity to misuse their power - to abuse others. It is not that the Jews of today are less civilised than their parents; it is just that the opportunity has changed. There are different UT Groups in conflict now, yet in logical terms revelant within this conflict still remain the Hightribe and the Lowtribe. There is a very important point to understand here and that is that the only difference between the Hightribe and the Lowtribe is power and opportunity. In 'moral' terms both tribes are exactly the same. It merely depends on which UT Group is the dominant UT Group - that is all. Voting Rights Men have been fighting for rights (voting and other) for centuries. But it is always those who have those rights who want to confine those rights to themselves - their own UT Group. Voting (organising the government), for example, used to be in the hands of those powerful people at the top tier of society, and they could argue that those 'below' not only shouldn't get the vote but couldn't actually use their vote properly - those at the top should make these responsible difficult decisions. Then the rich landowners got voting rights and they thought it fair that those 'below them' didn't get the same rights - they didn't deserve it! - they wouldn't be able to use the vote sensibly. Then, when the house-owners got the vote they considered that those below them didn't deserve the right to vote, that they wouldn't be able to use the vote sensibly. Then when the common man got the vote they considered that the females shouldn't and 'couldn't' vote; then the females etc; then the under 21's etc etc. At every stage there is a demand for rights for oneself (and one's own UT Group) and yet a reluctance to let others have those same rights. (there are many variations on the above, I chose the levels arbitrarily, it could also have included different races, ethnic groups etc). The UT Group never wants to give those rights which they consider due to them on the very basis of being a member of a (responsible) UT Group to those outside that UT Group for reasons already explained. Females In the case of females it is plain to see that although most females have been oppressed no matter what level of society they belonged to, they, just like the males, had the same evaluation mechanism and thought little of those who were 'below' them. Females may have been oppressed but wealthy females had housemaids whom they certainly did not consider as being equal. In the countries where slavery was acceptable the wives of the slave owners, although, in theory, themselves being the property of their husbands, nevertheless considered the female slaves as not deserving the equality with them. * * * * * * One very important UT Phrase which crops up in every 'conflict' or UT Group evaluation mechanism 'excuse' when comparing exactly the same actions and that is "that's different" even when in objective terms the action, or judgment, is exactly the same. If the Hightribe member 'attacks' a member of the Lowtribe it is because the member of the Lowtribe is not seen as being equal and therefore deserves it - the action demonstrates the superiority of the Hightribe and the inferiority of the Lowtribe (according to the Hightribe, of course!). If a member of the Lowtribe attacks a member of the Hightribe it is seen as an inferior person attacking a superior person and therefore demonstrates that the Lowtribe is a savage brute and the member of the Hightribe is superior (according to the Hightribe, of course!). If a person points out, to the Hightribe, the fact that the the member of the Hightribe is doing the same action as the member of the Lowtribe the phrase used will be "that's different". And to a member of the Hightribe it will genuinely appear to be totally different. This is the UT Instinct at work. The only reason why this totally illogical judgment can take place is because Man is totally irrational so even 'simple truth' is seen in an unbelieveably ridiculous way. But this thought process judgment is subconscious. The member of the Hightribe will be totally convinced that bes opinion is correct - it IS different! * * * * * * There are numerous examples in 'real' life, in fact most likely thousands of billions of them. I will mention just two here. Please note I am not judging these ie I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with any of the following actions. So please keep your subjective judgments in check. The first one is connected with the middle east. When the Jews were using terrorism to gain an independant Isreal their 'fighters' were seen in a heroic 'positive' light (by the Jews). When the Palestinians were using terrorism to regain the freedom of the 'occupied' territories they were seen in an unheroic terrorist 'negative' light (by the same Jews). Yet, objectively, terrorism is terrorism. The second is something I remember from back in the 1970s or so. Bobby Sands, a member of the IRA terrorist army went on hunger strike in order to force the British government to treat the terrorists as being 'political prosoners' rather than criminals. He ended up dying on hunger strike. Mrs Thatcher (the British Prime Minister at the time) displayed her contempt of the IRA and Bobby Sands and said thet 'he hadn't any regard even for his own life' (a negative inferior UT Group). But I suspect that during the Faulklands war she would have had great respect for soldiers who fought bravely with little regard for their own lives. This she would have seen in a very positive light and as very commendable and praiseworthy. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO STUPID, SO POINTLESS, SO UNPRODUCTIVE TO JUDGE IT IS JUST YOUR OWN UT INSTINCT DEMONSTRATING JUST HOW SUBJECTIVE YOU ARE. If you want to contact me to discuss, or to get me to clarify, a specific point, please only do so AFTER reading the whole section about the UT Instinct. Thank you.  Top of Page

Last Update : 3rd October 2009

<< Chapter 11 - Gender UT Groups

Chapter 13 - Crimes Against Humanity >>

List of Chapters

Site Notice

List of Articles

Email Author