Source

unarmed-blog / essays / the-criminal-mind / The-Criminal-Mind.xhtml

Full commit
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE
    html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-US">
<head>
<title>The Criminal Mind</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="author" content="Shlomi Fish" />
<meta name="description" content="Shlomi Fish's Homepage" />
<meta name="keywords" content="" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="./style.css" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" title="Normal" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="./print.css" type="text/css" media="print" />
<style type="text/css">
a:hover { background-color: palegreen;}
</style>
</head>
<body>

<h1>The Criminal Mind</h1>

<p>
Who has the Criminal Mind? And who does not? "The Criminal Mind" is a concept
that is prevalent in the
<a href="http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/guide-to-neo-tech/">Neo-Tech</a>
literature, and is used to describe this pattern of thought:
</p>

<ol>
<li>Blaming other people, "society", or even the world at large for your
own problems and failings</li>
<li>Making many random character attacks, or even <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">Ad hominem attacks</a></li>
<li>Expecting people to do something unconditionally because they "love" you
or accusing perfectly honest people of being "phony", just by being friendly,
nice, tactful or even brutally sincere.</li>
<li>Projecting self-incompetence, while not learning anything from one's
mistakes.</li>
<li>Expecting one to be worthy of unearned wealth and love without having to
do anything about it.</li>
<li>Projecting self-righteousness and the belief that all criticisms people
pass against you are invalid because "I'm a good/experienced/'totally awesome'
guy" and you're not.</li>
<li>Being extremely needy, and non-independent</li>
</ol>

<p>
So who is the Criminal Mind? And who is the innocent value producer? Let's 
try to find out.
</p>

<h2>Cleopatra VII</h2>

<p>
The Macedonian princess 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_VII">Cleopatra VII</a>, who
became the queen of Egypt, is the famous “Cleopatra” whom many people 
believe to be Egyptian. I consider her to be the most Evil woman in history.
</p>

<p>
She was manipulative, dependent, and while beautiful had a talent for making
great men fall in "love" with her, and she caused untold damages to her 
countries. But men did not really fall in love with her - they just pitified
her and were sorry for her, and did not love her, and they decided that because
she was such a needy thing, they'll take her under her custody. 
This is the way things are with many criminal-minded people. They make a person
feel sorry for them, while being incredibly destructive.
</p>

<p>
We must understand that to further analyse the criminal minds.
</p>

<h2>Milady de-Winter</h2>

<p>
Alexander Dumas Sr.'s highly recommended classic
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers">The Three Musketeers</a>
tells the story of three musketeers and D'Artagnan, a young, inexperienced
yet incredibly competent swordsman - all of whom are good people. Yet, the
main antagonist in the story is the formidable 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milady_de_Winter">Milady de Winter</a>,
a criminal master mind, who always seem to get herself out of trouble on her
own. 
</p>

<p>
I used to think Milady was the epitome of evil, but now I realise I was wrong.
In fact, despite Dumas' burning desire for the contrary, a woman of Milady's
competence and independence, simply <b>could not</b> have been a criminal mind
in real life. Instead, she would be a strong, honest, independent, sexy, woman,
whom many men would fall for. It is possible that Dumas was reflecting upon
the 19th century general belief that women should be subordinate to their
husbands, and that independent and assertive women were treacherous, but in
21st centuries eyes, he was doing competent and strong women a disservice.
</p>

<p>
In fact, the real villainess in the story was the queen of France, who expected
her husband, Louis XIII to love her despite her own incompetence. What really
happened was that Louis XIII was a honest man, whom after trying some times
to make his wife less needy and more independent, gave up on her, hated her,
and did not hesitate to hide the fact from her.
</p>

<h2>Saladin</h2>

<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin">Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb</a>
, better known in the western world as Saladin, was a Muslim ruler who rescued 
Palestine and the
rest of the levant, from the clutches of the Catholic Christians crusaders.
He was widely considered as one of the most noble and most honest of rulers
in history, at a time and condition when people were expected to be much less
noble (similar 
to the Biblical “Noah was a righteous man in his generation”.). His very 
actions convey the honesty in his mind.
</p>

<p>
Saladin rejected the “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” dogma of
the Jewish torah, and instead focused on saving lives, and being merciful
of competent people whom he felt an admiration for their combat and other
skills. This is true justice. Whenever I feel that someone has wronged me,
I don't try to “punish” him, but rather either avoid them temporarily,
tell them what I think, or just sustain the damage, or be tactful about that.
That's one reason why I prefer 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence">permissive style licences</a> -
because I'm aiming to be noble and I'm not a petty man.
</p>

<p>
Saladin was a very good man, who was the anti-thesis of the criminal mind.
Saladin was the best, Cleoptra VII was the worst.
</p>

<h2>Adolf Hitler</h2>

<p>
So now let's take a look at Hitler. Why was he a criminal mind?
</p>

<ol>

<li><p>He <b>blamed others for his own problems</b>. He shifted the blame for 
Germany losing WWI on the Jews, despite the fact that it was clearly not their 
fault.</p></li>

<li><p>He was <b>needy and incompetent</b> - he kept wanting people to fulfill his 
whims and his desires regardless of how farfetched and destructive
they were.</p></li>

<li><p>He was a <b>collectivist</b> - he expected people to stand behind Germany
and be united and one, rather than voice their lack of agreement to the plans.
Men were expected to serve in the German military, regardless of its
destructive actions, to perform Genocide and kill millions of innocent people.
</p></li>

<li><p>He sought to <b>destroy competenecy and values</b> - what Neo-Tech calls
"envy" - which is a feeling that someone else's values threaten your own bogus
livelihood, and that you must destroy them to gain some peace of mind.
</p></li>

<li><p>He violated morality, ethics and was the epitome of the "end justifies
the means" (see what I've written about it in 
<a href="http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/TheEnemy/">my story <i>The Enemy
and How I Helped to Fight It</i></a>, where I try to prove that is
equivalent to claiming that “Morality = no Morality”)</p></li>

<li><p>He was very <b>arrogant</b>, up to disgust.</p></li>

<li><p>Like He was obsessed and wouldn't listen to reason
</p></li>

</ol>

</body>
</html>