Автор: Битарх

Does the intake of psychoactive substances make a person violent

The consumption of psychoactive substances has long been considered a significant factor predisposing to violent behavior. This is especially taken for granted regarding individuals with addictions to them. However, it is also indisputably true that the presence of dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism and psychopathic predispositions serves as a precursor to such behavior. Therefore, researchers became interested in the extent to which psychopathic traits influence the link between psychoactive substance use and violence.

In the past, some studies were conducted regarding the link between alcohol consumption and aggressiveness in animals and humans. Many of these studies concluded that alcoholism itself cannot be a factor predicting violence. In experiments on mice, aggressiveness from alcohol consumption increased only in individuals with significantly reduced levels of serotonin receptor mRNA in the brain (and, as is known, the serotonin system is responsible for the function of the violence inhibitor). And in violent behavior resulting from alcohol consumption in humans, the level of psychopathic traits they possess plays an important role.

Current studies, conducted on criminals, reach similar conclusions when studying the influence of addiction to alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine on the propensity to commit violent crimes. Elevated psychopathy scores explain a significant portion of this influence, and if their mediating effect is taken into account, such a link becomes weak.

We can indeed observe more frequent acts of violence by people taking psychoactive substances. However, it seems that they are not the primary cause of such behavior and do not make a person more violent in and of themselves, but may only act as a provoking factor in the case of those individuals who are already prone to committing violence but simply exercised better self-restraint before consumption. Therefore, any intervention aimed at reducing violence from substance-dependent individuals must focus not only on the therapy of the addiction itself, but also on the therapy of the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, as it is this that remains the root of the problem.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How repressive regimes and large-scale evil arise

Why does large-scale evil exist, encompassing entire societies and nations, such as dictatorships, repression, genocides, and wars? Psychiatrist Andrzej Łobachevsky, in his book “Political Penerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Applied to Politics,” concludes that mental abnormalities play a key role in its emergence. People with such abnormalities often attempt to make sense of their pathological perception of the world. Particularly dangerous are individuals with primary psychopathy, who, due to emotional deficits, lack a conscience and experience no guilt or remorse for harming others. Under certain circumstances, the small number of psychopaths with insane ambitions can strike at the vulnerabilities of a society and plunge it into conditions leading to large-scale tragedies.

At the same time, pathological ideologies such as fascism or authoritarian communism are often developed and promoted by schizoid personalities, although readers of “schizoid declarations” frequently fail to notice this. Psychopaths, meanwhile, join social movements that adhere to such ideologies, where they can hide their deficiencies and successfully pursue their lust for power. They easily pretend to be sincere followers of the ideology, perform all the dirty and cruel work for the movement that no one else would undertake, infiltrate its leadership, and eventually seize control. Psychopaths ultimately become the generative factor of pathocracy—a system of governance in which a pathological minority seizes control over a society of normal people.

To suppress resistance, they resort to terror and propaganda, eliminating individuals who are dangerous to them and forcing everyone else to adopt pathological patterns of thinking. Such patterns are especially readily accepted by approximately 6% of the population, who possess the least resistance to the influence of psychopaths. They become active supporters of the pathocracy and accomplices in its atrocities. War is also one of the tools for strengthening pathocracy, helping to redirect the population’s attention from important issues toward imperialistic ambitions and dividing them into parts loyal and disloyal to the regime. Furthermore, there is no avoiding the control of science, which is directed to serve the interests of the pathocracy.

Lobachevsky believes that the only means against evil is the knowledge of its existence and its true nature. Based on this knowledge, evil must be fought just like any other pathology—using medical and therapeutic methods, including mandatory therapy for primary psychopaths. At the same time, it is very important to mitigate punishments and forgive individuals who have committed evil. Before the public, they must be presented as suffering from an illness rather than as being guilty, because a punitive and vengeful approach does not allow people to understand the true nature of their behavior, and thus deprives them of the opportunity to effectively prevent such behavior in the future. By striving for retribution rather than cure, we will leave future generations with exactly the same problems we have now, including the problem of pathocracy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Carrying weapons is absolutely normal behavior, if it is not done for the purpose of committing crimes

Quite interesting results were demonstrated by studies examining the link between carrying and using weapons and a person’s psychopathic predispositions. For instance, high scores in callous-unemotional traits among adolescents are linked to more frequent weapon carrying, regardless of any extraneous factors, and its use in committing crimes. Additionally, the presence of certain psychopathic predispositions in an individual, especially emotional coldness and antisocial behavior, is linked to the illegal use of weapons and a tendency toward violent confrontations.

However, the first study notes that adolescents with low callous-unemotional trait scores may also be inclined to carry weapons, but this is not associated with committing armed attacks and often occurs simply because their peers also carry weapons—they are merely succumbing to their influence. The second study notes that legal weapon carrying, associated with legal motivations for such behavior (for example, ensuring self-defense), has no connection to psychopathic predispositions.

Such results lead to the conclusion that carrying a weapon not for the purpose of committing an attack is absolutely normal behavior, which does not indicate the presence of any mental abnormalities, including psychopathic predispositions arising from the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism that make a person capable of easily harming others. Therefore, there is simply no reason to fear a weapon in the hands of an average individual, if this suddenly causes anyone fear. Nor is there any reason to listen to those who will claim that a normal person has no need for a weapon.

Also, let us not forget that a mentally healthy person will try to possess a weapon legally, if possible. Here, it is worth noting a long-established fact immediately – weapon bans only affect law-abiding citizens, depriving them of the ability to effectively defend themselves against attacks. Such people will not be inclined to acquire weapons if there is no legal way to do so. At the same time, psychopaths will prefer illegal weapons regardless, which they will obtain on the black market or manufacture themselves. Think about it – it is unlikely that a person who anticipates that they might commit a violent crime with some probability, or has even planned it in advance, will use legal weapons that can be traced. And with illegal weapons, a psychopath will be able to easily attack ordinary people if those people do not have a legal right to armed self-defense.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the terrible and uncomfortable fortress city of Kowloon turned out to be an extremely attractive place for people to live

Until 1993, the Kowloon Walled City existed in Hong Kong. Its defining feature was the actual absence of government authority. This became possible because, during the transfer of land from the United Kingdom to China in 1898, a small area of 2.6 hectares containing the fortress was not included in the agreement. It became a Chinese enclave, but later, as it turned out, China withdrew its troops from there. Consequently, this territory became controlled by no one.

After World War II, people began to settle in the Kowloon territory en masse, and by the early 1990s, its population reached 50,000 people, making it the most densely populated place in the world. The entire area was densely built up with buildings. Of course, this place suffered from poor sanitation and a lack of space; one could only breathe fresh air on the rooftops, and visually, it was a terrifying place. Furthermore, in the 50s and 60s, the area was controlled by criminal gangs. Nevertheless, people actively moved there for permanent residence. How did this happen?

Kowloon was a place where state regulations and taxes were absent. Although gangs and drug trafficking were widespread there initially, by the 70s, Hong Kong police had begun conducting raids and flushing them out. The population of Kowloon also took up the eradication of drug trafficking and violence. A practice even developed where if someone committed a crime, that person was simply thrown out of the city, where they would quickly fall into the hands of the Hong Kong police. Former residents of Kowloon themselves claim that the place was safe. And for the most part, the state still did not interfere in the life of Kowloon, which meant that after the disappearance of the bandits, business flooded in and the place began to prosper.

A cohesive society also emerged in Kowloon, where residents helped each other in everything. This included the appearance of kindergartens, schools, clinics, and charitable organizations, which required no laws or regulations to exist. Along with the presence of diverse businesses that sought out Kowloon due to the lack of taxes and regulations—causing even residents of the rest of Hong Kong to frequently visit to purchase cheap goods and services—all of this made the Walled City an attractive place to live, despite all its seemingly most serious drawbacks.

As we can see, the assertion that people are willing to sacrifice freedom and give a significant portion of their money to the state just to live in comfortable conditions with spacious streets, good ecology, parks, and all possible amenities, is not all that well-founded, since Kowloon—which provided no comfort but gave complete freedom in how to live, earn, and manage one’s means—attracted so many people, even though the comfortable “city of the future,” Hong Kong, was within walking distance. In fact, all such amenities could have existed in a place like Kowloon if it weren’t for territorial limitations. Furthermore, security was provided in Kowloon, not least due to the efforts of the residents of the walled city themselves. Although there was police intervention in the 70s, they were not present there on a regular basis and mainly only took in criminals who had already been expelled from the city. Kowloon was not some kind of “violent ancap,” as some might claim. The Kowloon ancap was quite safe and non-violent.

Of course, Kowloon was ultimately destroyed by violence—external violence from a stationary bandit, even if the latter had previously helped in getting rid of internal violence. That is why it is important to eradicate all forms of violence, including having some serious means to neutralize external aggressors, rather than relying on the hope that “good” aggressors will only catch “bad” aggressors without ever interfering in the lives of peaceful people.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How they try to deceive us into thinking that humans are supposedly cruel by nature

Once, Mexican anthropologist Santiago Genovés decided to conduct an experiment that journalists dubbed the “sex raft.” Along with himself, he placed on a small raft intended to cross the Atlantic Ocean 5 men and 6 women, who were strangers to one another and belonged to different races and social classes. The stated goal was to study the behavior of people placed in an extreme situation.

However, Genovés was convinced that humans are extremely aggressive by nature and expected an outbreak of cruelty and debauchery during the experiment. Not waiting for this to happen, he began to stage provocations himself. For example, he repeatedly tried to turn the crew against a specific individual, or publicly announced details from the questionnaires previously filled out by the participants, which he considered embarrassing and provocative. He even documented non-existent cruelty—for instance, he described the participants’ hunt for a shark to prepare food as “mob madness.” There were also constant various problems on the raft, such as leaks, a broken compass, and a lack of radio communication for several weeks. Nevertheless, no real violence occurred, and the people did not fight with one another. If the experiment participants hated anyone during this time, it was only Genovés himself, who remained extremely dissatisfied with the results of the experiment.

Another interesting story concerns a group of 6 Polynesian boys who, through foolishness, spent 15 months on a small uninhabited island. This story was discovered by writer Rutger Bregman, who did not like the gloominess of William Golding’s novel “Lord of the Flies.” In that novel, children stranded on an uninhabited island quickly reverted to a savage way of life and even began killing other children who disliked what was happening. Bregman decided to look for similar stories, but in real life, and reality turned out to be much more optimistic. The Polynesian boys on the uninhabited island were able to establish a system of relationships that precluded conflict and worked together to ensure survival.

These cases once again show that there are no grounds to consider humans to be creatures cruel by nature. We are often tried to be convinced of this by dubious personalities such as Henovés himself, but everything they say is simply a lie. Although, unfortunately, sometimes lies become popular. This refers to the Milgram experiment, which contained many methodological errors and had most of its results hidden from the public, yet what was actually published succeeded quite effectively in deceiving the public about the willingness of the average individual to inflict any pain on others at the command of an authority figure. It also refers to the Stanford prison experiment, which turned out to be a setup with a predetermined result from the very beginning, and the truthfulness of which the public believed for 50 years, until the archival data was thoroughly studied. Their organizers, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, also apparently seemed inclined, even before organizing their experiments, to believe that most people are easily capable of initiating violence. And their deception proved far more successful than the attempts to deceive everyone by someone like Henovés.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Statism can and must be defeated anonymously

Recently, an interesting story occurred involving the pirate library Libgen. American judge Collin McMahon sided with book publishers and, following their complaint, ordered the resource to pay $30 million in compensation for violating so-called “copyrights” (privileges granted to a stationary bandit). However, enforcing this decision proved impossible – quite simply, no one knows who the actual creator and leader of this pirate library is. Furthermore, the judge’s ruling prohibits anyone from participating in the resource’s activities, such as providing data storage, registering domains, or even distributing links to it. However, the resource’s operation relies on the work of thousands of volunteers from all over the world who upload files and distribute torrents, so the resource has faced no problems other than the blocking of certain domain names.

This case contrasts sharply with the story of the creators of the Tornado Cash crypto mixer. They did not act anonymously, openly presenting themselves as the creators of the resource. And for this, they were subject to state prosecution. Even the mixer’s co-founder, Roman Storm, was caught in the crosshairs, despite being exclusively involved in writing software code for the resource and having no way of knowing for what purposes specific users were using it. He constantly insists, “I was just writing code, how can that be a crime?!”. But if you cross the path of the state authorities, any actions begin to be considered a crime, regardless of how they were viewed in former times.

Today, one can come up with many “digital” ways to fight the regulations and bans of the stationary bandit. And such a fight should definitely be conducted anonymously, since it will not back down from those who decide to openly challenge it, even if there were no precedents of prosecution for such activities in the past. De-anonymizing oneself is not at all necessary for success, as can be seen from the example of Libgen itself, which receives 16 million visits per month without having any public face to represent it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

One can and must defeat statism anonymously

An interesting story recently occurred involving the pirate library Libgen. American judge Collin McMahon sided with book publishers and, following their complaint, ordered the resource to pay $30 million in compensation for violating so-called “copyrights” (privileges granted by the stationary bandit). However, enforcing this decision proved impossible – simply because no one knows who the actual creator and leader of this pirate library is. Furthermore, the judge’s decision prohibits anyone from participating in the resource’s activities, such as providing data storage, registering domains, or even distributing links to it. Nevertheless, the resource’s operation relies on the labor of thousands of volunteers from all over the world who upload files and distribute torrents, so besides the blocking of some domain names, the resource has not faced any problems.

This case contrasts sharply with the story of the creators of the crypto-mixer Tornado Cash. They did not act anonymously, openly presenting themselves as the creators of the resource. And for this, they were subjected to state prosecution. Even the co-founder of the mixer, Roman Storm, was caught in the crosshairs, despite the fact that he was exclusively involved in writing software code for the resource and could not have known for what purposes specific users were using it. He now constantly insists, “I was just writing code, how can that be a crime?!”. But if you cross the path of the state authorities, any actions begin to be considered a crime, regardless of how they were regarded in the past.

Today, one can devise many “digital” ways to fight the regulations and prohibitions of the stationary bandit. And such a struggle should definitely be conducted anonymously, because it will not let go of those who decide to openly challenge it, even if there were no precedents for prosecution for such activities in the past. De-anonymizing oneself is not at all necessary for success, as can be seen in the example of Libgen itself, which receives 16 million visits per month without having any public face to represent it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

If there were a person, AI would be found

It is hard to disagree that every person has broken state laws in their life, and often multiple times. Smoking in unauthorized areas, traffic violations, conducting business without a license or with other violations, selling personal belongings without declaring them to the tax authorities, and even simple verbal statements that the state deems illegal—these and other similar acts have been committed by many people. Moreover, some actions that do not imply a violation of the law at the time they are committed may, after some time, be interpreted as an offense—retroactively and without a statute of limitations, applying the highly controversial yet widespread practice of qualifying actions undesirable to the authorities as a “continuing offense.” For example, an administrative case was recently brought against a Russian woman for “LGBT propaganda,” triggered by a video recorded and published on VK back in 2010, where a friend kissed her on the lips for her birthday.

And it would be one thing if such violations were typically accidental, minor, and did not imply harm to people, meaning it would be unlikely that government authorities would even notice them. But modern and especially promising technologies will allow them to track any human activity. U.S. intelligence is already developing AI that will collect and analyze data about citizens and means of transport from surveillance cameras, drones, and even from webcams and smartphone cameras. In France, police have been allowed to remotely connect to the cameras and microphones of citizens’ smartphones. Roskomnadzor in Russia is actively testing AI to block websites and analyze materials published on social networks. As for China, there is nothing to say—total surveillance has long since become a commonplace there. And in Iran, AI is even used for religious repression—AI cameras recognize women who do not wear a hijab.

Of course, if a stationary bandit attempts to punish everyone for even the smallest violations, they will quickly become overloaded, and serious discontent may arise among the people. However, there is little sense in picking on everyone. The problem lies more in the fact that individual people can become victims of intentional harassment, both by the state as a whole and even by individual employees of government agencies. For example, someone might run a business that competes with the business of a civil servant’s friends or relatives, or the official might want to “provide protection” for someone’s business, or perhaps some girl rejected them in a relationship, or they have a conflict with a neighbor over a parking space—in such situations, a civil servant can easily ruin the life of a person who has displeased them simply by using information from surveillance systems. As we have already said, one can find at least minor violations for any person, and at the very least, they can be buried under fines.

A serious problem also lies in the fact that in such a scenario, the civil servant themselves will not technically be breaking the law. It is often argued that one can simply complain about any civil servant to higher authorities. But while such an argument might still be considered in cases of direct threats, abuse of power, or other similar actions, it becomes completely meaningless in the case of harassment following the scheme described above. Complaints against the systemic harassment of opposition members or other people undesirable to the state will also be rendered useless—by resorting to such a scheme, a stationary bandit can harass a person using perfectly legal methods.

As we can see, the power of the state in the age of high technology poses an enormous threat to the lives and well-being of people. Any person who becomes inconvenient to the stationary bandit or even just to his individual officials can be hounded in such a way that no laws are broken by the hunters—the person being hunted will be declared a malicious lawbreaker. Therefore, the “monopoly on violence” can no longer be called a system that works for the benefit of mankind.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Where all states failed

In the modern world, there is one problem that has not been solved by any state – the problem of declining birth rates. Its level is falling rapidly even in those countries where it still exceeds the population replacement level (equal to 2.1 – i.e., at least 210 children must be born per 100 women). Why this is a problem hardly needs explaining. But if someone still does not understand, we will only point to one consequence – a decrease in population will be followed by a decrease in production levels, economic decline, and a slowdown in technological progress. Industrial production, even of simple goods, involves a vast amount of labor, and there is nothing to say about technologically complex goods – their production chains involve millions of people from different parts of the world at once. Also, the more people there are, the more entrepreneurs, innovators, and creators there are, capable of significantly improving the lives of all humanity through their inventions.

So far, it is not possible to fully automate many production processes (and even for that, inventors are needed, of which there will also be few in a small population). And solving the problem through the encouragement of immigration has its own disadvantages (and it will not work in the future, with a global decline in birth rates). Therefore, the task of solving the demographic crisis has long been before government authorities. But so far, they have failed miserably! As studies demonstrate, almost all states pursuing “pronatalist” policies have not achieved their intended goals. Moreover, this costs enormous sums and is a burden on taxpayers, which only worsens the situation. The demographic crisis is definitely not solvable through state instruments, and statisticians who believe state intervention is the solution to all problems must recognize this.

What could be done is to reduce the level of state intervention. “First, do no harm” – this is exactly the principle that must be followed. And states certainly do cause harm. Through their restrictions and regulations, they reduce the housing supply on the market, which significantly increases its cost. And the increase in taxes, prohibitive regulations, and tariffs on construction materials only exacerbates this problem. Regulations, taxes, and tariffs also make many other goods necessary for having children significantly more expensive and inaccessible, including even most basic food. Similarly, this applies to education and medicine.

The hyper-regulation of life and economic activity makes having children an unbearable burden, for which even handouts in the form of financial assistance to parents are nowhere near enough to cover the costs (and such handouts themselves are a tax burden). The state also does harm by attempting to take matters into its own hands. For instance, in Hungary, infertility clinics were nationalized and subsidized at the government’s expense. However, this only led to a decrease in the supply of their services and an increase in waiting times. Ultimately, through its decisions, the state both restricts human freedom and exacerbates birth rate problems. And what will the statists say to this?

Also, many people usually forget about the psychological factor, where the stress of a regulated life suppresses reproductive function. Zoo workers know well that many animal species do not reproduce at all in captivity, regardless of how good the conditions are in terms of nutrition and care. Humans are one of the biological species and, accordingly, are also subject to this phenomenon.

Researchers believe that to solve the demographic crisis, it is necessary to look toward the deregulation of all aspects of life—labor, trade, medicine, education, housing, and security measures—to relieve the constant stress from interference in life and reduce the “cost” of having children. As long as the total fertility rate remains below the replacement level, statists have no moral right whatsoever to support any policy that restricts human freedom. Otherwise, they are essentially supporting the degeneration of the nation, something they need to be reminded of every single time!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How psychopaths manifest themselves in relationships

It would be quite obvious to say that maintaining any personal relationship with a person who can easily be ruthless, heartless, manipulative, deceitful, and unempathetic toward others is an extremely questionable venture. However, it is important to list specifically how psychopathic individuals manifest in relationships, as well as highlight some of their characteristics to support such a claim.

  1. Psychopathic individuals skillfully manipulate the feelings of others. To enter into relationships, they tend to resort to deception, demonstrating good qualities that they do not actually possess. Of course, to some extent many people are inclined to act this way, but psychopaths do so more intensely than others. They skillfully present themselves as attractive romantic partners, even if they are absolutely uninterested in “committed” relationships.
  2. Once psychopathic individuals get what they want, they can easily begin to behave cruelly. Psychopathic predispositions in a partner are the strongest predictor of long-term abuse in a relationship. Due to a dysfunctional violence inhibition mechanism, psychopaths easily ignore the suffering of their partners, except in cases where they can use it for their own manipulative purposes. For example, by manipulating fear, they may intimidate their partner, coerce them into sexual contact, or substance use. All of this easily leads to psychological trauma in victims of such treatment.
  3. In terms of relationships, psychopathic individuals more often prefer quantity over quality. On average, they have three times as many partners, but this occurs because their typical relationships are short-term, turbulent, filled with infidelity and jealousy; to keep partners, they resort to deception, manipulation, and aggression, which, of course, is hardly a strategy capable of leading to stable long-term relationships. Naturally, they are prone to risky sexual behavior, and their mental state is the root of a number of sexual crimes, including rape and serial killings on a sexual basis.
  4. Relationships with psychopathic individuals are usually rated as unsatisfactory. Among other things, their partners are more likely to indicate sexual dissatisfaction. Given that psychopaths often deceive, manipulate, cheat, or even commit violence against their partners, this is not surprising.
  5. As is well known, some people cannot easily leave psychopathic partners, even if they are completely dissatisfied with the relationship. This occurs primarily due to manipulation, suggestion, and threats. A person’s tendency to become attached to others over time may also play a role. Furthermore, a syndrome such as hyper-empathy can influence the situation, causing a person to feel sorry for their partner regardless of their behavior.
  6. Psychopathic individuals are prone to a form of relationship known as “sugar dating.” In these, one partner, who is wealthier and typically significantly older than the second, provides the other with money, privileges, status, and other material benefits in exchange for company or intimacy. Moreover, a willingness to engage in such relationships is linked to psychopathy regardless of which role the person plays in them. It was also found that dissatisfaction in relationships is caused not so much by the presence, but by the difference in psychopathic predispositions between partners. Obviously, a non-psychopathic individual will be dissatisfied with a relationship with a psychopath. But this can work the same way for the psychopath themselves. As researchers believe, people with high scores in “dark traits” (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) are more satisfied in relationships with individuals like themselves.

Voluntarist, Bitarch