Category Archives: GOVERNMENT

Computer illiteracy is destroying democracy

Leave a reply

 

‘lies, damn lies, and statistics.’

You’re a monster. An authoritarian undermining democracy. Yes, yes, this is hyberbole. But is it? How did this happen? Odds are you are at least luke warm to democracy in theory. Yet you follow and support trends that rip into it’s flesh. Like some jungle predator with a face full of blood. A low information werewolf, who seems normal enough on a regular day. But periodically on a clear night, when the moon is full you are asked to vote. To support some idea put to the public. You wake up in torn clothing, covered in ‘I voted’ stickers, your integrity cut and bruised.

Generation X may well be the only generation who can see it. Anyone can be shown it, I hope, but only Generation X has a firm footing in both worlds. Generation X was the first generation to grow up with computers. They grok both automation and networks in a special way. Kids of the 80s remember seeming retail shrink wrap software and air gapped computers. Everywhere. There was no shortcuts. Your data quality defined your output. Type in the wrong numbers and get wrong answers out. Garbage in, garbage out, burned into our subconscious with toil.

Our computer world, before the internet world was lit ablaze with the web, mirrored the rest of the world. Statistics were garbage, or at least they could be. Open a newspaper, and some huge dramatic number would adorn page two. How many dead, how many tons of material, how many days until a trend reached a record. It may sound like our world now, but there were many such page 2s. The next week another chart, painfully explained would contradict it. It was understood that even one basic assumption change, either in the data or the formula changed everything. Boomers got this, the greatest generation got this, and so did Xers. We grew up in a self aware, analog world. A common culture.

Boomers didn’t grow up with computers. They knew what they were, sort of. Sure the tiny minority of computer professionals in that generation may share X’s perspective, but their youth was more rocked by the introduction of transistors, literally. X had a supercomputer sitting on their desk. Not cheap, not small, but a single desktop would have been worth waging war over just twenty years prior. They had the freedom to explore it, and more importantly, explore how people reacted to it.

Data inherently must have focus. Scope and scale matter. Forget that and you run out of memory, or bits in your data type. Ram and hard drives were tiny. Just big enough for an algo and some subset of data. You could only reiterate as many times as you can store. It was elegant and efficient or it failed. Eventually you realized, at some level, that elegance was a trade. Conflated data types. 3d perceptions smashed into 2d sprites. You made assumptions and you knew it. Everyone knew it. The bad assumptions were glaring. Mashed pixel art were unrecognizable and made games unplayable. Spreadsheets that wouldn’t produce even basic known outcomes with known good data. Programs looped forever. Generation X was computer literate, or in some cases they were forced to know they weren’t.

Along with the internet came more resources. Computers were still finite but growing faster than programmers could reduce their assumptions. Modems connected the world to mountains of code and data. An endless landscape of shared ideas and effort. Many mountains of garbage, but some with beautiful parks atop them. The children forever after would grow up in this connected world. Limited resources never explored, self reliance never tested. Air gaping was out of the question. The greatest became the latest. Not because younger people are lazy, as is often postulated, but because they can’t keep up. The mountains grow faster than any one person can shovel. You can copy someone else’s mountain in the blink of an eye, or if it’s big, the consumption of a cup of coffee.

An individual explorer may transverse the many mountains, but when a civilization builds a city atop, it collapses. A crash and screaming panic as sinkholes swallow up whole skyscrapers. It happened with Nazdaq founder Madoff, it happened with the USA Office of Personnel Management, It happened with Solar Winds, and it happened with first Diebold and now Dominion voting machines. Disasters unforeseen as cyber-security flies air patrols high above the skylines build atop faulty un-scrutinized code. The insider threat. Not from any one person, though they may participate, but built up from faulty assumptions. The mountains of un-examined code and data are the ultimate insider,

How did the ground under our feet become the an insider just waiting to defect? Conflation. Shortcuts, cheats and correlation without causation. Not scrutinizing the details because there are too many of them. An explosion of assumptions. The shoot from the hip idea that because there are experts, and they present detail, that detail is sufficient to understand all the important problems. People are drawn to the tallest, shiniest building, not because it has a firm foundation. It is un-examined. Instead it is a landmark in a rapidly changing skyline. A compass needle in a landscape so poorly planned that people run from landmark to landmark, lucky each time their presence is not their integrity’s grave.

Computers fail fast. So fast, that failure is the model. Instead of science and engineering, with both time tested models and scrutiny, computer code and data is slapped together. No loving examination is practiced. It’s a great model. A personal favorite. The wild west. Full of mystery and exciting puzzles. Chaos incarnate. Irresistible to the smartest humans suffering from perpetual boredom. Trying to find a solution, any solution, to any problem that temporarily blocks your goals.  Lewis and Clark mapping out the wilderness over and over. Subject to skill and talent, but also to random luck. So random that massive signs and tourists celebrate the rare occasion that explorers mapped out a path worth keeping as a superhighway later. Except with computers the analogy of time and pavement breaks down. The first path that works is the path the entire world uses. No additional exploration is attempted. The computers follow the trail at light speed, it’s path rarely explored again.

Thee data dumps and code fragments are not the product of scrutiny, but instead junky fragile prototypes, forced into production. Piled up in massive hills and mountains adorned with the structures of democracy. No one person can own the exploration of such a hill, nor can the structures on it be easily moved aside, so no one does this impossible work. It’s all great fast fun copying these broken structures, but it’s not a game. Real lives hang in the balance.

A computers code can be engineered as their hardware often is. Designed with degrees of precision. Understood from the bottom up. Scrutinized not just by someone, but anyone who has an interest. An effort including the entirety of the world. It should be the whole world, because human civilization pays the price when it is not. When a skyscraper or a city falls into a pit of chaotic or un-scrutinized code the world falls with it. That’s their city too. Same bad data, same bad code. Democracy needs scrutiny. Not only of it’s data, but it’s twisted winding algorithms. It can be played like a game but it’s not. If any system ever had malicious externalities, defectors with real menacing goals against a society, it’s democracy.

Psychopaths, foreign actors, and other profit motivated defectors can use the chaos of top down computing as subterfuge, but that’s not democracies worst problem. Many democracies have faced complex and inept bureaucracies before. It’s the problem of both speed and ignorance. Speed as poor or subversive ideas can become critical infrastructure in mere months, and ignorance, that a closed source code system allows this. I single out generation X as the lone guardians not because newer generations can’t know better, but because they can, and don’t. Nothing drills a point home like toil and suffering. Struggling to make the limited resources of tiny ancient computers sing for you. You can see the compromises plain as day. It seems people who did not have to make due, don’t know what they don’t know. An unknown unknown. Younger people think you can trust any computer code that works, and they are dead wrong. The biggest danger to the whole system is they don’t even know there are risks.

It’s not that network babies can’t demand open source code, or limited use computers, or code audits. I’m hoping it’s that they never even thought about the problem. They never once had to look at a computer and say, this isn’t doing what I need, and had to solve it by understanding the problem with more depth. They are drowning democracy in their unjustified trust of the machines that they depend on. Having been educated in a system that never questions authority, so long as it feigns casual support for individualism. Individualism that computers and their twisted code, doesn’t know or care about. If it feels good, it must BE good. A write once paper log of operations doesn’t make network babies feel good. The better than genetics certainty of digital signatures doesn’t raise their confidence because they were taught not to be skeptical in the first place.

It’s doesn’t end with ignorance of the unknown unknowns. The real tragedy is the technocratic elitism. The same exact system that produces the blindly trusting, produces their captors with the same exact philosophies. As feel good generations filter out their geeks with the knack for code, and socially isolate them from shared social experiences, they quickly come to believe that the rabble is grossly ignorant. Thinking they understand safety and scrutiny, they use it to justify subjugation. The shared delusion that all people are one behavior set tells the technocrats that the sometimes intelligent but misguided have had every opportunity to distrust and scrutinize their world. They must be managed, or even worse, re-educated. Technocrats who are elite from youth categorize their less adept social peers as if they were Non Player Characters in some simulation, dehumanizing them.  They need computerization to marry their misguided complex rules to their different in practice counterparts.  To thwart natural law and enforce their chosen norms.  The same norms that drive individual sovereignty and it’s derivative democracy.  Don’t just take my word for it, look how badly political polling fails for example. If the model worked, the projections would be more accurate.

Democracy as a system is rapidly dying. It’s no surprise as it’s a system of cooperation. Computers make bad decision making possible at a blinding and still increasing pace. Both in the design of the computer software, and in enforcing broken social paradigms sold as science. There is a solution, but tales, myths of another time, block it from taking hold. During generation X’s youth the public was not aware of how important computer literacy would become. Many companies won a lottery as rare ‘ordinary’ employees were promoted into roles where they revamped their companies computer code and data. The companies in question got lucky. They hired personnel that had not yet recognized skills, who in turn, returned the companies investments many times the worth of their salaries. They stumbled onto a gunslinger, just made for the wild west. This turned into a hiring spree, and then a crisis. Politicians the world over have made it a top priority to find every single geek that they can identify through programs like STEM. It’s exhausted the supply, isolating would be technocrats from interacting with their broader societies.

It’s time to recognize the truth. The public has few top gunslingers. Don’t take my word for it, test yourself. Make some time. Examine some code or some data. Make it behave the way you want. If you can’t that’s fine. I and nobody else should think less of you for it.

Stop trusting the technocrats. They can’t provide you with solutions to democracy, it’s not practically possible. Their system of design is semi-random and they can not audit it in detail, even if they wanted to, which they probably don’t. Big tech and big data did not grow, or was not designed in your interest. Know what you don’t know. I don’t care if you put computer specialist on your resume, but don’t you believe it. Don’t believe the tall tales of gunslingers of the 80s and 90s still apply.  Demand tangible proof of markets, votes, stats and anything MIGHT influence any sort of vote. Do not become someone else’s useful idiot. If they can’t prove it demand the code and the data. If you can’t understand it, and they can’t explain it where you deeply understand it, don’t vote for it.  Or with it.  Until they make a simpler model you can understand.   If you can’t grok the code, and you can’t see the data, the only way to protect democracy is to assume it isn’t sufficiently vetted, or honest.

There is a chance democracy can be saved. If you realize the truth. Democracy REQUIRES more skeptics than our society requires technocrats. They are vital to peace and progress.  It doesn’t even matter if you are not genuinely a skeptic, but democracy can’t function if you don’t act like one.  Your smallest culture doesn’t make you better, and that goes double for the technocrats because of how their business model operates. That criticism and doubt from common society isn’t just important to democracy, it’s the only thing that keeps it alive.

Hegelian dialectic can be used to manipulate voters into tyranny

Leave a reply

 

The deeply unscientific idea that all people are potentially ‘good’ undermines and distorts modern societies.  While many conflicts between humans are learned, some are genetic and can not be unlearned.   At best they can often (not always) be restrained with continual effort.

With the shelter of the inaccurate pure ‘nurture’ or pure nature, intractable differences in behavior beget intractable differences in opinion.   Including in matters of life and death.  Like any systemic lie an opportunity for the unscrupulous (and a trap for the unskilled) is presented.

Hegelian dialectic can be used to manipulate voters. Here is how.   

1. THE LONG CON (perform infrequently):  Two groups of voters who oppose each other on life or death issues are needed.  Create a 2 way false dilemma with life and death stakes.  The stakes should be real, their opposition to each other (or exclusivity) need not be.  You can’t keep a group together on the premise of opposition alone, they must also have their own equally grave identity.  One group is for A and against B and the other is for B and against A.  Use guilt based on their own culture against them to manage defection rates.

2. REINFORCE CONFLICT:  Since most politicians will support either A or B to win the entire voting block, the only group in play are independents.  It doesn’t matter who the independents are or how many there are, just that roughly equal parts consider A and B ‘their one issue.’  Ideally A and B should not reflect your meaningful goals.

3. ATTRACT ATTENTION:  Independents inherently reject A and B as a valid dilemma, since that’s what makes them independent.  Poll independents to find out what their current common desires are.  Big events may be needed to quell their typical skepticism of authority.

4. CREATE/ALLOW A STRAWMAN:  that wants to take away independent desires. Keep a bullpen of strawmen are always ready.  This may take a while as independents are more savoy and will reject a cartoonishly evil strawman.  Their motives and their threat must look real.  A real but manageable threat is just as effective with less risk of discovery, so if one does arise, allow it.

5. PRESENT THE RINGER:  Present the actual target politician or law as a solution to the strawman.

6. PERFORM MAGIC:  All magic is distraction or misdirection.  The politician(s) will openly advocate for more power in the sectors LEAST important to independents at the time.  This needs to be presented as winner take all or a prisoners dilemma.  The core idea is if you don’t support the the Ringer, you support the strawman.

7. CONSOLIDATE POWER, REASSESS: ‘Vanquish’ the Strawman.  Verify the long con is still viable.  Work to preserve it as long as you can, as a new long con may take an entire generation to become stable.  If the long con is viable return to #2.  If not build a new long con.  Return to #1.

8. CONQUEST:  Eventually independents will have cycled through the all the powers that matter to you, the would be dictator/oligarch, and the system, their power, and rights will be yours.  The entire system will now be pegged at authoritarianism, and left/right swings will be at your discretion.

Voters can beat this slow march to tyranny.  

A. NEVER BECOME A SINGLE ISSUE VOTER:  (A not B, or B not A).  The A/B group (often single issue voters) have NO influence unless extraneous events end the effective dilemma.  If you can’t manage this, don’t vote.  A vote for externality is a vote for fantasy.  Deny the temptation at simplification.  Always be an independent.  Always have AT LEAST 3 key issues define who and what you will vote for.  There are hundreds with life or death stakes, you can find three.

B. REJECT BINARY CHOICES:  Always demand a third way.  A third bill.  A third party.  Alternatively, not now, later, is also a third way.  Procrastination has power.  Deadlock can stall the machine on step #7 IF the strawman is not a real threat.  Demand more information. Democracy dies in darkness, sometimes from stalled strawmen who turned out to be a legitimate threat after all.  Approval voting can greatly reduce winner take all, gerrymandering, and negative character (potentially strawman) politicking.

C. REJECT CALLS TO AUTHORITY AS VALID ARGUMENT:  The purveyor of an argument should have NO bearing on it’s qualities.  This is the significance of truths being self evident.  This is how power structures are used retain the power stolen from independents.

D. LIMIT TERMS:  Maintaining A/B dilemmas and managing the bullpen of strawmen is complex and expensive.  The longer the consecutive term, the easier it is to influence and front run social change.  An illicit funding channel is most likely to be discovered at it’s onset.  Further, the black market to nurture that funding may be complex and fragile.  Both short terms and and approval voting create opportunities to add externalalities to defectors hence protecting democracy.

Why this matters now, and hopefully never again.

When number one, or the long con has been damaged or dismantled there is an opportunity to reject the next long con.   In my opinion this has happened in 2020.  For three generations Americans have fought over two life or death issues in pro-choice/pro-life and right to bear arms/gun control debates.   A false dilemma, used for the long con.

Time to form a new debate.  A debate to end strawmen.  How best to avoid corruption, and how to protect us from economic collapse while reducing it.  If we don’t people will react the same way they always have during massive corruption.  Folding their arms and sacrificing economy of scale in order to starve the corruption out.  Except this time, it all ends in meltdowns of the hundreds of nuclear power plants and the death of the planet.

All people are not good.  And you can’t detect who is not with your five senses at a distance.

Time to recognize currency as a human right.

Cult deplaforms, uncult replatforms

Leave a reply

replaformed-4-f

What is a cult? It is a faith based organization that disallows exit. The open secret is that faith need not be supernatural, but can easily be theoretically provable, and yet still be just faith. Since human science controls are typically unethical, political organizations are faith based. Even worse, fundamentalist political organizations that are both corrupt and more focused on rules than identity may make exit impossible, becoming a stealthy cult.

The human conscience grows stronger to recognising risk as it is exposed. In some cases opponents may be few, but unanimous political support at scale indicates oppression. People then carry the flag of their faith based organization as though it gives them wizardly powers of truth, joyous in their lack of opposition. In reality they are supporting an organization that limits opportunities for external criticism and has removed the opportunity of exit of their perceived opponents. There are always externalities, a lack of their observers indicates the absence of freedom.

When a rule focused hierarchy faces opposition of it’s procedures or plans, it’s mechanizations slow. Warnings elicit groans and frustration from committees and meetings as the cost of ordinary business begins to rise. Risk/impact analysis can elude even well meaning actors and resources are squandered. If a hierarchies leaders are flawed through incompetence, naivete, or actively defecting, the hierarchy can suffer and ultimately fail.

If they hear every risk, resources are squandered, but if they miss even one high impact risk, the result is the same. Hierarchies need to get this right. High frequency risks have high currency(social or monetary) rewards for discovery, a feedback loop is naturally created. The low frequency risks are the ones that pose typical systemic threats.

Cults are dangerous because the low frequency risk examination is blocked with ultimate authority, or in other words, physical force. Just like any hierarchy it blocks the disruptions caused by low frequency risks to cut costs (or something worse from corrupt psychopathic defectors) You have been deplatformed, so you can not repair the system, and because it is an ultimate authority, you can not exit it. Traditionally, all non mainstream thinkers are trapped in cult.

This systemic risk has been accepted because of a lack of resources to correct it. Books and widely distributed publications, and the freedom of speech that protected them, have been the only externalities. These publications require enormous resources to utilize them. A lifetime can be spent popularizing a single externality enough that public pressure forces the review of it’s risk. Thanks to technology, this limitation is no longer the case.

The Internet has the power to be the uncult. It can identify the intent of ‘cost cutting’ to ignore or externalize low frequency risks. Risks without feedback loops no longer need to be deplatformed, they can be replatformed. Hierarchies can no longer hide behind natural resource limits. A simple address, redirecting people to low frequency risk resource sites can be employed for no cost, rather than cutting them off all together.  Use their old platform to point to their new one. Allowing people to explore the risk for themselves, possibly leading to a failure avoiding fork.

The only coherent argument against this policy in general, is the lack of people’s ability to govern themselves in democracy, which I wholly reject. Democracy works because hierarchy attracts psychopaths and their behavioural spectrum, and the furthest people from that center are the least likely to harbour opportunistic ill intent. Make a personal change, absent clear and present danger, only accept the uncult. Hierarchies that replaform instead of deplatforming. It’s free, so anything less is a rejection of the viability of democracy itself.

Who gets the benefits from the doubts?

Leave a reply

self-mutilation(tasteful self mutilation)

If faith is rationalized knowledge you can’t prove, and forgiveness emotional resolution to avoid manipulation, who are you really doubting?

Truth telling is a regular affair. If empathy is the engine, spoken truth is the grease of civilization. Most of the time, the benefit of the doubt is not only implicit, but entirely unvisited. Analysis of every statement, every gesture, every promise would undo civilization. Investment would be exhausting and a terrible trade.

When a flash of insight presents a doubt, the temptation is to ignore it. Civilization is a big machine, and the wise human knows the gears must turn to perpetuate the economy of scale. Down time for repairs will have a non linear cost, but the conscience is first and foremost is a risk engine. The dilemma is usually treated as such, ‘is your conscience groaning more loudly about the risk of a lie, or the risk of addressing it’. This can work but introduces a new risk, gaslighting.

Gaslighting seems silly at first but can be the flat edge to a long wedge. First the lies are subtle and inconsequential to the operation of your society, with one exception, you. You learn to NOT trust your gut and ignore insight.

If a high EQ empath is faced with a single dishonest threat, the dishonest actor eventually becomes silhouetted against their more honest context. Your risk engine retunes itself with it’s flow of higher quality data, and they stand out. The problem is addressed and civilization’s machine chugs on.

There is systemic risk, the risk the conscience is poor at managing a flurry of lies. The intelligent and psychopathic defector WILL notice this golden opportunity. Instead of identifying a narrow pattern of doubt, the conscience is too noisy to be useful. Doubt is aimed inward. ‘I must be the problem.’ Without warnings of risk the conscience becomes a liability.

If you are untrained in proposing and rationalizing conspiracies, you can be taught to throw away your conscience or even program it against your own interests. Not just you. Everyone. Flooding people with enough lies to disable their conscience requires a conspiracy. Those that discourage conspiracy theory are likely in the institutional gaslighting business, better known as propaganda.

Who benefits from the doubts? The institutions people are directly involved in. The hierarchies that are riskiest to fork or otherwise defect from. Today that is their governments, their schools, their employers. Those wise to history know finding a criminal conspiracy can be as simple as asking who benefits? Cui Bono.

Doubts are yours, and no good comes from throwing them away. Rationalize them. Not because the conscience is never wrong, but if you don’t use your risk manager, you lose it. Researching, fact checking, and setting traps for the unscrupulous benefits you. Detect reality. Accept no lies, not even the small ones. Painful honesty keeps your conscience active, well tuned, and in a position to defend the economies of scale that afford us the luxury of leisure, and it’s prosperous civilization.

Your empathy, and it’s outrage, IS the machine. The top priority must be keeping the context honest. Demand people with high EQs. Always observant, tough as nails, and a zest for learning. Test their empathy. Protect the machine with vigorous curation. Reject the benefit of the doubt. Doubt people. Doubt systems. Doubt away.

The tragedy of the currency

Leave a reply
columns-s

The problem with both central banking and vaulted gold are the same, they provide legitimate efficiencies. There is no airtight analytical case against them.  Economies of scale of security and analysis do provide some, even much, legitimate value.

Do those economies of scale outweigh the risks of the ‘keepers’ keeping a private ledger?  Almost always at first and never forever.  Corruption creeps in.  Corruption is really the rising cost of transparency.  A chess game of emotions,  like ‘kindness’, ‘fairness’, ‘ability’ and even magical powers, slowly chips away at the keepers ability to be honest.  Once the honesty dies, nothing feeds the flow of transparency and it withers and wilts.  Eventually nothing is left but a carboard cutout of it’s former self.  An unliving, inaccurate, but easy to explain and defensible approximation of the actual state of weights and measures.  A public ledger.

Insider threats always abound, so a brutally honest private ledger must be quietly kept along side it.  Once transparency is a shell of it’s former self, the stake holders of their currency no longer keep tabs on it’s mechanics.  Discrepancies form, and are exasperated by greed as they are observed and then exploited by the now unwatched keepers.  At first the exploitation is covered up to protect the currency itself, but eventually the cover up exists strictly to protect it’s liquidity, and then, it’s ability to hold any value at all.

The tragedy of the currency is wrapped up in it’s mechanics.  The single ledger becomes a lightning rod of anger, justified or not, against inequity.  Politicians (remember ‘politc’ is simply your public face) delay to answer smartly.  Not to skim at first but simply to quiet their opponents. Sometimes the delayed issues are completely tangential to the virtues of the currency.

Time is friction in transparency.  Delays become corruption.  The older data is the more useless it becomes.  A composite caricature of discombobulated snapshots in time.  You can’t trust what you can’t see, and you can’t see the whole accountant at once.  At first it’s impractical, and then it’s discouraged.

The mechanics of absolute power corrupt absolutely.  The problem with a single ledger has always been, it’s single accountant, and their perhaps unintentional but still vulnerable political face.

Most civilizations have approached this as a political problem.  Avoid bad politics and the accountant is safe.  History has demonstrated no person or their protectors are unassailable.  Even if they were, they are mortal and will be succeeded.  Instead the United States proposed a technical solution.  Every person is their own accountant.  They must preserve their own ledgers. Nearly impervious to corruption, but inefficient.  Then in desperation, in a time of world war, this was abandoned for centralized efficiencies.

If you solve the single accountant problem in a centralized way, you solve the public/private ledger problem.  Enjoy the spoils of the economies of scale without the classical risks.  How can many accountants share one ledger without losing the efficiencies of one copy?  By copying and verifying the copies of the ledger so fast that the entire market can view every trade in real time without latency.  Time approaches an infinitely small number, so transparency approaches an infinitely large one.  That is exactly what Bitcoin does.  And it’s never been done before.  Laid down on the transparency of it’s open source code, the open ledger is copied and updated all over the world every second of every day.  Everyone can know the ledger is real because they can see exactly how it is verified.

How to trust is an unsolvable problem, but how to avoid needing to trust is already solved.  A grand joke on those who obsess over politics.  A comedy of the currency.

Civgene can provide objective morality

Leave a reply

 

 

Video explaining how you can derive objective morality from civgene.

You can use behaviours unique to empaths to derive objective morality from science itself.  Non-psychopathic behaviours are like atoms which in turn can be used to build rights, much like molecules.

More to come.

Edit 3/25:  Updated video.  Clearer and more concise edits with clips.

The end of all republics

1 Reply

theregone

The words are hard to find when discussing the chaos in the 2016 presidential election in the psychopath trap known as the United States government.  People, even both parties subconsciously captive proto-psychopaths, realize that something huge has happened, even if they can’t determine what.  I think I’ve sorted it out.

I noticed that cyber-security specialists, for the moment, seem to fall almost completely on the statist point on the political compass.  People of all political affiliations group around a single point of view.  That cryptographicly signed, leaked emails, must be ignored.  A point a view that without it’s massive scope and current context would ever have been proffered by even a significant minority of them a mere six months ago.  Today It dawned on my rickety brain why.  They are fighting the leading edge of a trend that changes their career path.  Facing their own obsolescence.

I am not talking about the cyber security analyst at large trying to harden network structures against attack and limit damage when that fails.  I’m talking specifically about internet based evidence gatherers.  Internet cops.  Specialists of formal investigation and the resulting digital custody chains.  In one long mathematically indisputable batch of emails the ability of LEOs to have any effect, or to be effective, died.

The robots are coming and they are from Wikileaks.

Lets talk some math.  DKIM is a method of signing an email.  The entire thing including the header (sender, postmark and return address).   Some of the wikileaks emails are signed by Gmail with 2048 bit encryption.  Odds that the 2048 bit DKIM encryption signed emails have been altered is roughly 1 in 64 trillion.  This may just seem like a really big number to you until you realize this number represents the biggest number of any evidence chain.  The BEST case (the best tests and samples) for DNA being incorrect is 1 in 20 billion.  Usually it’s more like 1 in 10 million with more realistic samples, genetic target and affordable testing.  Forget the physical evidence point of view.  With a fatal car accident every hour in the United States (for example) there is a 1 in 300 million chance any particular physical sample is corrupted after being onboard during a fatal car crash.

Why does this matter?  Because the most reliable method of written evidence delivery, can now be sent from a random, anonymous, source on the Internet.  Police, even international spies, need not apply.  In addition, a corrupt government can no longer forge statistically significant contrary evidence in defense of a corrupt government.

The technology is now proven that it is no longer in the the interest of people to hire expensive, flawed LEOs, but instead insist that their governments just use DKIM for all digital communications.  Chain of custody included.  Cybersecurity custody professionals, perhaps subconsciously, have been protecting their own employment prospects from the automation wave.

So when do all the republics die?

If citizens had correct conceptual understanding of their own societies, that would probably NOT happen.  Unfortunately that is not the case.  Several theories about psychopaths have become part or near fact since the 1970s, coming as close as psychology ever does to hard science.   They are largely considered to be 1-3% of the population, are attracted to wealth and power, are both ruthless and incurable, and are the highest functioning mental illness.  Simply put they are attracted to corrupt opportunities of government power in the psychopath trap.  They become gridlocked in that trap as career politicians, winning small victories while calculating risks from many blackmails from their peers.  It’s dirty, and ruthless, and law is created and enforced like sausage is made.  In unappetizing fashion.

In a world where psychopaths are fact, if you are foolish enough to think you have a ‘team’ in this fight, you probably have no idea how it works.

When countries, outsider candidates or even random citizens can introduce evidence with a better chain of custody than even the very best evidence the police for a country can produce, it throws the psychopath trap in disarray.  Despicably maintained but carefully balanced power, suddenly shifts as LEOs suddenly pull cornerstones from their mooring.  This, sometimes, is why they protest enforcing the law.  Like pulling a rotten tooth from the mouth, it’s a grotesque and unnerving, if necessary job.

It is entirely possible that a political and psychopathic union may form during lulls in evidentiary activity.  If enough time passes without a leak or a whistleblower, they may temporarily stabilize key support and convert the republic into some variation of dictatorship.  This is where enlightened countries may be entirely lost to tyranny.  This is where stupid psychopaths below the top rung do anything to save their own skin.  There is justice among the horror as it won’t work for most.

Now that this technology exists (it need never be ‘approved’ to be effective) and the purge has begun, it is in the interest of insiders, even the dirtiest psychopaths, to both flee and keep the signed leaks coming.  This is the signal that the trio of psychopath choice (double down, defect and die) only has one option left, defect.  This is because dictatorships have far fewer key supporters, so most key political positions will be eliminated.  With the leading indications of their internal enforcement methods coming to light, it’s clear that many if not all key supporters will be hunted and/or executed if they do not qualify for the short list of required keys.  Psychopaths don’t do self sacrifice.  He who panics first, panics best.  A person with an uncaptured built in risk engine (the conscience) would know that.  The smartest psychopaths should keep council with them.

Republics that proffer law and order without at least a superior custodial track for cryptographically signed communications will be known as democratic in name only.  A rapidly fading role awaits them on the global stage.

The republic reborn

If you are lucky enough to live in one of the republics that remains representative during this process, what will you be given?   A technocratic republic for sure.  One where hierarchy is not just casually but formally mistrusted.  Where communications from officials in office are mandated to DKIM verification.  A system where legal distribution looms over the would be corrupt secret deals in all new law.  A place where voters would vote using the spoiler and gerrymandering free approval voting on a blockchain, verifiable from anywhere by private key, but who’s anonymity would be protected by both technology and law.  A system where debt is allowed but all currency and money is free in return.  A system where free trade could never include cessation of human rights in the trade.  A system where a type one civilization may finally be possible.

Until then it’s simply an ugly waiting game.  Patience, luck and work.  A slow motion mudslide pushing away establishment key supporters.  Until the first time hidden allies don’t scurry away when a stone is moved.  Blackmail interlock cascade exhaustion.  People will say, ‘lets see what went wrong’, but it’s already obvious.  Secret alliances plotting against the public at large.  In a word, corruption, intentionally placed in places the public can’t reach it.  Placed by people, often psychopaths and their minions, who took advantage of a system that while sceptical was not sceptical enough.

What civgene isn’t – subjective morality

Leave a reply

 

Civgene is never an attempt to alter objective morality.  Instead it is meant to observe, contrast, and consider the implications that objective morality is biologically less compelling, and therefore less relevant, for psychopaths.

In the ideal case (where civgene’s theories and predictions are perfectly true), it would travel no further than explaining objective morality’s origin.  IMO such is true for all science.