Brain Scans and Ayahuasca

a personal note: when i studied in the University of Haifa, one day i forgot that a lecture was canceled, so i came in an earlier bus by mistake. this mistake turned out to be very lucky for me, because the later bus was exploded by a Palestinian terrorist who wanted to kill Jews.

what's common to all terrorists?

in some of the most famous terror attacks we don't really know why the person went crazy:

Osama bin Laden's father was a Saudi millionaire, the founder of the construction company, and head of "the wealthiest non-royal family in the kingdom."

Osama Bin Laden studied economics and business administration at King Abdulaziz University, and even studied something in Oxford, England.

he had a few wives (maybe this is how you get crazy? ha ha), he liked to take his big family to picnics in the desert... it's hard to see why someone like that would turn to be a terrorist.

we also see this in other people behind the 9-11 terror attacks that they had professions as medical doctors, etc.

another example is Stephen Paddock the terrorist from the 2017 Las Vegas shooting - the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the history of the United States.

he lost money in gambling, but he had enough money to transfer to his girlfriend to buy a house, so that's not the problem.

he made calculations and meticulous preparations, so alcohol wasn't the problem either. 

FBI Finds No Motive In Las Vegas Shooting, Closes Investigation

so what is common to both of these very different types of terrorists?

(1) Psychopathy - they don't care about the suffering they bring to other human beings

(2) Inferiority complex - they want to achieve something "bigger" and be significant.

(3) Paranoia - they worry about an imaginary enemy (anti-Semitic conspiracies , anti-government conspiracies)

(4) Suicidal ideation - they want to go out in a blaze of glory.

but now i want to broaden our scope from violent terrorism to something which Michael Moore called: "economic terrorism".

Here is a passage from Michael Moore's book: Downsize This!

"What is terrorism? There is no question that, when an individual rents a Ryder Truck, loads it with explosives, and blows up a building, it is an act of terrorism and should be severely punished.

But what do you call it when a company destroys the lives of thousands of people? Is this terrorism? Economic terrorism? The company doesn't use a homemade bomb or a gun. They systematically move out all of the people before they blow up the building. But as I pass by the remnants of that factory there in Flint, Michigan, looking eerily like the remnants of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I wonder:

What will happen to those people? A few will kill themselves, despondent over the loss of their livelihood. Some will be killed by their spouse—an argument over the lack of a new job or the loss of money at the racetrack turns suddenly violent (the woman is the one who usually ends up dead). Others will be killed more slowly through drugs or alcohol, the substances of choice when one needs to ease the pain of his or her life being turned upside down and shoved into an empty, dark hole.

We don't call the company a murderer, and we certainly don't call their actions terrorism, but make no mistake about it, their victims will be just as dead as those poor souls in Oklahoma City, killed off in the name of greed."

let's check if the economic terrorists (the world's billionaires) have the same personality traits as the violent terrorists:

(1) Psychopathy - they don't care about the suffering they bring to other human beings

so now i will recommend books that i read. the first and the best is When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten

Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal by Eric Schlosser

and the books of Naomi Klein

and the message of the Occupy movement

here is for example a quote by Warren Buffett in 1987:
"I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty."

here is an example about Amazon’s Jeff Bezos Wins ITUC’s World’s Worst Boss Poll in 2014:

here is a quote from Bill Gates in 2015:

"First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don't understand why some people are not concerned."

then why is your company one of the world leaders in this human extinction risk? hint: money!

as for Bernard Arnault you can see his name connected to a a complicated embezzlement (theft) in Malaysia:

you can see a video explanation here in Financial Times:

1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal

(2) Inferiority complex - they want to achieve something "bigger" and be significant.

all of these evil people want to look righteous, so they take a small amount of the huge sums of money they stole (in complicated ways) from the public and give it back to the public and call it charity! so you see their name and legacy are very important for them.

they also compete tooth and nail on what will be their exact position in the Forbes' or Fortune list although even with a tiny fraction of their money they could fulfill all their dreams. the extra money they can't spend - a man can't eat millions of meals a day - it's just taken from the small people (in complicated ways) and makes the small people miserable. it can't really make the billionaires happy because they are insatiable.

(3) Paranoia - they worry about an imaginary enemy.

now we need to notice a difference between legitimate fear from a real threat which makes sense, and between delusional fear and irrational fear which is paranoia.

rational fear example: in Brazil rich people actually get kidnapped. so if they surround their house with walls it makes sense;

irrational fear example: in the USA after Ronald Reagan and in the UK after Margaret Thatcher* there is very little power to the labor union (USA) or trade union (UK). this basically means that the rich (employers) grab the poor (employees) by the throat. by not letting the workers to unionize the wealthy capitalists are making sure that the working class have no bargaining power.

*this only happened in the 80's, because that's when the soviet USSR collapsed (Dissolution of the Soviet Union) which was the only reason why "Disaster Capitalism" (neoliberal free market a-la Milton Friedman) was softened. as long as the cold war was going on the west elite feared the communist ideology of the east so the west elite compromised with the lower classes. today we are back to the natural behavior of capitalism which is like the "robber barons", but in a more sophisticated disguise.

why are the American and English rich afraid of the poor? is it rational fear or is it irrational paranoia? if we look at Sweden, Japan, Ireland, countries that thrive because they let the workers unite and treat them fairly, then we see that abusing the workers is not the only way to go, it's just paranoia of the rich of USA and UK and countries that imitate the American model.

if this explanation was complicated for you, i have a simpler one that shows you all this in a nutshell.

Occupy Wall Street

in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" people who peacefully protested against the equality that 1 percent holds the money of the 99 percent, were beaten violently by the police without provocation! another example is they were not allowed to use a loudspeaker (which is a symbol for demonstrations). this forced the people to repeat the message to each other (human microphone). free speech indeed!

(4) Suicidal ideation - they want to go out in a blaze of glory.

rich people don't want to die of course and dedicated great resources to their own safety. so what is the parallel characteristic to terrorists?

i think the analogue here is what billionaires do with their financial "adventures" which is how they gamble in a way that only very rich people can: if they win they take the prize, if they lose the public pays their debt. we see this in "bondholder haircuts" and other types of "debt restructuring". no one will allow a poor person do to such a "haircut" to his debts, the bank will simply throw him to the street or to prison.

so the rich take great risks with the poor's money. the biggest example of this was after the financial collapse in 2008, President Obama said something to the effect of feeling disgust, but made sure not one of the rich people who were the criminals who made this collapse will pay anything for it. the public bailed them out with huge amounts of taxpayers money.

a closer example is President Donald Trump himself who did bankruptcy ("chapter 11") several times, which is a nice name for not paying your debts although you own money. and as you see the system worked great for him, he got to the top of the world.

IMPORTANT NOTE: the rich write the laws and make up the institutions (like courts etc) so if we factor that in we can't judge them by the written laws alone. many times we have to ask ourselves: should the law be written like this? is the law treat you the same if you are rich (and can do financial shenanigans) or if you are poor (and have to pay back your debt or go to prison). some very basic common practice that we take for granted should be changed completely. for example if the supreme court is political (i mean if each judge judges according to the party that appointed him) this goes against the whole Montesquieu's separation of powers system. and many more examples of how the rich bypass justice.

conclusion: very rich people have all the characteristics of terrorists!

ok from this point on what i will do is try to find ways to fight these characteristics. if the measures i recommend will be put into practice this will help against all the people who make innocent people suffer: both the "violent terrorists" which get a lot of publicity but hurt relatively few people, and the "economical terrorist" which get little publicity but hurt a lot of people.

(1) Psychopathy - they don't care about the suffering they bring to other human beings

here we need to differentiate between how severe is the psychopathy.

when the children are little we can already know their character. evil children who abuse animals will grow up to be monsters who abuse people.

what we should do is to use brain scans

People scoring 25 or higher in the PCL-R, with an associated history of violent behavior, appear to have significantly reduced mean microstructural integrity in their uncinate fasciculus—white matter connecting the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. There is evidence from DT-MRI, of breakdowns in the white matter connections between these two important areas.

The overall pattern of results across studies indicates that people diagnosed with psychopathy demonstrate reduced MRI, fMRI, aMRI, PET, and SPECT activity in areas of the brain.

Some recent fMRI studies have reported that emotion perception deficits in psychopathy are pervasive across emotions (positives and negatives).

Thanks to advancing MRI studies, experts are able to visualize specific brain differences and abnormalities of individuals with psychopathy in areas that control emotions, social interactions, ethics, morality, regret, impulsivity and conscience within the brain. Blair, a researcher who pioneered research into psychopathic tendencies stated, “With regard to psychopathy, we have clear indications regarding why the pathology gives rise to the emotional and behavioral disturbance and important insights into the neural systems implicated in this pathology”.


ok so i assume we can say with a high probability who will grow to be a psychopath and who won't. what do we do with these people who are dangerous? we lock them away from society, like in "preventive detention":

in our terms of justice and free will and all that it's considered cruel to lock people like that, but let me explain:

* these days the world is facing the Corona Virus disease. when someone gets sick or even suspected he is put in quarantine because he endangers others.

* there are many other people who are locked for example mental patients. they didn't necessarily harm anyone, but we society are afraid of what they might do if they are free.

* on the other hand this is not prison. the potential-psychopaths can have a full life, they can learn they can work they can relationships, but only with other potential-psychopaths. they can NOT endanger the rest of society.

* do we let people grow at home dangerous animals? like a cobra or a crocodile? no. then why do we let them grown the most dangerous animal of all a psychopathic person?

* do we harm a small percentage of the population who would have grown to be a good person? yes. but it's the same with the justice system today where some innocent people are sent to jail by mistake.

* if you still think this is unfair, think for example about all the victims of jack the ripper. is it fair for them that this probably dignified "gentleman" (doctor) walked freely and killed another and another?

* we have to balance the greater good of all the innocent people and just as we assume that the cobra might kill we have to assume that a psychopath will probably bring a lot of irreparable suffering.

* what about education? can't we just give them the right upbringing? no. this is hard coded in the brain. you can't reason with a pedophile not to be attracted to kids and it's the same here.

* wouldn't a penal colony style "island" like this will turn into hell on Earth for those who are not violent? this argument is the same in prisons and mental institutions and we still have those.

* exactly because of this reason people who show tendency towards violence will not be in this closed community but in something much more secured.

* if you still feel it's unjust think of it as two sections who are dangerous for one another and you have to separate them like the Israelis and the Palestinians. both are ok but can't live together so we give each a country.

* isn't this just like a dictatorship where they imprison whomever they dislike? no because there is a clear and statistically reasonable (albeit with false positive like any mechanism) criterion.

* in fact this kind of system will prevent us from suffering from psychopathic leaders who create dictatorships. imagine a world without them!


this is based on a research that found out that under situations of risk, people who vote conservative parties (right wing) use only a very primitive part of their brain (and rationalize afterwards).

(i found out about this not long ago, in an episode of “Through the Wormhole”). scientists found out with MRI brain scans, that conservatives (in Israel: Bibi supporter) think with the Amygdala which is a primitive part of the brain responsible for fear and aggression. as opposed to liberals (in Israel: Bibi opposer) which have more gray matter and think with the cortex and can deal with complexity. In short right wing people are animals, and left wing people are human beings.

this finding really amazed me because it explained something that puzzled me for a long time like how many people who are very smart in physics for example can be so dumb in politics, seeing only the Jews' side of the equation, ignoring the Arabs, etc. so now it's clear: in subjects which don't involve risk, like equations of physics and with their friends, these people use their developed brain. but in subjects where they feel threat they regress (brain-wise) to being an animal! an animal can't understand the other side, the WIN-WIN solutions etc.

so we as humanity really want our leaders to think like humans. our problems are complicated and require cooperation.

is this discriminatory? yes, but like the previous point, it separates people according to a very logical criterion which you can't fake and is really crucial for these jobs.

you wouldn't employ to the job of President a 2 year old kid who don't care for others, you wouldn't appoint an animal who thinks with primitive instincts and limited intellect, and a right wing in times of stress is exactly that.

what does this have to do with psychopaths? it has to do with reducing the suffering in the world. also thinking only about your group is in my opinion a form of group psychopathy. people who are only good to their small group and can be really bad towards the opposite group like the settlers in Israel are not good people in my book, they are bad people. without the settlers, and assuming the Palestinians remain as they are, Israel would have peace, not terror.


i admit that i never tried ANY kind of drug not even cannabis. in fact i'm very anti-drugs but this is different.

again i never tried it but i have seen on TV (BBC "Amazon" series) what it did to Bruce Parry (who is one of my favorite people on Earth!)

who used this drug in the right environment by traditional shaman in the Amazon.

Amazon: Bruce Parry and the Shamanic Ritual - Explore - BBC by BBCExplore

Mind altering drugs and visions with Ayahuasca - Amazon with Bruce Parry - Explore BBC by BBCExplore

basically the drug forces you to deal with the suffering you did to others. it makes you feel their pain. it's like sharpening your conscience - just what we need for every member of our society!

if we all were forced to take this drug regularly (especially people in key positions), i'm positive it would improve our society and make us all better people!

ok next point:

(2) Inferiority complex - they want to achieve something "bigger" and be significant.


you are very gifted? great. make 10 times more than your friends. you don't need to make 1000 times more. you can't eat 1000 times more than your friends, and if the money lies in your bank account (including your off shore secret bank account, or registered on your cousin's name like payoff for "consulting") that means that 999 other people don't have this money to buy food.

we can't work in communism, because most people don't have incentive to work in such an environment. but we sure as hell can't work in unrestrained capitalism where billionaires hog all the resources and destroy Earth.

this all deals with "economical terrorists" but what about the "violent terrorists"? how do we make their goal unnecessary?


being the most notorious or the most wanted is considered a twisted prize for these people. they want to be famous and be remembered even if it's in something really bad.

so the first thing we should do is to make sure they are not famous. for example if the media would not publish the head decapitation by "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", they would not have done these events. whenever the media TV and the news (including social media) are sharing something like this they invite many more like it in the future, they encourage the current criminal, and give "productive" ideas for future criminals. this has to stop. the TV will lose a little rating but less innocent people will lose their lives.

what if instead of this twisted "fame" that we currently give to criminals and murderers (at least in the eyes of teenagers) like the most feared gangster etc, and in the news where they are presented as "respected" in the underworld, we will dedicate an hour every day to discuss what these people really do, like talking with the victims' families, like taking the kids to urinate on the graves of murders, we have to bring this down to the kids' level so it's clear that there's nothing cool in taking other people lives. we should also bring to school to talk with the students honest people from all walks of life, so that they will see that even if you're not good at school you can still do positive things with yourself and be inspired to be remembered in a good way, not in a notorious way. remember Hitler wanted to be a painter. so it's really important to encourage something that the teenager likes to do and gives him real self-esteem that he can make it in life in a positive way.

society on all levels must reject this idea of "there is no such thing as bad publicity"

like Konrad Lorenz writes in his book "Civilized Man's Eight Deadly Sins" in the chapter "the break with tradition":

"though a five-year-old cannot assess the superiority of his forty-year-old father, he will be impressed by the stength of a ten-year-old, and understand the respect of this boy for his fifteen-year-old brother. instinctively he draws the right conclusions when he notices how the fifteen-year-old, clever enough to recognize the mental superiority of his father, looks up to him."

so we need to think how to use this reference mechanism and to have role models for the kids who are older teenagers who volunteer with them let's say on a weekly basis. this can give both the more mature perspective, and emotional support, or if things are really bad hint professional experts in school that help is needed here. our attitude needs be that if someone falls it's not just him that suffers, it's society as a whole that suffers later.

next point:

(3) Paranoia - they worry about an imaginary enemy (anti-Semitic conspiracies , anti-government conspiracies)

ok this is something that again we should introduce when people are young, from kindergarten and primary school through junior high and high school. in adults the prejudices are already "fixed" and the hatred is instilled.

we need to let the children play with children from other ethnic groups and backgrounds; we need to talk openly in school about good and bad things that the government do. this is not politics, this is real life. if for example instead of running away from the fact that Jews have disproportionate influence in America today, we tackle it candidly out of honest open minded motive to understand the reality we live in, we can trace historical processes that caused this. instead of ignorance, maybe we should bring a Jewish person who will explain how he suffered from discrimination etc?

the kids will see that not all Jews are Goldman Sachs, some actually work for their living! and so on we should bring people from all colors and groups and meet and talk and build projects with different kids and even make friends!

next point:

(4) Suicidal ideation - they want to go out in a blaze of glory.

for the "economical terrorists it's very simple just make the same rules for everybody and treat everybody equally. "equality before the law" and like we already said start by having equal laws for rich and for poor.

once the risk you take is a real risk for yourself, i'm sure most rich people will not take so many risk when the general public no longer pays the bill.

as for "violent terrorists" - how do you deter them from wishing for a glorified death?

again by making it a non-glorified death. we can't prevent the murderer from killing himself before he's caught,

but maybe we can control his image in the media and hence his public image?