A new rigorous science is needed that will study discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice (DOLP) without reducing structurally oppressed persons to the very categories in which they are oppressed. (book – 34 chapters)
- Master-Slave Morality
- Cognitive Diversity
- Critique of Civilization
- Social Control
- Culture of Fear
- Reconceptualizing Discrimination
Academia in Catholic and Protestant Europe was historically long extremely closely associated with the Christian church (lectures, writing and books were mostly in Latin) and the question of the study of lies was therefore considered peripheral as technically belonging to the subdiscipline of Christian theology known as demonology, the study of demons and was therefore mostly disregarded elsewhere in academia. Truth and logic were regarded as divine in accordance with logocentric Christian theology and lies were therefore reversely regarded as demonic, diabolic and/or otherwise metaphysically evil.
The study of discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice (with the proposed acronym DOLP) came in focus with the emergence of the transdisciplinary academic field known as critical theory. Science has traditionally endeavored to understand the world while critical theorists rather attempt to understand precisely how the world is misunderstood in academia and elsewhere.
Although polyphony is doubtless vital in open society and liberal democracy in permitting many different perspectives and voices to become heard, no hard science has however yet developed that would study DOLP even irrespective of the vertical category of those affected. While surely perspectives are important, it really makes no sense to solely or primarily classify DOLP in accordance with how the victims are taxonomized or otherwise classified by either perpetrators of DOLP and/or by the victims themselves. This is so as even oppressed perspectives usually contain significant structural DOLP.
DOLP is structural when to varying degrees it is socially accepted and those very structures should be rigorously studied since these appear horizontally across and at least in part unlimited by vertical classifications of persons. Classifying persons vertically is very problematic yet seemingly often structurally unavoidable even when not based on DOLP as it may still be used for justifying and maintaining DOLP, although avoiding DOLP entirely still remains practically impossible. Thus should DOLP also be studied typologically (i.e. different types of DOLPs) and not only taxonomically in terms of how the victims of DOLP are vertically classified by victimizers, by themselves and/or by surrounding society which obviously is also important as this provides social and historical context.
A rigorous academic discipline of psemography (Greek meaning writing of lies) is therefore very much needed. The way victims of DOLP “are classified” and how clearly unnecessary DOLP is rationalized through classifications of persons are thus themselves very often structures of DOLP. Psemography therefore requires a new scientific terminology that would stand on its own even without identity politics and Master-Slave Morality. DOLP can and should be studied rigorously and the study of perspectives and how perspectives generally are structured by DOLP and by other factors should be studied by psemography as well.
Prejudice and other DOLPs tend to be directed against specifically vertically defined groups of persons. It is thus typically assumed that particular traits and/or behaviors are inherent to such persons and that may even be true to some extent or another and may be an exaggerated generalization (overgeneralization) which is a very common type of DOLP. However when particular traits are falsely attributed to the presumed collective embodiment of groups of persons such as through overgeneralization, then this is clearly physionomism, meaning roughly “antibodyism” in a wide sense. While in Western culture a distinction is typically made between body and mind, physionomism always transcends this dichotomy since it cannot even in Western culture be delimited in this way.
Bodies may be variously hated, detested, feared, envied, discriminated, murdered, enslaved, tormented and even collectively exterminated as physionomism takes different expressions in different cultures and in different historical eras. There is in fact a great amount of diversity in expressions of physionomism in cultures around the world. This tragic diversity needs to be far better understood than at present and really deserves and requires a far more rigorous scientific approach in understanding the very diverse phenomena that are physionomism worldwide.
Also, the term physionomism is really needed as a general term describing “antibodyism” in a wide sense as DOLPs tends to by physionomistic but are far from always so. While there is yes place and need for various more specialized taxonomizing vertical terms such racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, speciesism etc. – more general cover terms such as physionomism specifically and DOLP generally are also very much needed.
Taxonomism was formalized by Western academia such as famously by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century but very similar discursive phenomena appear in other cultures and eras as well. Taxonomism involves the formalization of categories of persons and appears in religions, ideologies, legal systems, scientific schemes, civilizations, cultures, subcultures and schools of philosophy. Belief in taxonomism is widespread worldwide and taxonomism as expressed in one’s culture’s own terms is socially accepted across human cultures around the world.
For example, many countries include attributed gender anatomy in civic identity cards and civic identity numbers. However, shoe size, cranial volume, genetic haplogroups and being left-handed or right-handed are in contrast not mentioned. Taxonomism is typically regarded as strange when appearing in other cultures and eras than one’s own, but taxonomism in a person’s own contemporary society is by definition widely socially accepted precisely as it is institutionalized and socially canonized indeed. Therefore taxonomism could be defined as socially formalized physionomism.
19th century academically canonized taxonomies include sex/sexuality/age, normality/functionality/pathology and class/race/species. Yet many forms of cognitive diversity have been scientifically measured in the scientific discipline of psychometrics (a subdiscipline of psychology that studies and statisticially measures cognitive abilities) without usually leading to socially established taxonomism or other forms of physionomism due to absence of formal politicization. Elaborate ideologies were however constructed around politically formalized taxonomic schemes whereby the categories were invested with great symbolic significance despite these taxonomized variations usually having quite limited explanatory value and otherwise in most contexts simply being functionally irrelevant.
A sub-person is a person who is not formally recognized as a person and despite being a person is legally or otherwise formally socially classified as less than a person. Historical examples of formalized categories of persons considered sub-persons include Untermenschen in Nazi Europe, non-human persons enslaved in the Animal Industry of Evil, embryos/fetuses who have already developed sentience, free non-human persons in so called “nature”, African chattel slaves in the Americas, human legal minors, Yezidis under the rule of Daesh and Western women prior to emancipation.
An organism with sentience is both person and individual while an organism without sentience is individual only. This would conceivably also involve sentient organisms in other parts of universe who under current legislation would doubtless be “legally” classified as sub-persons in current human supremacist judicial systems whether religious or secular were they to be encountered by human supremacist culture known as so called “civilization”.
When “members” of a certain vertical classificatory category of persons are formally “deemed” sub-persons by others, almost any conceivable atrocious cruelty somehow becomes conceivable. Being classified as a sub-person may entail being enslaved, owned, tormented, disciplined, and/or executed simply in the purported “interest” of socially/officially/legally/formally recognized persons. Thus universal emancipation requires legally recognizing all persons as persons entirely irrespective of capability for abstract reasoning which is typically held up as fig leaf for classifying persons as sub-persons. Such formal, legal recognition of all persons will for instance largely halt environmental destruction as free persons in so called “nature” will be recognized as persons with their own legitimate rights, liberties and territorial jurisdictions.
The notion of trans-ethnic purported “universalism” among humans alone as a vertically defined category of lifeforms historically originally emerged out of ethnic religion, but instead historically developed into a way of justifying religious imperialism, indeed completely and entirely contrary to the non-imperialist ethnic tribal religions. Due to this tragic legacy of religious imperialism is there still a very prevalent notion that “pan-human universalism” (which is actually a form of racial supremacist nationalism) is somehow superior to the non-imperialist universalism of traditional ethnic, tribal religions despite the fact that most religions are indeed ethnic tribal religions. Indeed, this attitude is part of the structural oppression against indigenous peoples by religious imperialism.
There is however little if any structural difference between “religions” and other similarly authoritative worldviews such as ideologies, philosophies, cultures, nationalisms, civilizations and so on. Such worldviews are invariably just as traditional “religions” prominently based upon central premises that just simply cannot be proven.
Islamism, Communism and Humanism are all very structurally similar in being modern, explicitly neo-imperialist political ideologies practicing pan-human religious imperialism and seeking worldwide domination in the name of the purportedly “superior” human “race”. It is rarely if at all recognized that these are forms of nationalism as based upon pan-human racist doctrines that structurally exclude non-human persons from what purports to be “universal” but is actually a form of racial supremacist nationalism in ideologically justifying hegemonic, structural racism against non-human persons. This is so as humans are now formally zoologically classified as the race (“subspecies”) homo sapiens sapiens and not merely the species homo sapiens as the so called “humanity” was originally classified in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus, the ideological father of modern racism. Linnaeus’ classification seems to have been strongly influenced by Christianity considering the fact that if non-anthropocentric evaluation were to have been applied, it is clear that there are multiple human species and even many more human subspecies considering the truly vast average anatomical and psychometric differences within the contemporary so called “humanity” which actually in zoological terms should be recognized as a genus, the homo genus albeit not “homogenous” at all. However, recognizing this fact would have been contrary to the religious teachings of virtually all religions including of course prominently Christianity. This fact is in no way negated by the ongoing evolutionary process of de-speciation among Human taxa of which diversity denying discourse is part and parcel.
The notion of individual rights was invented and developed by religiously extremely learned Christian intellectuals in late medieval Europe as an implicit inversion of obligations (Hebrew mitzvot, singular mitzvah) in Judaism but was until the 20th century known as natural rights and only late in the era of formalized inter-human racism became denoted with the openly racist term “human rights”. First, every claimed right is the reverse side of someone else’s obligation and this is so irrespective of whether the claimant to a right identifies as leftwing, rightwing or none of the above. In fact, the right not to go hungry was one of the first natural rights invented by Christian thinkers in medieval Europe which was a mere inversion of the absolute obligation in Rabbinic Judaism to feed the hungry in society, whether human or non-human.
Western “universalism” claims to be disembodied despite historically originating mostly in medieval Christian theology and despite supporting and justifying highly embodied racial supremacism of the human “race”. Para-Christian terminology such as modern, secular, universal etc. is thus used to justify forms of clearly racist pan-human nationalism almost entirely born out of Euro-Christian religious imperialism.
This pervasive heritage of racism and supremacism should not preclude the possibility or even necessity of a very different universalism where indigenous European normative human primates are no longer the given norm. The notion of natural rights should thus be rehabilitated while freeing it from the clearly racist and supremacist associations of Euro-human normativity. The question of ethico-legal axioms (rights, obligations, liberties, principles etc.) is one that must be applied not only with regard to human persons but also crucially with to regard non-human persons and increasingly equally so. The notion of “human rights” is not only objectively racist but also objectively absurd as the so called “human rights” can be exercised to varying degrees by non-human persons as well.
The religiously derived notion that human carnal diversity must be demeaned through a socially constructed, idealized, normative fictional so called “humanity” (which is anything but homogenous) is now however premised on the notion that it is legitimate to oppress someone due to taxonomic classificatory differentiation as indeed can be seen in both Nazism and Humanism. There is thus no structural difference to speak of in this regard between Nazism and Humanism which both very similarly to each other – openly condone severely physionomistically oppressing those classified as being outside of the racial supremacist taxon of the day.
The study of physionomism cannot however reasonably be divorced from the study of zoology, including especially human zoology yet without however any recourse to either undue biological determinism such as in Nazism or similarly undue social determinism such as in Communism.
Physionomism is however about how persons are structurally misunderstood by reducing sentient bodies to various fallacies, categories, overgeneralizations and predictions. Thus, most anthropologically documented normative prohibitions on sexual relations such as monogamy, endogamy, heterosexism and endoageism have most probably originally emerged out of fear of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Many pre-modern humans who contracted STD would thus in many cases have believed that contracting STD was divine punishment for disregarding prevailing sexual norms of particular historical social contexts.
Most human racism is directed against non-human persons and few would deny that there is some biological basis to pervasive human fears of Serpent persons and Spider persons. However, such very common physionomistic phobias can usually be cured through cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Inter-human racism is probably rooted in reactions to divergent scents as derived from excretions from either the surface and/or open cavities of human bodies. Human bodily scents clearly have a vast influence on how humans interact and perceive each other when in direct social contact IRL so therefore this should have some foundational influence on socially constructed inter-human physionomistic behaviors in particular human cultures.
The most common form of inter-human racism is preference for one’s own genetic group. However, there is also the reverse phenomenon of preferring another or several other genetic groups than one’s own. Thus both many advocates and many opponents of inter-human racism may suffer from actually very similar types of pathological physionomism. Various semiotic systems of signification also socially normalize, justify and discursively reinforce various forms of pathological physionomism. This could quite likely be successfully preventively treated by significantly exposing very young children to scents of various human genetic groups either naturally or artificially so.
Physionomism should thus be regarded as a spectrum of medical conditions and extreme forms of physionomism such as racial hatred should even be considered as relatively severe psychiatric conditions. Various treatments may be helpful such as CBT; early exposure to scents, innovative social behavioral training (here abbreviated SBT) in socially learning not to perform DOLP through role play, filming behaviors and then critically studying those clips, showing short films enacting DOLP behavior and creating awareness among participants of how they often unintentionally perform structural DOLP.
Various sexual phobias may be treated through therapeutic intercourse with highly trained sex workers. Homophobia may thus be treated through same-sex sexual interaction with such highly trained sex workers. It may for instance be preventively useful for adolescent boys to engage in formalized sexual interaction with each other or with highly trained sex workers as intended to remove irrational fears and thus prevent development of such irrational and clearly very socially detrimental phobias. Innovative forms of SBT intended to de-learn DOLP really needs to be performed on the entire human population but are especially important for school-age children, prospective parents, students and teachers.
7. Master-Slave Morality
Master Morality claims that might is right while Slave Morality conversely claims that weak is right. However, both assumptions are highly problematic and partially fallacious. Sometimes it is true that might is right as surely most contemporary historically aware humans would agree that it was indeed ethically justified for the Red Army of the totalitarian Soviet state to forcibly liberate the Auschwitz concentration camp, an institution which itself was clearly obviously founded in extreme Master Morality. However, it should be pointed out that the Red Army only liberated the human prisoners and not the captive non-human persons there who suffered torture known as medical experimentation as Nazi German law required that medical experiments first be conducted on non-human persons and only afterwards on enslaved so called Untermenschen.
It could certainly be argued that career criminals are “subordinated rebellious persons” who are “structurally oppressed” by the socially normative state machinery, however most would agree that crime is not necessarily justified even though criminals usually are weaker and less powerful than their “structural oppressors” in the police, judiciary and prison system. Thus should it not be automatically presumed that might is right or conversely for that matter that weak is right. It is also most peculiar in modern society that Master Morality is usually justified by recourse to exercise of weak is right on the democratic left (“power of the weak”) and Slave Morality is reversely but very similarly usually justified through recourse to exercise of might is right on the democratic right (“liberty is natural”).
Beyond the democratic political spectrum, both Nazis and Communists justify their exercise of extreme forms of Master Morality by claiming that they are structurally economically oppressed by purportedly “parasitical” Jews and Capitalists respectively. Also, both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism claim that Jews are a structurally oppressive group that is structurally oppressing non-Jews through a financial conspiracy intended to physically destroy non-Jews.
The study of DOLP is usually founded in Master-Slave Morality that reproduces unintended DOLP despite the intention to oppose unnecessary DOLP and the reliance on doctrinal Slave Morality is hence especially conducive to reproducing DOLP through nominal opposition to DOLP.
The contemporary Western paradigm of “diversity” exhibits a condition of being hyper-critical vis-à-vis many culturally European social patterns and especially so involving structural physionomism. However, despite its intention to oppose European normativity, this mostly empty “paradigm of diversity” is of course simply that very European normativity itself. While rightly hyper-critical with regard to many European cultural and social patterns, an attitude that in an earlier era was expressed through hyper-critical attitudes towards many social and cultural patterns of non-European human cultures, now there is rather a problem of not being sufficiently critical of very negative social phenomena in non-European human cultures in actually uncritically accepting DOLPs in the name of “cultural diversity”. The problem is thus in familiar Eurocentric fashion reversed rather than resolved.
The current mostly hollow “paradigm of diversity” is premised on the anthropological fieldwork method known as cultural relativism which proposes that anthropological fieldwork should seek to avoid judging other cultures by the standards of the anthropologist’s own culture. While this is certainly wise and advisable in the context of anthropological fieldwork, it is in contrast completely inappropriate and truly inadvisable indeed as a political doctrine in liberal democracy. All political issues are cultural and so public debate must clearly therefore be open to members of all ethnic groups although physionomism and other forms of DOLP should be identified, studied as well as preempted through education, training, therapy, prevention and treatment.
Just as not all diversity in normative European culture is good so is not all diversity in other human cultures good either. So what will happen with the still mostly hollow “paradigm of diversity”? Currently the paradigm of diversity in Europe has really very little content aside from collaboration with Muslim political extremism and some nominal limited tolerance towards same-sex sexual relations. Democratic multiculturalism is however ultimately incompatible with the modern totalitarian political ideology of Islamism which actually destroys open society, liberal democracy and indeed coexistence itself.
Therefore a very different paradigm of diversity is needed, one that will crucially include non-human diversity in opposing physionomism specifically and DOLP generally rather than exclusively on the basis of how the victims of DOLP are taxonomized and otherwise vertically classified by themselves, by victimizers and by others. Cultural relativism while clearly valid and important as a method for fieldwork in anthropology should have no place whatsoever in politics. Although it is true that cultural relativism can be used to oppose DOLP, it can equally be used for justifying DOLP in the name of “culture”. DOLP however is a diverse global phenomenon that needs to be scientifically much better understood and rigorously so. Cultural relativism that justifies physionomism in the name of “cultural difference” is thus simply merely another form of DOLP.
Humans typically argue in certain basic “religious” categories whereby the speaker “himself” is implicitly identified as intrinsically virtuous while the opponents are all sinners and sinful. Thus is it typically presumed that prejudice is an intrinsic trait of the other but not of oneself. This seems to be in part genetically founded behavior but may still be socially transcended despite the fact that the self-identification as “good” seems to be psychologically vital for the mental health of human persons native to modern societies. Yet it is highly problematic indeed precisely since this legitimizes DOLP.
Therefore, there needs to be psychological/educational treatment/training that makes it psychologically easier to spot and acknowledge DOLP in oneself and not just in others. It is currently technologically impossible to avoid all forms of DOLP and therefore technology needs to be developed and subsequently mobilized that will further facilitate the avoidance of DOLP.
DOLP is not just in others, it is in oneself and the very acknowledgement of this basic condition is vital indeed in scientifically studying DOLP even for the researcher herself. However, just because there is some biological basis to physionomism does not mean that it is necessarily unavoidable as what is avoidable does constantly change as access to forms of knowledge and technology emerges and develops. Also, partial biological influence should not be confused with biological determinism.
Speech in the name of innocence is of course not limited to individual persons but this is also typically the terminology of inter-group conflict between humans. Innocence is the state of not being guilty of accusations leveled either against a person or against a collectivity of persons. Being oppressed is however not a state of innocence as is typically presumed in hegemonic contemporary Western forms of thought as influenced by Intersectionality (a form of academic Marxism) which in the manner of physionomism typically privileges vertical taxonomic perspectives over horizontal typological patterns of DOLP.
Rather, the state of innocence has nothing to do with speech of the respective victims of false accusations or being subordinated or superordinated as it merely reflects not being guilty of accusations falsely leveled against an individual person or a collectivity of persons as innocence can indeed be literally speechless. Therefore the question of innocence and the question of justness are not the same. Justness is about opposing DOLP in for example choosing the lesser evil in a seemingly inescapable dilemma between two choices of DOLP, yet DOLP is a behavioral spectrum which means that DOLP cannot easily be reduced to the secular eschatological “Armageddon battle” of good versus bad. DOLP can be performed by human persons as a nominally individual choice or preference but it is even then usually part of collectivized behavior of the human herd animals. Thus often, some forms of DOLP may be necessitated in order so as to avoid an even worse form of DOLP or in the case of military self-defense – necessarily and legitimately avoiding a lesser evil through a greater evil. The choice of agency is however more often than not between different forms of DOLP but rather between DOLP and non-DOLP.
Rather than an “intersection” (i.e. literally a Cross), DOLP are instead as seen from the outside a socially constructed series of interconnected, mostly structural social behavioral patterns functioning as a global cultural panorama for confirming one’s own falsely presumed “state of innocence”. Thus civilization has two modes of confirming its own self-identity as purportedly “advanced”. One is spatial and confirms its state of purportedly being “advanced” by pointing at other human cultures as purportedly “primitive”. This stereotype is very similarly leveled against non-human persons and their cultures as a way of upholding human racial supremacism against non-human persons. The other mode is temporal and confirms its own sense of purportedly being “advanced” by pointing at the state of earlier historical periods. Nazism would thus claim superiority by unfavorably comparing non-European human cultures with European human cultures just as contemporary Humanism (which is no less racist and supremacist than Nazism) does compare itself with historical Nazism so as to justify its own similarly hegemonic racial supremacism.
Substantive dialogue therefore requires de-learning the very false presumption that oneself is void of physionomism and that therefore the sole abode of physionomism is in the other. Battling physionomism often takes the form of shaming whereby the person exhibiting physionomism is publically shamed. This is problematic as the defensive response typically reinforces physionomism in such a person. Rather than effectively accusing persons of NOT being void of physionomism, the educational challenge is to make humans open to criticism of structural DOLP as DOLP is indeed neither sin nor destiny but rather structural behavior.
As humans are Herd Animals, human language is structured into singular (purported type) and plural (examples of purported type). Humans are genetically unable to argue and reason without tribally thinking in group versus group because this is part of the genetically based tribal human zoology. It was absolutely vital in tribal Stone Age society to make distinctions both between one’s own group and other human and non-human groups as well as understanding the surrounding environment such as distinguishing edibility as pertaining to different plants but also early identifying potential dangers from predators.
A human person in pre-agricultural tribal society had historically no real possibility of surviving outside of being part of a group and this made group membership vital indeed as tribal membership was mostly based on ancestry and/or marriage. Human discourse is therefore about justifying both competition between groups and solidarity within groups which taken together is really part of the same process of evolutionary specialization now known as economic history. In fact, solidarity within a group and that group’s competition with yet other groups are really two sides of the same coin. Specialization is therefore the evolutionary process whereby the singular is pluralized. The necessity of surviving requires pluralization for humans because pluralization is a requirement for survival for the simple reason that humans are herd animals who cannot practically survive alone and hence the necessity of group think. Therefore if a human person ceases to think/behave in terms of one particular “group” (e.g. the “Aryan race”), s/he is virtually bound to think/behave in terms of yet some other “group” (e.g. the “Human race”) and entirely irrespectively so whether that “group” is wider or narrower than the prior group and irrespectively so of whether any of these groups include some non-human persons or completely exclude all non-human persons from the so called “humanity”. Why? Humans are Herd Animals; this is wired into human brains.
The term equality has a very clear meaning in both historical modern and contemporary modern usage; it means being treated equally to indigenous European working-age men with a heterosexual lifestyle. The very demand for equality reinforces the norm of that fictional normality that is not normal at all but is rather a myth and especially so considering that virtually no one completely conforms to any such normative anatomy/cognition.
As the nominally anti-physionomistic demand for equality itself is entirely discursively embedded in physionomism – the term equality needs to be deconstructed in being rehabilitated from its current physionomistic associations.
One common interpretation of equality is that it means group sameness and is therefore used for intra-human diversity denial in pretending as if the rigorous science of psychometry did not even exist. Hence the unsubstantiated argument goes that all intra-human, same-age, average psychometric group difference in the absence of diagnosed pathology is entirely the result of pervasive oppression. “Justice” for diversity deniers is all about statistics in using arguments similar to those used by the German Nazis against German Jews for being on average statistically vastly over-represented among academic and socio-economic high-achievers despite being severely structurally oppressed and discriminated against in German society at the time. (Genetically Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ 110 as compared to the average IQ 100 of indigenous North Europeans.) The Nazis thus claimed that the purportedly “morally inferior Jews” on average achieved much better entirely due to structurally discriminating, oppressing and dominating ethnic Germans and by constituting an invisible conspiratorial global structure of domination. Average statistical differentiation in achievement is thus then and now entirely explained away by recourse to physionomistic identity politics.
Rather, cognitive equality should be about contextually treating persons of all taxa equally on the basis of their individual cognition and avoiding unduly discriminating them due to their respective bodies. This simply means understanding what cognitive capacity that is relevant in any particular context and treating others equally according the relevant cognitive ability. There are however anatomic differences such as physical strength that may be relevant for the execution of cognitive abilities such as are performed by carpenters and professional athletes. Yet many may not understand that the carpenter and the professional athlete simply use their bodies to execute cognitive tasks.
Cognitive equality is thus not based on an imaginary normative deified former body in Christianity as cognitive equality is rather about treating each person equally in accordance with the individual cognitive capacity that is relevant for the situation in any given particular context.
Coexistence is a much touted term yet its meaning is seldom understood. In Europe, coexistence is often misunderstood as either mere toleration or mere acceptance, yet neither mere toleration nor mere acceptance is enough to ensure coexistence. Coexistence rather involves relating relevantly to differences. They key to achieving coexistence is about understanding 1) what differences that should be accepted, 2) what differences that should be tolerated and 3) what differences that should not be accepted at all.
If this is not clear, then there is no sustainable basis for coexistence in open society and might even lead to takeover by a modern totalitarian political ideology such as Islamism. The purpose of liberal democracy in open society should however be to continually openly discuss this trisection. The confusion arises from the assumption that this is a binary when this rather should be recognized as a trinary.
E.g. while Islamic veiling can be an individual choice that at least nominally should thus be respected, it is however in most cases a form of socially enforced physionomism in publically marking girls and women as intended to control sexualities of females. While a free individual choice of wearing a headgear should in principle be accepted, involuntary veiling should not even be tolerated. A headgear and other clothing have no semiotic or social meaning in and of itself and rather whether it should be accepted, tolerated or not tolerated depend on the social function of any particular headgear in any particular social context. While a truly freely chosen veil might be physically indistinguishable from an enforced, socially involuntary veil, it is the social function that it is the real issue here and not the textiles. Merely because rape and ordinary sexual intercourse may involve the same physical body movements – rape and other sexual intercourse are obviously not the same and so are not genuinely continually freely chosen veiling and socially enforced veiling either. However, if it is absolutely necessary in a society to ban voluntary veiling in order to fight involuntary veiling, then clearly the freedom from veiling is more important than the entitlement to dress as one pleases for whatever reasons.
Also, modern totalitarianism destroys coexistence and so totalitarian ideologies including Ba’athism, Communism, Fascism, Gadaffism, Islamism, Juche, Kahanism and Nazism should simply not be tolerated at all. The very notion that permanent sustainable coexistence can be achieved with a modern totalitarian political ideology such as Islamism if that ideology becomes dominant is absolutely baseless and indeed completely preposterous since its goal is first dominating and then by various means eliminating everyone else within the so called “humanity”. Totalitarianism should thus neither be tolerated nor accepted since destroying coexistence and diversity is the very purpose of totalitarianism which variously seeks religious homogeneity, political homogeneity, ethnic homogeneity, social homogeneity and economic homogeneity.
The conception of bodily sameness is derived from Christian theology thereby all human bodies somehow are reducible to the former body of a now world-famous Pharisaic rabbi who lived some 2000 years ago in Roman Israel. Christianity thus tends to argue that the Hellenistic disembodied logos (i.e. purportedly disembodied idea) was united with the former body of that rabbi. However, the identity of bodily sameness is also the basis of taxonomizing racism in modernity both as between humans and as by human animals against non-human persons.
Sameness is usually touted in physionomistic identity politics as the presumed logos of homogeneity whether by appeal to Master Morality as in White racism or to Slave Morality such as in White feminism. Physionomistic identity politics in modernity thus takes two main forms, namely Master Morality in the name of hegemony and Slave Morality in the name of opposition to hegemony. In both types of cases is purported sameness the basis for physionomistic identity politics. Physionomism is typically conceptualized as a hegemonic relationship between powerful and less powerful and this is often so, as nominally anti-physionomistic identity politics often takes a physionomistic character and physionomism is generally socially accepted if articulated in opposition to yet other forms of physionomism and DOLP. Physionomistic views articulated in opposition to yet other forms of physionomism tend to be counter-productive since these reinforce a dichotomy of conflict rather the deconstructing it. The bottom line however is that physionomism is wrong whether in the context of Slave Morality or in the context of Master Morality.
This presumed imaginary sameness that physionomistic identity politics refers back to is illusory and simply does not exist at all. Vertical classification of person is entirely dependent on some anatomical or cognitive trait being held up as the criterion for classificatory inclusion, in other words a so called “common denominator”. The vertical category that someone is classified with hence entirely depends on which presumed “sameness” that is held up as this common categorical denominator. The fact is rather that this purported sameness does not exist but is rather human primitive behavior from the Stone Age whereby an extremely primitive system is used for distinguishing between different persons. The challenge is thus to see and recognize persons horizontally and not just primarily as members of vertical categories.
For example there are no such things as “homosexuality” or “heterosexuality” or at least not so the way that it is presumed that these exist. First, nobody controls whom s/he is attracted to. Rather these are socially constructed identities and “general wishes” rather than absolute, exclusive orientations. No purportedly exclusively “heterosexual” male can know for sure that he has not been attracted to a transgender woman (such as an anatomical male in female clothing) so the hypothesis of heterosexuality has remained unverified and heterosexuality is therefore a myth that simply remains unproven. Similarly is the dichotomy of sex/gender simply baseless since a person could be classified as male or female in so many different respects as for example:
Academic gender, Advertisement gender, Age gender, Alcoholic gender, Anal gender, Arm gender, Behavioral gender, Body breadth gender, Body hair gender, Body length gender, Brain gender, Breast gender, Bureaucratic gender, Buttocks gender, Ceremonial gender, Child gender, Chromosomal gender, Civic gender, Civilian gender, Class gender, Clerical gender, Clothes gender, Cohabitation gender, Communication gender, Consumer gender, Cosmetic gender, Criminal gender, Cultural gender, Dating gender, Decision-making gender, Drug abuse gender, Ear gender, Eating gender, Economic gender, Educational gender, Emotional gender, Entrepreneurial gender, Eschatological gender, Essentialist gender, Ethnic gender, Exercise gender, Eye gender, Facial form gender, Facial hair gender, Foot size gender, Friendship gender, Functional gender, Gaming gender, Generational gender, Genital gender, Hair gender, Hand size gender, Head form gender, Head hair gender, Health gender, Hearing gender, Household gender, Identity gender, Ideological gender, Infant gender, Initiation gender, Insight gender, Interactive gender, Internal organs gender, Interpersonal gender, Intuitive gender, Jewelry gender, Knowledge gender, Learning gender, Management gender, Marital gender, Marketing gender, Medical gender, Metaphysical gender, Military gender, Military uniform gender, Motivation gender, Mouth/lip gender, Muscle gender, Nail gender, Naturalized gender, Neurological gender, Nose gender, Occupational gender, Odor gender, Online gender, Parental gender, Participatory gender, Pedagogic gender, Perceptual gender, Performative gender, Personality gender, Photographic gender, Piercing gender, Plastic surgery gender, Political gender, Power gender, Procreative gender, Professional gender, Promotional gender, Prosthetic gender, Psychiatric gender, Psychoanalytic gender, Psychometric gender, Psychotherapeutic gender, Racial/Species gender, Rationality gender, Reasoning gender, Recruitment gender, Religious gender, Residential gender, Retired gender, Ritual gender, Role gender, School uniform gender, Scientific gender, Seductive gender, Self-concept gender, Self-control gender, Sex work gender, Sexuality gender, Shoes gender, Situational gender, Slavery gender, Spiritual gender, Sports gender, Stomach gender, Subconscious gender, Submission gender, Surgical gender, Temperamental gender, Temporal gender, Temporary gender, Thigh gender, Transportation gender, Vacation gender, Verbal gender, Virtual gender, Vision gender, Visionary gender, Visual gender, Voice gender, Waist gender, Work gender, Workplace gender; etc. in different cultures.
A different system of classification of persons is needed – one that recognizes horizontal aspects in addition to vertical aspects and one that is based on verifiable statistics rather than on primitive taxonomization. Horizontal classification means focusing on what is truly relevant to a particular situation rather than necessarily on seemingly authoritative vertical similarities between persons that are rather merely perceived “common denominator”. Gynephilia and androphilia should rather be seen as a statistical spectrum and psychometric testing can determine the individual placement on a scale from 0 to 100 as on the Kinsey scale.
Such test results will of course also depend on other similar sexual factors that are likewise measurable by scale such as age, race, perceived beauty etc. as depending on the pictorial samples psychometrically used for measuring individual reactions. Thus classification should not be based on an illusory sameness but rather on individual scientifically verifiable divergence as classification should be individual and relevant to context. Classification should not merely be done for its own sake but rather with the purpose of increasingly understanding and preventing DOLP in therefore facilitating the handling and resolution of real issues in context.
Religion is an intrinsic and inherent part of the human zoological condition and entirely irrespective of whether this very zoological phenomenon is referred to as religion, ideology, philosophy, culture, nationalism, civilization, weltanschauung or something else. However the Christian world has historically always been bisected into Christianity (i.e. Christian religion) and Christendom (i.e. Christian civilization) and this political binary became legally formalized through the famous letter of Duo sunt as penned by Pope Gelasius I to Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I in the year 494 CE.
Since Christian religion is based upon belief in divinity of a long since deceased Roman-era Pharisaic rabbi; leaving this belief for Christians means ceasing to be Christian. Yet merely because a Christian person in Christendom leaves Christianity does not necessarily mean that s/he leaves the social and cultural matrix that is Christendom.
Negating corporal existence of divinity is a form of religious expression known as apophatic theology which denies the physical existence of divinity and which has developed into what is now known as atheism. Yet atheism and other similar forms of purportedly “post-religious” rationalism are based upon a Christian worldview whereby divinity can be determined through the Christian logos, whereby the believer in Atheism implicitly assumes that the Christian logos can disprove the existence of divinity.
Yet, most scientists would agree that the assumption that there is no life in other parts of universe borders on the impossible as belief in invisible, non-corporeal divinity is precisely belief in extraterrestrial life. If deity and reincarnation actually exist (two beliefs found in all world religions) then these are clearly biological and zoological phenomena that if in existence should be studied through the methods of natural science.
What is often described as secular, purportedly religiously neutral culture is actually expression of Christendom. This is variously known as secular, modern, universal etc. which hides the fact that this is merely for the most part an expression of continued semiotic imperialism on the part of Christendom.
Christendom (Christian civilization) is in fact no less structured by Christian metaphysics than is Christianity (Christian religion) itself. Christian metaphysics has long structured what is possible to express in the purportedly “secular”, “modern” and “universal” civilization of superficially secularized Christendom. What is it that Norwegians and Portuguese share in common culturally? What is it that Belarusians and the Irish people share aside from similar religious practices? The hegemony of those Para-Christian structures is upheld precisely because “secular” persons in Christendom are not aware that these very structures are expressions of Christian metaphysics.
However, understanding the pervasive influence of religious “metaphysics” on purportedly post-religious cultural formations is vitally important for a science of psemography. This is not to say that such influence is intrinsically and inherently bad, always constitutes DOLP and should all be publically exorcised but rather that this needs to be better understood in the context of the study of physionomism specifically and DOLP generally.
The phenomenon of iconoclasm is one with deep historical roots in Christian and culture and date as far back as to henotheist Biblical Judaism with its intense antagonism towards so called “idolatry”, yet iconoclasm as “modernized” in its traditional “religious” form is now once more increasingly prevalent in the cultural world of Islamdom. Iconoclasm in so called “secular” society is not only directed against images such as pornography but usually against ideas. It is thus typical to add the Greek suffix -ism to something to denote that it really ought to be exorcised although the same suffix can also be added for the purpose of articulating a particular worldview.
The problem with adding an -ism suffix although often important and pedagogic is that it is simplistic and does not deal with the issue of the prejudice brought by the criticizer, namely that critique of DOLP usually reproduces DOLP. Therefore iconoclasm is insufficient in and of itself. Also iconoclasm is what has brought about totalitarian ideologies. In fact totalitarianism is the ultimate iconoclasm and modern dictatorship is the very art of iconoclasm by government.
Hence iconoclasm is in and of itself extremely insufficient for counteracting physionomism and other DOLPs. Rather, DOLP is part of zoology but that certainly does not make all forms of DOLP unavoidable as what is practically avoidable is determined by historical conditions such as discourse and technology.
Merely condemning physionomism and embarrassing those who express physionomism is therefore quite insufficient for dealing with the question of physionomism although such acts of condemnation as intended to induce embarrassment are currently usually necessary in the absence of effective applied methods for counteracting physionomism other than through discursive iconoclasm.
Physionomism and DOLP are part of human condition although particular forms are certainly avoidable. There are at least two attitudes towards one’s own prejudice. One is open to changing opinion once someone else respectfully explains that this is prejudice. The pathological minority will however typically not admit so under any circumstances and will stick to the prejudice no matter what. If the physionomism is non-pathological then it can dealt with through education and respectful dialogue but if the prejudice is pathological then some kind of treatment is needed although such treatment should in most cases be voluntary and not coercive.
Victims of physionomism and members of emancipatory movements are often astounded by the longevity of particular forms of physionomism that appear in evolved forms generation after generation. However, the question of how physionomism is transmitted and maintained in generation after generation is usually not addressed.
Physionomism and other forms of prejudice among humans are typically transmitted through discourse by “authorities” such as by parents, religious leaders, journalists, politicians and hired communication specialists but also through peers such as social media. In many cases is it a problem of ignorance, but this is not always so. In order to effectively counteract physionomism specifically and DOLP generally is it not only vital to understand the psychology of transmission, but also how transmission can be prevented. Therefore in non-pathological cases, education in psemography is sufficient while in pathological cases treatment is necessary.
Since this is very much a political issue, prevention policy therefore needs to be developed that provides fully funded education and treatment as of individual need. To think of this as either solely a problem of lack of education or alternatively as a pathology alone is however far too simplistic. Rather both education and treatment are vitally needed and it is important to understand that physionomism may be pathological when effective education no longer works.
Do “ill persons” and “healthy persons” constitute two different mutually exclusive vertical categories? Of course not! Pathology is a spectrum of degree that all persons are part of. Therefore pathology needs to be deconstructed and re-conceptualized as simply descriptions of recurring situations rather than as now collectivizing naturalization by lumping individual persons through some common denominators. The performative act of diagnosis tends to stigmatize socially and negatively affect in an attributed diagnosis even becoming an individual identity.
Although pathology is inherent to and intrinsic to life, the act of diagnosis as currently performed is implicitly an act of deeming someone a sub-person in at least some respect. Therefore, the act and performance of diagnosis is something highly ethically problematic. While treating illness is obviously important, this needs to be done in ways that will not include those other problematic aspects such as taxonomism, identity formation, social stigmatization and social exclusion. While it is zoologically rather understandable that pathology may strike fear and it is true that some fears are warranted, irrational fears of pathology however are something that itself needs to be dealt with through education and treatment.
Most so called “adult” humans think of normality as a given. That’s because it is socially constructed and culturally produced and reproduced. What is normal in any given human society varies greatly not only between different cultures but also between different historical periods. Purportedly “secular” iconoclasts typically attack aspects of the normality of the present yet what is needed is an enhanced and deepened understanding of how physionomism specifically and DOLP generally appear differently in different times and different cultures. What also needs to be far better understood is how physionomism specifically and DOLP generally are normalized and naturalized in particular settings and contexts. Therefore, psemography needs not only be studied but also taught in schools to all students.
Normality is a form of social control that seeks to ensure that members of a culture/society adhere to the rules promulgated by a culture/society in a particular setting in time and space. Thus appeals to normality can be used to either support or oppose physionomism and DOLP. However, using the very structure of the argument of appeal to normality is problematic since appeal to normality is also used in favor of physionomism and DOLP.
Therefore, physionomism should be opposed for being physionomistic and DOLP should likewise be opposed per se while recognizing that DOLP is still only partially avoidable. While it is obviously convenient to use the appeal to normality argument against forms of physionomism and DOLP that are no longer considered socially polite, the problem is that the appeal to normality argument does not oppose physionomism and DOLP per se. The appeal to normality argument may superficially seem emancipatory by appealing to a real or purported consensus, but it is actually very reactionary and oppressive and basically exists in the absence of terminology that allows you to oppose physionomism and DOLP as such.
Rather, so called “normality” is the very social vehicle that permits and perpetuates physionomism and DOLP in making it socially acceptable. Therefore, normality itself should not only be questioned through iconoclasm as is commonly done but should also scientifically be questioned and historicized. Education should thus help students learn to historicize normality and identify how physionomism and DOLP are historically produced and reinforced in their own societies/cultures.
Liberal democracy as a social phenomenon is ethically ambiguous in this regard since it both reinforces/reproduces normality yet allows it to be fundamentally questioned. The dichotomy iconoclasm/normality therefore needs to be substantially deconstructed as this binary in fact perpetuates the very dichotomy between physionomism/DOLP that is considered socially acceptable on the one hand and physionomism/DOLP that is not considered socially acceptable on the other.
It is precisely due to the lack of a rigorous scientific discipline of psemography that liberal-democratic open societies find it difficult to discuss issues pertaining to socially accepted physionomism/DOLP irrespective of whether it is a social norm of a minority or of a human so called “majority”.
Western taxonomism typically expects that purportedly individual identities should conform to established taxonomic schemes. Also the general attitude towards identities is uncritical to say the least. In fact, identities can be very much physionomistic or otherwise constitute DOLP.
For example, identifying as say “White” or “Human” would typically although surely not necessarily so involve physionomistic ideology. The state of being subjected to physionomistic oppression may also involve physionomistic identities of those oppressed that may serve to perpetuate physionomistic oppression. Such physionomistic identities of those subjected to physionomistic oppression may thus be part of the structure of physionomistic oppression itself.
Physionomistic identities whether among perpetrators or victims should thus simply be abandoned as both contribute to the very enactment and performance of physionomism. Although everyone should obviously feel free to design, choose or deselect her own respective identities, this certainly does not imply that every choice of identity is good. Hence, identities should not be automatic but rather ethically relevant. If an identity is not ethically relevant, why keep it at all? Physionomistic identities are in fact very much part of physionomism and so if physionomistic identities in most cases were dismantled, then that would clearly serve to undermine physionomism.
Identities express human herd behavior as identities connect a human person to a particular category of persons. Identities can be freely chosen but identities are usually not freely chosen and are basically the same thing as trauma. An identity is in most cases simply the performative act of naming a particular trauma. A trauma can thus be effectively treated and removed altogether by individually de-identifying with the resulting “identity”. In a clinical setting this involves the patient letting go of the identity that hold her down by acknowledging that the trauma is simply an identity that can thus be entirely abandoned and therefore effectively left behind.
While it could certainly be argued that identities are entirely redundant so that human beings should not have any identities whatsoever, yet this would probably be a mistake. For example identifying as Animal, can give rise to an ethically important solidarity with captive, enslaved and tormented persons in the Animal industry of Evil. Also identities of Fourth World peoples such as Indigenous Australians, the First Nations of Canada and Jews around the world are clearly not redundant as they help preserve the rich and diverse heritage of indigenous peoples around the world. However, identities should indeed be critically investigated and individual persons should either deconstruct or remove an existing problematic identity altogether. Physionomistic identities should simply be deleted, this is the only right thing to do, yet non-physionomistic identities have an important role to play in universal emancipation and the non-physionomistic ethics of the future.
As a non-chosen identity is basically a trauma, individual persons should critically investigate their own identities so as to determine their respective ethical relevance. An ethically ambiguous identity may thus become both ethically relevant for the world and individually healthy through an intellectual process of self-deconstruction.
Modern political ideologies typically conflate nature with justice and view aberrations from this presumed “justice” as aberrations from nature. Notions such as justice, power and wisdom as advocated by those worldviews are hence implicity considered mere expressions of “nature”.
“Nature” is thus said to justify human racial supremacist hegemony over itself. Nature according to the modern political ideologies authorizes its own subjection, depreciation and even destruction. The apparent illogicality of this argument is however not the main problem but rather the process of naturalization of physionomism itself is the real underlying problem here. The appeal to nature argument is however part of physionomism itself and although the appeal to nature argument can be used against physionomism as well as in favor of physionomism, nature is neither just nor unjust. The state of nature is not ideal but the state of cruel captivity is worse.
What are known as “rights” and “liberties” are rather expressive of zoological needs in particular societal environments and from that follows that therefore persons of fellow animal taxa also obviously have zoological needs. New zoological needs develop and depend on environment and technology. Cat persons and Dog persons have zoological need for vaccination just as Human persons have precisely the same zoological need.
Nature is not natural and so are not nihilism and justice either. Currently the choice is between cruel nature and cruel captivity where the former is almost always a better choice. There needs to be a third choice namely reengineering nature through innovative means of conservation in therefore creating a welfare state that will include non-human persons as full citizens.
Historical waves of emancipation have emancipated one group after another, all of them humans but far from all humans have been formally emancipated as legal minors, sentient embryos and sentient fetuses remain non-emancipated. Also there are sexual minorities among Humans who remain non-emancipated.
Universal emancipation including emancipation of non-human persons should usher in a new era in democratic politics whereby politics is no longer an intra-human zero sum game but rather focused on coexistence of interlaid habitats. There is much suffering in nature and as technology resolves most human problems should political attention be focused on mistreatment and suffering in nature. Is it possible to reengineer nature and conservation so as to provide education and healthcare for free non-human persons in nature? Certainly the goal should be to develop models towards that end. In fact, physionomism exists among non-human persons as well and these should be crucial issues for a rigorous science of psemography to in fact constructively deal with. Psemography should thus be very much concerned with devising models, solutions and technologies that will allow for phasing out more and more DOLP. Psemography should thus not be limited to studying problems but should be devoted to creatively and sustainably solving those very problems.
It is considered normal in politics to blame political rivals. Racists are no different from others in this respect, including nominal so called “anti-racists” who typically support or condone Nazism against non-human persons. The idea of the persons holding prejudice being “sinners” in a secular sense is problematic as it would be difficult to find an aware and knowledgeable human person who does not hold prejudice. It’s not as if the so called “humanity” is divided into sinful oppressor and pious oppressed but rather that these are behaviors that can be altered through education, training, therapy and treatment.
Therefore to seek Christian-style bad conscience and remorse is quite insufficient since the goal should rather be to seek behavioral change through education, training, therapy and treatment. This is not to say that scapegoating is entirely ineffective but rather that it is not even close to sufficiently effective and on the contrary is largely counterproductive. If a person is accused of belonging to a particular category of bigots, then the typical response will probably be defensive in expressing angry denial.
Rather, the so called “we” are all involved in the performance of physionomism and DOLP. The human world is not divided into sinful bigots and pious non-bigots but the differentiation is rather about specific prejudice and how it is variously statistically distributed in populations and also variously expressed among individual persons.
Another serious problem with scapegoating is the implied notion that the blamer is free from moral blemish when in fact scapegoating typically involves mobilizing yet other forms of physionomism. Scapegoating is thus often in practice a matter of claiming piousness. While the blamer can certainly be factually right, the act of blaming may involve justifying other forms of prejudice on the part of the blamer. For example a proponent of Humanist racial supremacism may use condemnation of Nazi racial supremacism in order to precisely justify Humanist racial supremacism.
While scapegoating can indeed have a factual basis, the problem with scapegoating is that it implies that “we ourselves the accusers” do not ourselves engage in physionomism and DOLP. Rather, “we” in the widest functional human sense need to understand and become more cognizant of the mostly structural nature of physionomism and DOLP and that this is not reducible to some vertical binary categorization of persons. Rather than mere blaming and reproducing opposing binary physionomistic categories, the cognitive map needs to be fundamentally altered through verifiable interventions (education, training, therapy and treatment) in therefore subsequently ‘naturally’ reproducing behavioral change.
The notion of politics is one concerned with both individual behavior and group behavior. Yet, humans for most of their evolutionary history lived in small tribal groups. It was not possible to survive without the tribe and being part of the tribe required adhering to a specific agreed set of rules intrinsic to that tribe. Adhering to what is now known as “the law” was thus a requirement for survival as the only other viable alternatives were being accepted into another tribal group or creating a new tribal group as surviving without a tribe was in practice virtually impossible. The end of Stone Age meant that these tribes grew into increasingly larger communities and tribal memberships became known as peoples. This occurred as tribes aligned with each other in creating ever larger communities of solidarity and while ethnicity remains symbolically important in high tech human societies, tribalism has in modernity increasingly become known as citizenship.
Many human racial supremacist neo-imperialists such as Communists, Islamists and Humanists have in modern times unsuccessfully endeavored to homogenizing the entire homo genus into one singular community, yet this destructive and intolerant behavioral ambition existed already in pre-modern times in the shape of imperialist forms of religion. Religious imperialists regard tribalism as backward and therefore seek the destruction of indigenous peoples through their assimilation into religious imperialism whether known as “religious” or “secular”.
The enormous growth in the size of tribal communities meant that the maintenance of social control became increasingly difficult to maintain, uphold and perpetuate. Modernity appears in a context that experiences a clash between state and non-state forms of social control. Modern totalitarian ideologies seek to governmentalize all forms of social control. Liberal democracies however struggle with the continued existence of non-state forms of social control.
Thus the choice in modernity is between totalitarianism which offers the prospect of state-monopolized social control and liberal-democratic open society which engages in public dialogue about what ought to be considered appropriate and not appropriate in terms of both state social control and non-state social control.
Physionomism however continues to exist within both state social control and non-state social control. It is important to understand that social control can be totalitarian but does not have to be so. Social control is part of the human zoological condition as humans are herd animals. Tribalism takes different forms and is basically a spectrum spanning from the traditional indigenous tribe – over ethnicity, peoplehood, nationhood, race, citizenship – to imperialism whether nominally religious or secular. Liberal democracy now accepts tribalism which is appropriate as tribalism is an inescapable part of the human zoological condition in humans zoologically being herd animals.
Yet, physionomism and DOLP remain part of this very zoological condition. It is not that human collectivity is intrinsically bad but rather that physionomism specifically and DOLP generally are collective structural phenomena. It is thus important to understand that physionomism specifically and DOLP generally exist in state policies, including state policies in every liberal democracy.
Social control by state or non-state actors is at the same time both problem and solution and therefore offers a circular problem. The solution is therefore science, knowledge and awareness in the form of psemography. Physionomism specifically and DOLP generally is best dealt with through a statistically rigorous academic discipline of psemography that will study physionomism and DOLP horizontally and not only vertically as is currently typically the case. Totalitarian movements behave very similarly irrespective of what their ideologies are called and so totalitarianism is not only a particular human zoological condition, but totalitarianism needs to be understood horizontally by studying and understanding each of its multiple dimensions.
What is horizontality? Horizontality as here suggested means carefully and systematically investigating many different dimensions of something that may otherwise be logocentrically presumed to be somehow unitary. Most humans will only acknowledge one or two dimensions and Westerners will typically be content with a mere dichotomy, i.e. an imaginary binary. Intersectionality reinforces physionomism despite being nominally opposed to physionomism since it is based upon reversed hierarchic interplay of physionomistic collectivizing identities.
Horizontality as an intellectual approach rather seeks to map as many as possible dimensions of “something”. If “something” is not unitary then this means that it is not one and is thus “some things” rather than “something”. Horizontally is therefore the simultaneous systematic investigation of multiple, indeed unlimited dimensions of “some things” that are in human language known as “something” since the very binary of singular and plural is structurally foundational for human language. However, this is an illusion as the singular “something” is in turn composed of many multiple singular phenomena and plural “some things” are themselves in turn composed of singular “somethings” that in turn each are “some things”. The illusion of singular and plural in human languages are hence simply part of the human zoological condition.
Horizontality is hence not satisfied with a uni-dimensional or bi-dimensional misunderstanding such as Master-Slave Morality as typically in Intersectionality. Rather, the purpose of multidimensional horizontality is not necessarily one conclusion but rather improved serial understandings. Horizontally as a critical approach to knowledge therefore 1) requires identifying multiple dimensions of “something” and 2) serially studying these dimensions without necessarily à priori assuming a logocentric singular, final, homogenous conclusion as is typically expected in an academic paper or doctoral dissertation. Horizontality is thus open to the possibility that conclusions should not necessarily be expected to be coherent, singular or uniform.
Critical awareness that singular and plural are a human zoological illusion should substantially help aid improved critical understandings of physionomism/DOLP as physionomism is precisely about generalizing the singular to the plural (over-generalization) and reducing the imaginary plural to the imaginary singular (taxonomization). Physionomism is precisely the reduction of the individual person to a group or a category but also the presumed illusory imaginary individual unity of a group or category of individual persons.
While human language itself is precisely structure, this does not mean that the so called “we” should be content current limitations. The human brain is highly adaptable and it is important to find ways around the existing expressions of the limitations of the human brain. While there are things that seem undeconstructable in yes certainly expressing the limits of the human brain, it is nevertheless vital to find innovative discursive ways around those illusory limitations that will indeed transcend such limitations. Thus the brain is not “natural”, but rather highly adaptive and adaptable.
Primitivity is typically and probably usually projectively so considered an aspect in others only and virtually never in oneself. Yet human beings are animals and primitivity is expressed by the brain in so many ways such as thinking simplistically in singular and plural. Taxonomism specifically and physionomism generally are also highly primitive in the sense that humans systematically misapply vertical group categorization where it is simply not relevant at all. There are specific discursive contexts where vertical group categorization is indeed relevant but the fact is that it is widely misapplied in contexts where it is simply not relevant and that is extremely primitive indeed. Therefore, it is crucial to understand precisely where any particular vertical categorization is relevant and where it is not as the underlying problem being precisely over-application in contexts where particular vertical categorization lacks relevance.
For example giving a compliment to someone else for being beautiful and/or sexually attractive may be appropriate in social contexts where this is relevant. However, where this is not relevant it will typically be considered offensive and especially if serially experienced. Taxon (race, species, genus etc.) is definitely relevant in many contexts but applying such vertical categorization where it is not relevant is by definition physionomism. E.g. the intrinsic interest in not being subjected to torture is entirely unlimited by zoological taxa.
Thus, learning where a certain vertical categorization is indeed relevant should be a task for education, training, therapy and treatment as individually appropriate. However, humans cannot necessarily be expected to know where to relevantly apply vertical categorization in ways that are contextually relevant unless they have first substantially learned how to do so.
Vertical categorization is a specific expression of perception of aspect and should be deconstructed and not necessarily entirely deleted yet its illusory, baseless claims to universality must nevertheless be comprehensively exposed. The existence of vertical categorization of persons requires that these categories are responsibly and relevantly deployed and such responsible usage whether relating to human animals or non-human persons are much less likely to substantially prevail without extensive training and education towards that purpose.
Humans are certainly not a ‘crown of creation’, but it is rather true that each Animal taxon is adapted to the historical evolutionary environment where it in evolutionary terms historically emerged. Therefore a culture/society may be considered technologically advanced in a particular temporal context while still remaining highly primitive in yet other respects. Physionomism is certainly a form of primitivity and DOLP is often but not necessarily simply adapted physionomism and therefore also expressive of human primitivity.
24. Cognitive Diversity
Racial supremacists (e.g. Humanists and Nazis) typically presume that totalitarian physionomism such as racial supremacism is legitimate to deploy against “vertical categories of persons” hegemonically stigmatized as sub-persons. Both Nazis and Humanists claim intrinsic racial moral genetic superiority which they presume provide them with a license to engage in what is best described as extremely morally inferior behavior. There is thus a specific paradox at work which requires continually reinventing a purportedly “homogenous” racial supremacist taxon. In order to perform that is cognitive diversity therefore deliberately variously negated, denied, stigmatized, excluded and oppressively taxonomized. Persons branded sub-persons are therefore stigmatized as purportedly “cognitively inferior” while the mythical homogenous unity of the supremacist taxon is discursively continually reinvented by exterminating, discriminating, taxonomizing and yes prominently discursively ignoring and even denying its constituent spectrum of cognitive diversity.
There are tremendous average anatomical differences between the different human species, including not least between the various human species indigenous to the African subcontinent. There are also vast average cognitive differences between human species from different parts of the world. Average genotypic IQ differentiation between various different human species and subspecies is vast and fixing this gap through social intervention has been met with very little and always temporary success. Humanists are racial supremacists who don’t really want to hear about these vast average cognitive differences because they themselves are Human racial supremacists who think it is acceptable and legitimate indeed to discursively reduce persons to sub-persons merely on account of them having been taxonomized into a different taxon.
Therefore, they themselves believe that the extremely well-documented psychometric scientific data about the vast average cognitive differentiation between the numerous contemporary taxa of the homo genus intrinsically justifies Nazism and so these particularly well-documented psychometric average differences must in their prejudicial view be ignored so as to implicitly maintain and discursively legitimize their own consumer participation in the vast crimes of their own racial supremacist ideology of Humanism against billions of enslaved non-human persons in the Animal Industry of Evil. Yet this average psychometric differentiation obviously does not negate but rather reinforces the indisputable fact that psychometric differences within any particular human taxon is far larger than the average psychometric differentiation between the various contemporary species and subspecies of the very heterogeneous Homo genus.
Racial supremacism such as Nazism and Humanism therefore involves both counterfactually claiming that the supremacist taxon is cognitively homogenous while simultaneously claiming that sub-persons are somehow homogenously inferior. The average IQ difference between genetic Ashkenazis (average IQ 110) and genetic indigenous Germans (average IQ 100) is no less than ten points. So called “meritocratic” systems of education strongly favor students with relatively higher IQs due to the fact that those with comparatively higher IQs tend to learn faster than those with comparatively lower IQs. This individually favors high IQ students from all human taxa but it also has an influence in strongly affecting academic and socio-economic outcomes.
Simply put, the significant average genotypic IQ difference meant that many indigenous Europeans in the decades leading up to the Holocaust felt outcompeted by the Ashkenazi Jewish minority, something that significantly exacerbated existing hostility against the predominantly Ashkenazi, Jewish minority in Germany and other European countries. The fact that this high IQ minority had very significantly contributed to making Germany the world’s leading country (similarly to how American Jews significantly has contributed to making the United States the world’s leading country) was very significant from a macro-economic perspective. However, indigenous European Anti-Semites regarded Jews as parasitical competitors much like Communists regard capitalists as parasitical competitors and so this perception made individual participation by indigenous European Anti-Semites in the Holocaust economically rational on an individual level of actions of choice since it individually seemingly improved career options. Furthermore, destroying competitors is an established practice in Capitalism and so this was practiced by both Nazis and Communists by physically murdering many millions of real and perceived economic competitors.
The frequency of medical conditions with at least in part a genetic predisposition varies greatly between human taxa. It is also true that members of different human species often require different medical treatments. Unsurprisingly, this is also true with regard to the frequency of anti-social personality disorders usually known respectively as ADHD for legal minors and psychopathy for legal adults although there many alternative names for this neuropsychiatric condition.
Anti-social behavior is effectively kept in check though communitarian social control in traditionally tribal societies in third world and fourth world rural societies. However this is not so in modern society and therefore a relatively higher frequency in anti-social personality disorders in turn typically leads to racist perceptions wrongly viewing particular other genetic groups as inherently criminal. This misperception in turn leads to racist social discrimination as hiring someone from a group seen as “criminal” is typically informally falsely regarded as a choice associated with higher risk – when in fact this “risk” exists in all genetic groups and this risk is not individually greater in any human taxon since it is an individual person who is hired by an employer and certainly not an entire taxon.
Rather than as now typically viewing cognitive diversity as a burden, cognitive diversity needs to be recognized as an economic asset. Systems of education need to stop structurally mistreat and discriminate students with comparatively lower IQs and entirely irrespectively so of taxon. A perceptual leap of paradigm is thus needed whereby multidimensional cognitive diversity is no longer seen as a liability as is typically the view in both Nazism and Humanism so that average cognitive difference is no longer wrongly conflated with the clearly racist notion of purported group inferiority. Disregarding cognitive diversity is in fact one of those factors that serve to reproduce racism and racist ideologies which obviously as other others forms of physionomism are zoological, indeed highly primitive phenomena.
Modernity typically regards itself as the very opposite of primitivity when in fact modernity enables and legitimizes numerous primitive mass behaviors. What is therefore mostly ignored is that the modern state is just another arena for human zoology.
As modernity evolved from Christendom, it inherited the Christian notion of the inherently “bad” carnal body that is contrasted with the purportedly pure spiritual logos. Modernity therefore regards itself as the triumphal force of the spirit whereby it elevates racial supremacist “society” over non-human “environment” with the baseless society/environment dichotomy used for justifying human racial supremacism. The carnal bodies are therefore seen as impediments to the impossible realization of the nominally disembodied spirit. Western nominal anti-physionomism is therefore typically also distinctly physionomistic in its negative attitude towards carnal/bodily difference that is typically seen as threatening, evil and divisive.
Modernity is simply the culture of Christendom without or at least nominally separated from Christianity, meaning that modernity is not as religiously neutral as it claims to be. In fact, most contemporary humans hate at least one traditional religion, whether their own traditional religion or some else’s traditional religion. Belief in the future of modernity is simply Christian eschatology without Christianity. Therefore modernity is best described as a certain Christian heresy whereby Christian eschatology is separated from Christianity in for example culturally and structurally, effectively worshipping “the new that replaces the old” in modern consumer society which is the basis of e.g. the fashion industry.
Modernity thus claims to be the liberator of bodies just as medieval Christian theology imagined that “Celestial Israel” (i.e. the Christian Church) would supplant “Carnal Israel” (i.e. Rabbinic Judaism). Yet modernity organizes physionomistic mass suffering in the shape of the Animal Industry of Evil on an unprecedented scale in recorded history. This is justified through serial emancipation, whereby rather than universal emancipation for all irrespective vertical categorization, the emancipation is historically gradual in one vertical category after another becoming emancipated. Modernity thus implicitly uses its emancipation activities as a tool for justifying the perpetuation of yet other forms of physionomism.
Hence, gradual emancipation of one vertical category after another with decades in between is simply not ethically satisfactory at all. Why should it take so long time and why should it not happen irrespective of vertical categorization? Therefore, modernity is the promise of the future that justifies the purportedly messianic present, indeed precisely as Christianity views itself.
The challenge is therefore to oppose physionomism irrespective of how the victims of physionomism are denoted and described. Modernity considers itself as “redemptive time”, yet using physionomistic classifications to limit emancipation is in and of itself physionomistic. This redemptive psychological preparedness in modernity constitutes however in principle openness to the very notion of universal emancipation, yet always poses a risk of relapse once more into modern totalitarianism which itself falsely promises complete and total salvation in this world.
It is typically widely believed that formal emancipation has been completed in economically advanced liberal democracies when in fact most legal emancipation certainly still remains to be done. Emancipation has so far been limited to certain human categories while non-human persons generally still remain non-emancipated.
Emancipatory ideologies typically refer to Humanism (an ideological derivation of Christianity) as its locus of eschatology. It is thus suggested that the racial supremacist ideology of Humanism is at the same time vehicle, vessel and goal of emancipation. However this is a severe misreading as Humanism is rather the very physionomistic ideological hegemony itself. Instead Humanism is precisely to non-humans what Nazism was to Untermenschen.
Therefore, universal emancipation requires exposing Humanism for what it is – namely most despicable racial supremacism indeed. The fact that Humanism is racial supremacism is made even worse by the fact that Humanism is the hegemonic physionomistic ideology in “secular” modernity. This also includes all modern totalitarian political ideologies that all operate in the name of comprehensive salvation of the racial supremacist construct of the so called “humanity”.
Something very different from Humanism is therefore very much needed. Opposing physionomism specifically and DOLP generally should also not be considered sufficient in and of itself. Opposing power for being powerful or automatically presuming that weak is right are mere moral fallacies. Nominally and uncritically embracing diversity is also entirely insufficient and is furthermore usually quite void of content. Rejecting Humanism in its entirety is also problematic since there are aspects of Humanism in open societies that are certainly laudable and should therefore definitely be retained (such as liberal democracy and the welfare state) while otherwise completely rejecting this very hegemonic physionomistic ideology of racial supremacism.
What is needed is therefore a critical science of psemography that will not silence but will rather enable informed public discussion concerning physionomism specifically and DOLP generally and doing so without resort to paradigmatic fallacies. Diversity is not always good, weak is not always right, power and/or violence is not always wrong and Humanism is a form of racial supremacism with some good aspects worthy of being deconstructively retained and developed.
Therefore thinking about emancipation should shift from thinking only vertically to thinking horizontally as well. Serial vertical emancipation as per physionomistic category should hence be supplanted by universal emancipation for all whether human animals or non-human persons.
What is needed for achieving universal emancipation as opposed to continued serial vertical emancipation is first and foremost training in thinking critically and innovatively in the very field of psemography. Understanding the lie should precede understanding the truth, understanding what’s wrong should precede understanding what is right and understanding physionomism must precede emancipation. Yet lie must not determine truth, wrong must not determine right and physionomism must not determine emancipation.
Rather, emancipation has two crucial parts, one formal and one informal. The formal part involves changing the law both nationally and internationally in favor of universal emancipation and the informal part involves constantly reducing physionomism and DOLP through education, training, therapy, prevention and treatment.
Emancipation therefore needs to be re-conceptualized into broader multi-dimensional endeavors as opposed to mere reverse physionomism. Universal emancipation should not merely be seen as a political task but should be recognized as an essential scientific task as well. Physionomism and DOLP cause vast amounts of completely unnecessary suffering and are the source of immense irrationality and inefficiency and so the business world as well needs to become creatively engaged in phasing out physionomism and DOLP in their respective fields of operation.
Western physionomistic “normality” typically represents an imaginary, purportedly validly designated “middle area” in psychometric and anatomic spectrums of differentiation as defined among purportedly “normative” indigenous European primates. Individual persons classified as “external” to the purportedly “normal” part of any particular functional spectrum are consistently misunderstood as purported aberrations of essence from that imaginary socially and temporally constructed “normality” itself.
This severe structural misunderstanding needs to be reversed so that the purported “extremes” on the functional spectrums are instead deployed to understand the supposedly “normal” part of functional spectrums. Those considered external to any particular “normal functional spectrum” should thus no longer be classified as “deviants” but should rather be valued and appreciated as a source for understanding the entire functional spectrum, including those currently seen as being inside the purportedly “normal” part of any particular functional spectrum. While the very notion of a functional spectrum is indeed a statistical construct; instead of misreading those outside the ostensibly normal part of the socially constructed functional spectrum as “deviants”, they can be a valuable source for better understanding a functional spectrum in full.
Thus various “placements” on various different spectrums should be statistically measured in numbers much like IQs are measured in numbers. Thus measuring different aspects of functionality in numbers rather than in taxonomic, physionomistic diagnostic functional categories will help advance various societal institutions in both public and private sectors so as to attain optimal individualization and integration throughout society.
These statistical measurements should certainly not be used for grading persons or otherwise passing judgment on anyone. Rather, psychometric diversity as carefully measured throughout populations can help attain near optimal social matching for virtually every legitimate social purpose. Psychometric mass matching can ensure optimal psychometric compatibility for so many social purposes and thus prevent many unnecessary conflicts and confrontations rooted in mere psychometric difference. Cognitive and bodily difference should thus be recognized as usually gradual rather than necessarily categorical and taxonomic.
This will serve to remove taxonomism from physionomism and bring improved understanding that while being psychometrically, culturally, religiously or otherwise different can produce hostility and even enmity; such conflicts can be intelligently avoided. Also, statistical numbers on a spectrum are far less stigmatizing than taxonomically canonized physionomistic categories that typically also produce self-stigmatizing identities.
As the current paradigm of difference is for the most part an empty shell of hypocrisy – a different paradigm of diversity is needed, one that makes careful distinctions, including the understanding that just as far from all “diversity” in Western culture is “good”, so is far from all diversity in other human cultures “good” either. A paradigm of diversity with content will require the mobilization of good judgment and civil courage. Also, more discursive tools will need to be made increasingly available for public debate that will facilitate fearless public discussion about difference as regarding physionomism specifically and DOLP generally.
The question whether any particular form of “difference” should be accepted, tolerated or not tolerated at all needs to be carefully distinguished so that “difference”, “culture”, “structure” etc. are not as so often tragically turned into excuses for legitimizing and perpetuating physionomism.
28. Critique of Civilizations
Critique of civilization is an important, even essential part of liberal democracy and open society. Critique of civilization tends to be at its core a critique of physionomism and DOLP. Critique of civilization has however become bisected so that the leftwing critiques Christian civilization while the rightwing very similarly critiques Muslim civilization. In both cases is contemporary critique of civilization basically a critique of physionomism specifically and DOLP generally.
Yet, physionomism and DOLP are not limited to civilizations as physionomism and DOLP appear within all human ethnic groups. The problem therefore is not limited to any particular culture or civilization but rather the issue of physionomism and DOLP need to be addressed everywhere. Critique of civilization can instead be enhanced by not being discursively limited to any particular singular civilization.
The scientific critique of physionomism should be based on comparative culture and critique should go both ways meaning one should critique physionomism/DOLP both in one’s own culture as well as in cultures of others. It is in fact absolutely ethically vital to be able to non-prejudicially detect physionomism and DOLP generally whether at home or abroad. Therefore, the technical terminology of the scientific critique of physionomism/DOLP should be precisely based upon on two-way intercultural communication rather than mere collective projection or mere collective self-flagellation.
Political discourse in liberal democracy will become much evolved by leaving the Islamdom/Christendom dichotomy. In fact, most of the structural problems specific to the current predicament of Islamdom once plagued medieval Europe. “Christianity” was once the justification and excuse for virtually all physionomism in European Christendom and so is “Islam” today the justification and excuse for virtually all physionomism in the Muslim broader Middle East. The name of “Islam” (Arabic for submission) is therefore the equivalent of the contemporary Western notion of structural oppression. Just as most Western physionomism is historically rooted in “Christianity” so is most physionomism in the broader Middle Eastern Islamdom today rooted in what is known as “Islam” in a wide sense of the term Islam, including Muslim cultures.
Critiquing civilization generally is important although hardly sufficient as a civilization in the contemporary sense is basically an agglomeration of peoples/countries/cultures with similar systems of values & institutions and has typically been founded in a shared religious tradition. Civilization is thus cultural repetition in providing an overarching trans-ethnic system signification, meaning production of meaning. Physionomism however is not limited to civilization or even to human cultures as physionomism is fundamentally a zoological phenomenon as an outcome of various environmental pressures and biological factors.
Critique of civilization is however not limited to critiquing intra-human behaviors but is importantly also concerned with how humans destroy habitats of non-human persons and enslave, torment and murder non-human persons in gargantuan numbers. Therefore, the scientific study of physionomism must also always be a study of zoological social construction. However, the fact that physionomism just as all other human behaviors are zoological should not be construed or misappropriated as justifying physionomism.
Physionomism is often constructed into physionomistic binaries, meaning that one physionomistic classification of persons is typically unfavorably compared to yet another physionomistic classification of persons typically held up as superior, healthy, better, more rational, more “intelligent”, more “moral” etc.
It is important to understand that these physionomistic dichotomies are frequently not based in reality but are rather illusory ideological constructions meant to legitimize the exercise of physionomistic power. First, the outcome of physionomistic comparison depends on what criterion/trait that is favored by the comparer and second, this depends on who is compared to whom, meaning that there is an act of social construction unfavorably juxtaposing one particular select physionomistic category against another select physionomistic category. Whether a particular physionomistic category comes out unfavorably in such a comparison thus depends on who are selected for comparison and for what trait or criterion.
Yet, human animals in modernity typically regard physionomistic binaries as purportedly “natural” and are rarely aware that these are ideological constructs implicitly meant to justify and normalize the hegemonic physionomism of the day. Therefore, physionomistic binaries need to be reconstructed into spectrums of degree of differentiation.
Physionomistic binaries are simply an ethically inappropriate way for understanding anatomic, genetic and psychometric differentiation. One comparison, if indigenous Germans are psychometrically compared to a human taxon with comparatively lower measured average IQ, then this can be used by physionomistic bigots to claim that indigenous Germans are intrinsically superior. However, since genetically Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 110 as compared to the indigenous German average IQ of 100 with therefore much better Ashkenazi academic and socio-economic average outcomes than those of indigenous Germans, the Nazis had to demonize Jews as inherently morally inferior in order to domestically legitimize the genocide against the Jews. Therefore whether indigenous Germans would come out as “inferiors” or “superiors” in a physionomistic comparison therefore entirely depends on which human taxon that they are compared with. It is quite notable that Ashkenazi racial supremacism is virtually non-existent unlike sadly White racial supremacism among contemporary indigenous Germans.
Spectrums acknowledge diversity while physionomistic binaries legitimize unnecessary DOLP. It would be better if sexual organs and other aspects of anatomy were simply measured on accurate scales. Therefore the question would not be whether someone is “male or female” but the position on any particular cognitive or anatomical scale could instead be accurately provided. Replacing binaries with scales will effectively serve to undo and discredit physionomistic binaries which still are the hegemonic system for understanding cognitive and anatomic diversity.
Physionomistic binaries are unnecessary, harmful and destructive. However, diversity can hardly be appreciated unless it is first acknowledged. Replacing binaries with scales will socially construct unique individual persons with access to personal individualized data on an unlimited number of scales. Undoing physionomistic binaries will crucially also help undo physionomistic identities that typically are such an important part of physionomistic DOLP.
An individual measurement on a scale is much more interesting as information than an imaginary “membership” in a socially invented illusory physionomistic category that prejudicially lumps together extremely different persons as based on some often irrelevant and typically arbitrary aspect bizarrely held up as an embodied criterion for taxonomizing physionomistic classification.
Scales will in contrast emphasize diversity and promote understanding. Everyone should determine for herself in what respects she wants to be measured on scales and with which persons and in which contexts that she wants to share the individual scale data. Scale data offers actual and precise information as opposed to the confusion, irrelevance and ignorance as spread and reinforced by means of socially constructed physionomistic dichotomies.
Physionomistic classification of bodies in Western culture is typically performed through the performative act of idealization, yet idealization can be extremely oppressive despite typically being seen as something exclusively positive. Therefore the act of idealization of bodies must be questioned to the degree (if at all) it constitutes physionomism. The unfavorable physionomistic comparison is typically performed precisely through juxtaposition to a purported (or actually) better body.
Popular culture and advertisement are literally full of deliberately manipulative idealizing depictions of human bodies. This has led to a situation where ordinary citizens post misleading and manipulated doctored images of themselves on social media while increasingly holding negative bodily identities. There is thus a clear causal link between physionomistic public idealization in the shape of modified pictures in advertisement, popular culture and social media that underpin the now increasingly pervasive negative bodily identities that are often inconsistent with how humans indeed view each other’s bodies.
The idealization industry perpetuates highly stereotypical notions of idealized bodies which is inconsistent with how diversely humans in modernity actually would like to look. Artistic tattoos are an example that illustrates how different humans turn out when they get to decide for themselves how they indeed would prefer to look.
It is therefore highly likely that human citizens of welfare states will look increasingly diverse once cosmetic plastic surgery becomes part of the civic healthcare basket provided by welfare states to their citizens. Just as transsexual persons receive plastic surgery so that they will look more like they would like to look so is it reasonable that human citizens generally are enabled to physically look the way that they indeed would prefer to look. Being enabled to look the way one wants to look is in fact a matter of basic psychological health that is no limited to transgender humans. It is therefore highly likely that humanity will increasingly come to look like the diverse humanoids of the Star Trek science fiction alternative universe.
Hegemonic idealization of bodies is oppressive and wrong because of the implicit body-shaming and resulting negative bodily identities and therefore should cosmetic plastic surgery become government-financed since it will likely bring forth great diversity that will ultimately replace current reactionary and, hegemonic, destructive body ideals. This will serve to bring hegemonic idealization to an end in favor of aesthetic diversity.
Advertisement also present a paradox in that idealized bodies are used to tell sell food with animal content that destroy human health in causing obesity and triggering many partially hereditary diseases and global warming. This is a paradox that is vastly destructive for everyone involved, both human animals whose health is destroyed and non-human persons who are enslaved, tormented, raped and murdered by the Animal Industry of Evil and whose habitats are destroyed.
Therefore, restaurants should be legally obliged to only serve strongly healthy vegan food and this should be encouraged everywhere in society, including by all levels of government. Selling something unhealthy by showcasing healthy bodies in advertisement is simply false and misleading advertisement and should therefore become criminalized.
Humans are anatomically 100% herbivore with zero predatory instincts and should therefore collectively return to diverse, yet strongly healthy, ethical vegan nutrition. Phasing out the Animal Industry of Evil with plant-based nutrition and phasing out fossil fuels with solar energy worldwide will solve the problem of global warming and will drastically reduce disease as well as the phenomenon of tragically and unnecessarily decaying bodies.
The paradox whereby destructive “food” with animal ingredients is sold by showcasing idealized bodies is a devilish bargain whereby consumers are induced to destroy their own bodies through body-shaming while basically ordering enslavement torture, rape and mass murder cruelly victimizing billions of fully sentient persons worldwide which in turn leads to mass species extinction globally and mass destruction of habitats, i.e. mass destruction of non-human societies as caused by human parasitoid behavior.
There is thus a highly destructive ideological nexus of interconnected physionomistic ideological mass practices that is extremely destructive for the entire planet and its diverse inhabitants. The role of bodily idealization in this complex of really severe global problems needs to be highlighted and problematized and so bodily idealization must be questioned and opposed when associated with physionomistic practices and ideologies.
Being wrong is certainly legitimate in open society, yet this does become a problem when deliberately telling lies for some political or commercial purpose becomes regarded as somehow a legitimate, even normal practice. For example, an Anti-Semite is someone who either habitually tells lies about Jews and/or habitually believes lies about Jews as told by others. Telling and believing lies about Jews becomes Anti-Jewish when the lie take on a structural character in repeating and reproducing Anti-Jewish themes and Anti-Jewish fallacies in therefore producing an intricate, vast web of contemporary Anti-Jewish discursive discrimination.
It is therefore precisely structure that distinguishes prejudice from mere error. And that is true of physionomism/DOLP generally. Structure is that very element that distinguishes physionomism from mere error and DOLP from mere mistake. Therefore structure is that “thing” that defines physionomism and DOLP. Structure means pattern in spatial terms and repetition in temporal terms. Therefore, identifying physionomism and DOLP is precisely about identifying structure.
The problem with the study of structure is that this study itself obviously has structure. The study of prejudice has therefore become the perfect place for legitimizing prejudice. Expressing prejudice becomes legitimized by expressing opposition to yet other forms of prejudice. Therefore critics of prejudice need to become more aware that they themselves are certainly not immune to prejudice.
Identifying prejudice is precisely vital in open society so as to enable discussion untainted by prejudice or else liberal democracy becomes subverted by the very structures of prejudice. One of the wonderful things with open society is that it allows open discussion that in turn allows for identifying lies in therefore understanding those things that are not lies. The expression of prejudice in the name of anti-prejudice is therefore is a phenomenon that certainly deserves constant and close scrutiny.
Yet of course, this is not to say that every structure is prejudicial, but rather that the task is to distinguish structure that expresses prejudice from structure that does not do so. Making this distinction is crucial for a number of reasons; 1) denying legitimacy to prejudice, 2) making sure that decision-making in liberal democracies is untainted by prejudice, 3) ensuring that open society is so open that prejudice is virtually always exposed and 4) standing with victims of prejudice to prevent them from being marginalized on the basis of prejudice.
The study of structure generally is therefore obviously always crucial to the study physionomism specifically and DOLP generally. It is also vital to understand the distinction between prejudice that is socially accepted and prejudice that is not socially accepted although relative social acceptance of prejudice is a spectrum rather than a binary. Therefore opposition to prejudice must not ever be limited to opposition to prejudice that is not socially accepted as that is in and of itself a form of prejudice and social acceptance is that which perpetuates hegemonic prejudice.
It is always important to be cognizant that the human animals are both individuals and members of groups which means that the inevitable distinction between oneself and the other and between one’s own group and other groups is what determines and reproduces structure. This is not to say that being an imperfect individual and a member of groups is somehow some kind of original sin but rather that this is part of the human zoological condition. Therefore understanding the fundamental nature of the human zoological condition, including its tremendous social flexibility and how the human zoological condition develops through technology is absolutely vital to understanding how structure is fundamental to social relations and attitudes generally, including physionomism and DOLP. The human zoological condition is therefore extremely flexible, yet being aware of its historically evolving parameters is vital for understanding and countering physionomism specifically and DOLP generally.
32. Social Control
Worldviews are Eurocentrically in Western culture (and as a result of pervasive Western cultural influence by extension elsewhere) typically classified through the religion/non-religion dichotomy. This is a result of the imposition of the Christianity/Christendom binary on all other cultures worldwide. In fact this very dichotomy is a form of social control whereby Christian culture in its entirety is superimposed and held up as intrinsically more rational and inherently more neutral than non-European cultures in thus mimicking the historical attitude of Christian religious imperialism towards other religions. This is indeed highly similar to how Muslim religious imperialism superimposes its culture and civilization on those it colonizes and brings under its imperialist dominion.
Yet worldviews are all about social control as worldviews regulate, manage and control social behaviors. The larger tribal formations humans live in – such as nation states – the greater the need for hierarchies which in turn are precisely legitimized and upheld by worldviews. It is therefore important to understand that the purpose of worldviews is fundamentally zoological. A worldview produces a mental map that is then used for individually and collectively navigating in time and space.
Social control is thus part of the human zoology as herd animals yet DOLP is also social control despite the fact that far from all social control constitutes DOLP. The ethical challenge is thus to make appropriate distinctions between social control that constitutes DOLP and social control that does not constitute DOLP. It needs to be understood that opposition to physionomism and DOLP are articulated as part of worldviews whose purpose itself is also social control and therefore typically also involves DOLP to some degree or another. Thus DOLP and opposition to DOLP are rarely entirely distinguished from each other as they tend to rather be mixed up. Criticism of prejudice is virtually always selective in that yet other forms of prejudice are virtually always uncritically condoned whether directly or indirectly so.
Intersectionality is certainly well-intentioned and yes a nice attempt but really hugely ethically insufficient as it typically remains stuck in a Humanistic racial supremacist matrix as hegemonically premised on Slave Morality, i.e. the fallacious notion that weak is right which really is a mere simplistic inversion of Master Morality, i.e. the similarly fallacious notion that might is right.
What is needed is therefore a far more stringently typological approach that is able to map mental maps and therefore clean them up from physionomism and DOLP, not by silencing but by offering terminology, insight and trans-cultural knowledge that will allow for performing open and listening discussions about physionomism and DOLP in acknowledging the tremendous diversity of physionomism and DOLP in different cultures around the world. Psemography should therefore open up rather than foreclose discussions between different cultures about physionomism and DOLP.
Social control is part of both physionomism/DOLP and criticism of physionomism/DOLP as such criticism is indeed intended to influence and change behaviors. Yet physionomism/DOLP is itself social control. Criticism of physionomism/DOLP is therefore typically a clash between different competing semiotic systems of social control.
The question of evil is something that has historically pre-occupied traditional religions to varying degrees. Yet what is evil, does it exist and if really so how? Evil is fundamentally a zoological phenomenon known by zoologists as parasitism. Once we appropriately identify what is known as evil can we therefore also begin to deal with this purportedly – yet not actually – elusive phenomenon in both scientific and political terms.
The eschatological or individual fight against real or purported evil is something that still pre-occupies many worldviews. Yet it is difficult to effectively fight something if it is not appropriately identified and subsequently understood. Evil has variously been viewed as embodied or disembodied yet rarely appropriately identified in zoological terms. Once evil is understood, then this is something that can be constructively managed, handled and dealt with. Purportedly non-religious worldviews typically have other names for evil – in the sense of phenomena that they believe ought not to exist – often denoted with the -ism suffix. Yet, religions typically traditionally misidentify evil in considering anything evil that contradicts their own religious doctrines. Often is evil considered to be something beyond this world in therefore implicitly and effectively justifying the present.
The question of parasitism under so many different aliases is however something that very much pre-occupied politics in the 20th century. Politics in modernity is in fact very much about describing political opponents as parasitical. Some of these accusations are justified while others are not. It has been claimed that both capitalists and recipients of financial assistance in welfare states are parasites, yet this is untrue as capitalists themselves contribute very much to the economy and the welfare state is simply a way of transferring economic resources between generations and is therefore something that can be observed in human cultures around the world. Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionists typically describe Jews as both geographic and economic parasites which is a clearly unfounded accusation. Minorities with comparatively lower average IQs and comparatively higher frequencies of anti-social personality disorders are also typically described as geographic and economic parasites and this is likewise an unfounded accusation as well.
However, enslavement is parasitism and enslavement tends to be founded upon physionomism and especially so in modernity. Yet it can certainly be argued that physionomism generally is the mental aspect of evil and that physionomism generally therefore simply is the mental aspect of parasitical behavior. Physionomism as a mental phenomenon is hence the cognitive side of parasitism. Thus, physionomism is evil and evil is physionomistic.
34. Culture of Fear
The main criterion that distinguishes open societies from closed societies is the relative degree of closedness in terms of how many controversial topics are permitted in public discussion. An open society should thus in principle allow every subject to be discussed. Thus, counteracting prejudice should not close subjects to discussion. If someone denies the Holocaust, then open society must precisely become so robust that it is able to very effectively counter such blatant bigotry. When open societies therefore legislate against expression of certain extreme forms of bigotry such as Holocaust denial, then this is indicative of structural weakness of those very open societies in counteracting bigotry itself.
Therefore open societies need to fashion policies against physionomism specifically and DOLP generally as intended to open respectful discussions about physionomism specifically and DOLP generally rather than close it down. That a person has expressed prejudice should however not mean that the person in question should suffer social stigmatization, but rather that it is incumbent upon all cognitively capable human citizens to discursively reach the heart of the matter and thus persuade the person of the inherent prejudice in the particular pronouncement of that person. This means engaging that person on that person’s own discursive field in empathizing, yet of course not necessarily agreeing with the underlying concerns and discursive premises of that person.
If someone seems like a completely irrational and unreachable bigot, then that may certainly be because that person is emotionally stuck in hating, but it may also be because we have not yet succeeded in reaching the discursive crux of the matter for that person. For example, pointing out the average genotypic Ashkenazi IQ of 110 (as compared to the genetically German and general genetically Northwest European average genotypic IQ of 100) should be an effective argument against persons believing in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. This would likely had been a highly effective argument against German Nazism in the 1920’s and early 1930’s in explaining why the predominantly genetically Ashkenazi, Jewish minority in Germany on average performed far better both educationally and in socio-economic terms than did the genetically German majority in Germany, a fact which was the origin of such tremendous public jealousy in Germany in therefore fueling Nazi demagogy.
If someone claims that a genetic minority in society is immoral rather than psychometrically and genotypically distinctive and therefore non-reducible to comparison with other genetic groups, then explaining that 21% of Nobel Laureates are either genetically Jewish or of partial genetically Jewish ancestry (41% in economics, 28% in medicine, 26% in physics, 19% in chemistry, 13% in literature and 9% in peace) is an effective argument in favor of respect for psychometrically genotypic average divergence between different human taxa as opposed to scapegoating, stigmatization and discrimination.
An inter-human racist may thus be concerned by either perceived “Jewish success” and/or crime rates of genetic minorities with relatively “lower” average genotypic IQs and greater average frequency of antisocial personality disorders (ADHD/psychopathy) in their gene pools. If however we can discuss those matters in scientific psychometric terms; then certainly could many more inter-human racists be potentially discursively reached if we thus take their underlying social concerns and discursive premises seriously.
What is wrong however is to close down discussion in society. Of course every venue for public discussion has its own rules and limits. However when entire subjects are closed down for discussion throughout society such as with regard to the non-basis for claiming that non-legal intergenerational sexual interaction is intrinsically harmful – which is something that has never, ever been proven in purely quantitative scientific terms – then there is a problem in open society partially closing down itself. This intrinsic bigotry with regard to intergenerational sexual relations is therefore virtually never countered in public and the result is essentially miscarriage of justice as vast numbers of persons are imprisoned for what in most cases are either crimes without victims or innocently convicted victims.
Almost no one dares discussing this subject in public and typically for fear of being associated with that much physionomistically maligned purported so called “sexual minority” when in fact individual sexual desire is anything but taxonomic but rather idiosyncratic, fluid, unlimited, hybridized, mixed up, dynamic and so on. The notion of sexualities of human beings as purportedly being “taxonomic” are part of a physionomistically taxonomistic worldview and is in fact similar to taxonomistic inter-human racism in discursively reducing human beings to inter-human taxonomic schemes. So called “sexual preferences” are precisely social preferences in simply expressing social interest and reversely effective social non-interest in terms of mere social preferences for sexual relations.
Taxonomism generally must therefore be questioned, including with regard to medical diagnoses seeking to distinguish the so called “normal” from what is culturally perceived as “non-normal”. Both sexualities and medical conditions are therefore better measured on scales as opposed to socially constructing physionomistic categories of persons as typically therefore if considered controversial become vulnerable to social stigmatization.
Those who are concerned about keeping open society precisely open must therefore help open non-prejudicial discussion about topics typically deemed too controversial for public discussion. Yes, prejudice must become effectively counteracted with non-prejudice in public discussion but that does not justify closing down public discussion generally in society on subjects that in contemporary terms are deemed too controversial.
Especially journalists need to be trained in civil courage in opening rather than closing down discussion on subjects somehow still considered too controversial for being aired in open society. It is vital to understand that it is prejudice that requires being substantially and highly effectively responded to as prejudice must not be conflated with the person expressing prejudice who should rather if possible be respectfully met in public discussion on her/his own side of the discursive field in therefore taking her/his concerns and discursive premises seriously.
It is typical in open society for discussion being closed down throughout entire open societies on topics relating to physionomism and as especially relating to average and other cognitive differentiation. Rather, physionomism specifically and DOLP generally certainly need to be discussed more, in depth and in far more scientific terms. Accepting differences of opinion is absolutely vital and no less so with respect to issues pertaining to physionomism specifically and DOLP generally. Thus, the more physionomism and DOLP are discussed the better. The very mistaken notion of responding to prejudice by judicially and/or discursively closing down discussion throughout an entire open society on a given subject is therefore inherently wrong and antithetical to the very notion of open society itself as the proper response to prejudice must precisely be more non-prejudice.
35. Reconceptualizing Discrimination
There is the notion that discrimination is a matter that pertains to a particular vertical category e.g. as based on ethnicity, gender, sexuality or perceived/actual pigmentation in tone of skin, but discrimination is in fact a far more pervasive phenomenon. Discrimination rather is the phenomenon whereby an elite determines the rules for inclusion in the elite and systemically and structurally so excludes virtually everyone one, including in theory even themselves.
Discrimination therefore is not something that merely targets so called “minorities” in human society, but almost every person is part of at least one structurally discriminated category of persons. Even members of elites typically have “invisible” memberships in discriminated categories of persons such as diagnosed functional variations and intimate variations in desire.
Discrimination targets women and virtually everyone else. One of few ways available for individually eluding discrimination is to remain in the social closet, meaning if possible hide one’s membership in structurally discriminated categories of persons to potential discriminators. While this may work individually is such social behavior part of the structure of discrimination itself because this very hypocrisy is that on which the discriminating elite premises its own discrimination, meaning performatively exluding themselves from structurally oppressed categories of persons.
Therefore we need to reconceptualize the problem of discrimination from a phenomenon effectively seen as somehow intrinsic to and even inherent of oppressed vertical categories of persons (e.g. race, gender, ethnicity etc.) to a general one where virtually everyone is an actual or potential victim.
Socially constructed behavioral structures of physionomism specifically and DOLP generally thus reappear in DOLP targeting various structurally oppressed vertical categories of persons. We hence need to identify those very structures and thus break down the walls of oppression between oppressed categories of persons. For example is it of course essential to highlight how members of a particular structurally oppressed category of persons is typically and individually structurally mistreated, yet in counteracting and indeed undoing this very structural mistreatment is it more than extremely helpful to focus on general behavioral structures of mistreatment rather than only on one particular perceived “category” of persons as victimized by structural mistreatment. Thus, we should look at harassment generally, discrimination generally, hate generally, segregation generally, totalitarianism generally, mistreatment generally, exclusion generally, abuse generally, exploitation generally, treating persons as subpersons generally, enslavement generally, torment/torture generally, pain/pleasure generally and so on and so forth. While understanding the experiences of victims of socially constructed oppressed categories of persons is no doubt essential is it no less vital to understand cross-categorical structures of physionomism specifically and DOLP generally.
Therefore we need to understand that Human Animals generally tend to engage in extensive discrimination as determined by ideologically hegemonic elites such as journalists, politicians, religious leaders, authors, scientists and corporate executives. Some forms of discrimination such as choosing love partners, flatmates and personal friends are at least in part legitimately discriminatory even if structurally prejudicial indeed, yet most forms of inter-human discrimination is clearly not legitimate at all. The issue of structural discrimination against non-human persons is more complex in currently often being difficult to avoid such as inadvertently killing Insect persons. Even strict vegans find it impossible to completely avoid becoming complicit in structures of mistreatment and actually unnecessary killing of non-human persons. This is not to say that these discriminatory practices are legitimate but rather that discrimination (e.g. in architecture or practices of hiking) need to be highlighted and better understood as behavioral structures that clearly need to change. There is thus very much need for SBT (Social Behavioral Training) that will individually neurologically automatize different and better behaviors in place of current structurally discriminatory and indeed oppressive ones.
Social Behavioral Training also needs to focus on training persons to become more sensitive to, appreciative of and respectful towards the intrinsic and unique personhood of another person and irrespective of whether that very person is currently “classified” as a person or a sub-person. Thus counteracting discrimination requires not only making visible structures of behavioral discrimination but also becoming cognizant of the essential need to become sensitive to, appreciative of and respectful towards the idiosyncratic personhood of a unique fellow person. If e.g. we can learn to become sensitivized to identifying strengths in others rather than looking for faults, then many forms of discrimination could more easily become structurally overcome and indeed undone and particularly with regard to structural discrimination in the labor market.
Not only needs discrimination become studied generally as irreducible indeed to any ostensibly “singular” vertical category of discriminated persons but training in delearning discriminatory behaviors need to become part of both pre-academic education and professional training more generally. Rather than simplistically stigmatizing everyone engaging in discrimination need most Human Animals help in delearning discriminatory behavioral structures as well as of course neurologically automatize different and ethical behavioral structures. E.g. persons transitioning to a vegan life for reasons of ethics are in many cases far more successful in this change if given social and interpersonal support in this very process. Indeed, let’s be very clear that non-veganism is in fact structural behavioral discrimination against non-human persons although non-vegan Human Animals do tend to be unaware of this very basic fact.
Delearning discrimination thus means redesigning behavioral structures (sometimes known as “habits”). Many practices typically deemed “necessary” are in fact discriminatory behavioral structures. For example what is known as the academic field of “architecture” is essentially one vast omnipresent amoeba of discrimination. Virtually every form of architecture is premised on the perpetuation of discriminatory behavioral structures from production of building materials (e.g. harming free persons in nature by cutting down forests and polluting their environments though mining) to inbuilt architectonic structures of discrimination (e.g. staircases without parallel elevators) and ventilation systems that cause extensive suffering to many persons who are sensorially oversensitive, e.g. particularly many persons who are diagnosed/undiagnosed with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorders).
Discrimination exists in product development so that many food products are difficult to open to a majority of consumers whose hands are not those of (typically) mature men of physical strength. Discrimination is not only structural, but indeed pervasive and virtually omnipresent in human society and environments degraded by parasitical human activities. We need to start thinking of discrimination as no longer shameful exceptions but rather as the very norm that which underlies the formation of most human interpersonal behavioral structures. E.g. are most contemporary human political ideologies in open society premised on the racial supremacist and therefore obviously structurally discriminatory meta-ideology of Humanism which in turn is a barely secularized remnant of the racially supremacist metaphysics of what is known as Christian “theology”. Indeed, nearly all academic schools of what is known as so called “philosophy” are similarly so intrinsically premised on human racial supremacism that their entire intellectual edifices would become effectively undone were the racially supremacist meta-ideology of humanism to become discredited in the sense as it being premised on racial supremacist forms of human exceptionalism.
In attaining change in structurally eliminating discrimination is it therefore precisely essential to focus much on devising effective solutions that enrich and improve the lives of those thus changed as on appropriately articulating the very problems at hand. What is thus very much needed is an applied science of Critical Theory whereby Critical Theorists not merely focus on exposing discriminatory structures but also on innovating effective remedies thereto.