Trust in the good intentions of others fosters a negative symptom. It conditions us to believe without first having strong ground. Belief in an arbitrary way will make you sway whichever way the wind blows, thus making those who are trusting let their belief change just because someone says that they are an arbiter of what’s believed to be goodness. Goodwill is the trust randomly placed in people and doesn’t say anything practical about goodwill in my view, and instead engrained mindsets, emotions, and instincts that favour taking action are what produces clout. Disbelieve mutual goodwill because it fails to give us strong relationships. There are only weak threads between groups rather than the strong connections that mutual interests make is something to take note of. Goodwill is weaker because it doesn’t have a sound foundation in philosophy and strength. It’s rather working on the hope that people will return goodwill with goodwill in the hope a member of different groups will do something for the good of humanity rather than prescribed interests, because it’s better to help someone in need than it is to let them fight on their own. What gives the edge in our favour is that we don’t simply assume that human beings are fluffy and nice by nature but that they are interested in things, concerned with mental properties that provide groups with something beyond mere kindness or cohesion to serve under and expect an dependable payoff. Kindness and cohesion have to exist together, or they won’t exist for the others of the out-group. But what is the issue with even that?
Cohesion only creates a sense of ‘help your neighbour when they need it’ in harsh environments where survival depends on it. Mutual interest is power relations for groups to work on a similar thing. There is no guarantee that any side will work on what’s been stated unless they have mutual interests, because that is what gets people to work for each other’s side and not merely for one’s own interests. Niceness is an assumption that the other person should be helped, but instead that cushioning of someone’s fall really absolves them or robs them of the chance to grow and learn from any said experience. It makes people lose growth, leaving them with fewer tools, less breadth, and less wisdom than they would otherwise have, which is like a sin for the dark sider, a sin they invite upon themselves turmoil or cause turmoil. Practically that means they will be physically barred from the pursuing what they want to pursue. Mentally they will lose out on their strength when they do not have to deal with the situation. They are spiritually sapped because they won’t see to it to correct the problem, issue, weakness, or whatever it may be, and thus not pursue power. That’s the position that actually makes sense because it has within it kernels of truth. We’re similar to other people because there is room for much self-interest. Kindness or helping without recourse to something higher like a pragmatic ethos is going to produce an issue. Beggars will continue to be beggars rather than choosers if you simply hand things out, but teach them how to be a practitioner of our ways and they will be able to sustain themselves for life and they will be living like choosers, setting the world aflame by their passion.
The problem with unfavourably (for our own group) trying to make things happen that’s as kind for all for anyone, is that it will and does produce bitterness and contempt in the people it purportedly seeks to help. This is because deep down those groups don’t like having to keep going back to be living as dependents or conforming to the authority of the bigger power, as a slave seeking to get his butter. They are not agreeing on fundamental values or beliefs. It does temporarily assuage the expectations of one side by kindness, because it’s based on trust that one side is doing for your own good, but leaves people with contempt because they realise that nothing has changed and they are in an dependents for some larger organisation, conglomerate and empire, and because their growth is thwarted. They are still where they are at, and people are still moving up in the world. Instead, one of the solutions is about the creating of independence.
The outsiders that we see in our countries aren’t really rebelling against the status quo because they don’t have anything to replace the pain and suffering of the dominant value system with. They are fakers and we are the real deal, because we have leadership and status and the outsiders have baggage from another society, nation, and culture that conditioned and programmed them to hate our own culture of freedom or because our state doesn’t tailor to their own specific authority’s values that produced their politics, moving like equality does to the spread of global liberal capitalist consumer culture, justice does to the spread of barbaric laws, dispassion does to spread of emotional retrogressing, or tolerance does to the spread of love, which creates grounds for hate.
Trust affects the will, so it must be treated with some seriousness. I’d believe in distrust to counterbalance the encroachment of trust when it comes to anything or anyone, to let it exist only in good will relationships if that’s what people prefer. We shouldn’t be drawn into being affected by the pursuit of butter while shackled to them without a deal being made. Deals require something to exchange hands or quid pro quo, trade something for something. One side is always willing to part with money for the exchange and the other to follow through on sending the goods for repeat customers. There is nothing more reliable then a good deal because it is enforced, usually with guns or the threat thereof so as to prevent cheating, fraud and stealing. We shouldn’t let an easier instinct be so haphazard here, i.e. trust goes one way and it doesn’t usually bold well for the person doing the trusting, it’s about forgetting about deals and going along with some vague notion of believing in precedent. In our lives, trust runs rampant haphazardly, letting us believe in anything without relying on observations or without relying on listening, listen to everything and trust nothing, or rely on your observations that reveals a person’s or opponent’s true purpose. Judge a person by their actions. Question everything, trust nothing and no one. We shouldn’t believe so quickly in precedent, precedents can be falsified and lies, precedent can be a history of failure. Mutual interest is reliable because both parties want to do what they say they will commit too, its actions they are taking already, personally enjoy or take great pride and so they will continue to not compromise or contradict the other side because there is strong bonds or a unbreakable allegiance in similar actions, same emotions, thoughts, habits and behaviours, means predictable results.
Obedience does not really relate to trust in goodwill because we are usually obedient because of some pattern in place. We are obedient to the continued professionalism and the efficacy of good work done by someone else, not that we trust in good intentions, but rather, we have recourse to their actions or current power as being favourable or not to your goals or purposes eventually. Both of those formats are really intrinsic to their being, while trust in goodwill is random and therefore not very useful much of the time that we’re aware of. It’s really in our best interests to trust goodwill a lot less.