Category Archives: republic

Computer illiteracy is destroying democracy


‘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.

The end of all republics


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.



There is a problem with political progress today.  There is no word but fascism to describe a  change of government into a system of always putting subsidies for corporate profit ahead of freedoms, markets, or property, controlled by one person.  A trivial point, an oligarchy as the fascist is possible here too.  While the properties of fascism appear on a regular but limited basis, it’s absolute properties (absolute control) may not be present.  The transition can take place at any speed.  Freedoms can be lost for temporary profit, one freedom at a time.

Alliancism to fascism is much like socialism to communism.   In small doses both can have good short term consequences, but only for a temporary period of time.  Bringing in fractional banking in where there was none before, but cannibalizing the money supply to do it.  Growing economy of scale by ending trade disputes via hard power and eroding citizen rights to reach that goal.  Masking the tragedy of the commons with consumerism and gentrification.  Incrementally replacing debate with marketing, public relations and ultimately propaganda.   Replacing war with police action (conquest by peace).   Meant as a staged scale like socialism, alliancism is a partial implementation of fascism in a capitalist democracy (including republics) as it transitions between the optimal psychopathic cooperative (rights AND shortcuts) to rapid simplification and localization.  Ultimately, collapse.

I’m naming it after the alliance.  The closest relationship a person without a conscience (a psychopath) can have to a friendship.  Temporary and transitory in nature alliances can only exist while at each party thinks they are using the other to their ultimate advantage.  Where fascism immediately assumes all rights to it’s leader class, alliancism can erode rights one at a time.  Cashing in freedoms for temporary pricing advantages via market distortions.   This continues until the faith in currency and property are lost, and trust and investment ceases.

Economics of complexity


“The chief cause of problems is solutions.”  –Eric Svareid
(shamelessly stolen)

The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.” –Sun Tzu

Looking at the world through a caloric lens, complexity increases economic cost.  To further explore this please see this talk by Dr. Joseph Tainter.  Please keep the volume control handy as there are audio anomalies.  It is long but well worth your time.

This is important because it deals with what collapse looks like.  Rome didn’t collapse as some sort of surprise or in a vacuum.  It suffered from growing and unsustainable complexity.  Civgene can provide the ‘why’ for this problem.  Why did complexity occur?  The most obvious answer is corruption.  Why does corruption continuously increase?  Civgene indicates increasing proportions of psychopaths.  Rent seeking correlates to a genetic pool that grows over the life of a civilization and then collapses once that civilization dies.

As corruption increases complexity, economy of scale multipliers provide diminishing returns.  Further as rent seeker revenues fall, they add complexity simply for the sole purpose of seeking additional loopholes to graft from.  The only mechanism for ending corruption created by adding complexity is adding yet more complexity in the form of additional laws.

If you are familiar with legal distribution you can see where this is going.  There needs to be a way to reduce this complexity to spare limited resources.  No historical law making process can provide this.  The video lays out the need for a new kind of legal mechanism, to cope with the real problem behind complexity.

A growing pool of rent seekers grafted onto the core of the system.  The law making rent seekers find marginal problems to combat in public, while their real goal is to seek new revenue from the hidden effects and loopholes of the new law.   Instead we should reduce complexity by distributing laws.  This should create competition for programs that have grown pointlessly bloated solving small scale locally addressable problems.  Naturally reducing the jurisdiction of laws should be under a populist control, since the vast majority of the population are still good economic actors, with the desire to protect the system from the graft at the center in a selfless way.  So while overall “the process of increasing complexity is inexorable”, we don’t need to make things more complex than necessary for the time.

Dr. Tainter calls political ideology a faith. He is correct!  All politics are based at least in part on faith, because testing political theories on humans is impossible (without an epic immoral cost).  Faiths are critical to reason and therefore civilization, but without recognition of the risks of cult that faith brings, they are simply a collar to click a leash onto.

He does equate logic to ethics saying “Everything the Roman emperors did was a logical response to circumstances.”  While explicitly true this is not complete.  This again proves logic is NOT a panacea.  Sociopath stage psychopaths are perfectly logical, to their own needs.  Markets need to be protected to provide good data to build sound logic on.  Reason (the logical mind + the metamind) is available reliably only from the public, away from the center of power.  The public and their subconscious risk management are needed to keep destructive needless complexity from harming those markets.  Logic and subsequently reason can’t accomplish good law without good data.  Unchecked, complexity and graft slowly smothers true cost.

How does legal distribution work?

Legal distribution is the right to veto laws passed by representatives by popular vote, not by abolition, but by moving a law to next smallest legal jurisdiction.  The distribution (federal United States of America for example) means 50 copies of the law are made (one for each state) and the funding is divided 50 ways as designated by percentage by the original bill.  Now each state can change and adapt the law to suit their needs and the funding stream is secure.  Even in the case of state abolition funding flow is guaranteed unless the original now distributed law is abolished by lawmakers at the federal level.

This can be undertaken at any scale and be reduced down to the next smallest jurisdiction.  Including the sovereign individual.

A legal distribution would trump all contracts with the state.  Contracted works would have to be rebid by each distributee.  Contracts with individuals would be exempt as no jurisdiction can be lower than a single sovereign individual.

This attacks centrists, power seekers, and the corrupt would be oligarchs who would raid the treasury without the people.  It discourages secret deals in lawmaking by greatly increasing the risks as works bribed in secret can no longer be delivered reliably.

It suits the goals of 3 of the 4 sectors on the political compass including the majority of republicans and democrat populations (only the statists suffer)

It addresses the problems of the inevitable collapse of government due to growing corruption, corporate lawmaking outrunning civic players, lack of market data in government regulation (state level competition), it solves scapegoat populism driven by propaganda, and if proven as fact it solves growing psychopath populations hijacking the political process to destruction for short term personal gain.

It is based on the human right to fork, which derives from the inherent human rights (property, currency, freedom, friendship, and investment), which form civilization and from which markets derive.  In this it is a direct antidote to the form of propaganda known as the Hegelian dialectic, by always offering a third choice (bad, less bad, localities compete to produce better data) in civic decision making.

It appears superficially socialist, but is actually is a localist antidote to socialism’s observed inequity and graft.  It respects and preserves the hard the hard won balance of rights and common good of distributed laws, but returns the power to oversee that law to a smaller more manageable scale.

The reduction of waste and the restored economy of scale should make voluntary type one civilization participation significantly more feasible.  The right to veto means unexpected corruption in global agreements can be rapidly retracted, and reworked in a competitive fashion and in time a new law can be passed with the data resulting from variation of the distributed competing implementations.

This does not solve the tragedy of the commons directly but instead solves the problem that causes it, aversion to corruption.  The risk of unexpected (to the population of citizens) consequences is near negligible as laws with purposely or unintentionally hidden results can quickly be revoked.  In other words the risk that state defectors will do more damage than defectors at large.  Power as an end to itself is far less feasible at any scale.

Legal distribution should be compatible with any government type like republic, monarchy, technocracy, communism, etc.  Two notable exceptions are theocracy or anarchy.

Change robber barrons into robin hood


How do we stop psychopaths in government?  If we ‘kick their ass’ aka: kill them, it won’t solve the real problem and law will be subverted to societal destruction again.  The problem is humans are two behavioral sets, and one of the sets seeks power strictly as an end to itself. This is true if it’s behavioral or genetic(civgene).

We need the power of popular citizen veto.  The right to fork is basic human right.  Why?  Psychopaths will take over ANY system we make because making mistakes, even for the smartest or the wisest, is a required part of learning.  That’s how the conscience works.  No conscience, no concept of risk, half your decision making power is in the toilet.  Those mistakes feed critical data into subconscious risk calculator.  Yes a wise person will keep their error impact small, but they still must make them.  To err is human, ergo, forgiveness is divine.

The problem with the Austerity/Tea Party solution is the Big Bird(PBS) problem.  Not all government spending is negative or useless.  Even moments before inevitable economic collapse some new laws still reflect use to the society.  This solution (sometimes) can throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Instead we must reduce the jurisdiction of a law solving the real problem, politicians grabbing power and money for themselves and not sharing   aka:unchecked federalization.  Psychopaths are adult children, it’s just like taking the toy from jealous children and saying, ‘now I’m going to keep it.’  Likely you don’t want their toy, but now they’ll think REAL hard before not sharing.

This is the essence of legal distribution.  The power of popular citizen veto over power politics.  If the corrupt abuse their seats to rob the treasury, at least they have to share.

If a law is sane at the largest jurisdiction, it will still be sane at the next smallest (or the next).  It lets people closer to a problem separate the wheat from the chaff.  Yes you will loose some economy of scale at a smaller jurisdiction, but you will also loose all the corruption in the author’s secret ill intent.  That is a choice the citizen of a republic has a right to weigh themselves.  The power of the purse strings is gone.  Watch the power hungry hem and haw and try to beat the common sense out of your brain on this.   National security, they’ll cry.  Tyranny of democracy they’ll scream.   No.  The law will be just as unsafe and unjust as it was when they controlled it directly, but now you know who they are.

Time to let the social ‘marketplace’ of the states or cities shine some sunlight on the dark favoritism of shady republic law.

LGBT tolerance education should be case by case


The problem with teaching tolerance of sexual identity to kids, is that you can’t avoid sexualizing them in the process.  Instead, schools should focus on tolerance in general.

Parents know kids, even kids that will turn out to have alternative sexual lifestyles later, are not naturally thinking about sex. They can’t be prejudiced against their peer’s choice of partner, because while they may have a vague idea they DON’T have a lucid, explicit idea what a sexual partner is. There is sensibility to this obscurity. There is no denying the urges that will ultimately perpetuate the species, but sexual activity vastly expands a psychopaths opportunity to manipulate an inexperienced child. To trap them as their obedient ward, using their own chemical signals to reprogram their conscience against them. Spoiling the likelyhood of eventual self realization and the profits it provides for all.

There is a huge difference between punishing a kid for beating up another kid because he/she commonly refereed to as gay (true or not) and teaching kids how to be gay. I went to high school with an openly gay boy and he was forced out of school by violence. That is the real problem. Kids don’t have to like his lifestyle genetic or not, but they must respect the boundaries of his body and not socially interfere with his education. He (or she) is no one’s slave despite some’s obsession with a psychopathic hierarchy.

I’m not saying 16 year olds can’t or don’t have sexual urges, that’s absurd. I’m just saying institutionally rewarding them for that is regressive. The institution must indoctrinate the innocent in order make sexuality part of the curriculum. Instead schools should work against prejudice in general using what kids must know to be part of civilization.

The same kids that were violent with my gay classmate hated me too. Because I was different. This was the tell. It had nothing to do with his sexuality. It wasn’t even about bullying though most would stop there. It was about intolerance for people who deviate from the pack. The subconscious determination to attack any kid that doesn’t march in lockstep. That’s the problem. That was the problem in my school, in Columbine, and it’s still the problem.

Mandatory sexual indoctrination of the innocent doesn’t solve the problem, and it makes a new one. Prejudice with kids is usually about exposure and normalization of their parents conscience and their prejudices. Normalizing sex isn’t necessary. Instead normalizing tolerance has a better yield and forces no conversations some kids are not ready for. Focus on accepting, or as a better than hate fall back, at least keeping a distance from behaviour you don’t understand. The passive half of shunning. This covers bullying and better prepares children to reserve judgement until they are ready to seek the facts on their own. Only then can you guide them and answer their questions. A behaviour which practiced consistently not only stamps out prejudice, but prepares future adult citizens to be a functional civic agents of a republic. Tolerant, self resolved and driven to be passionately curious.

EDIT: Changed the title to reflect the suggestion, not the risk

Why communism failed


Communists and some socialists argue communism failed because of the implementation.  That the many intricacies it’s authors put forth were not appreciated.  They will point to both it’s observations about inequality and successful predictions about social change.  This last point is important.  Many of Marx’s (for example) observations where in general correct, but I assert he did not know why.  He couldn’t have.  It wouldn’t be understood for another 100 years.

The same trap ensnared Marx, Engels, earlier Soviets, Mao Zedong and many others.  The presumption that humanity could be described as one broad set of human behaviours.   A second human population, identical in appearance and random in placement was at work, and playing by very different rules.  Game theory, a model of perfect selfish logic.

Both property and freedom derive directly from how the conscience operates.  The conscience in turn is what separates civilization from the animals.  These conceptual primitives are the basic proxies of trust, which is necessary for investment, in turn specialization, and then in turn for economy of scale.  If you don’t know economy of scale is the single most important economic force on earth.  The force of efficiency through experience, only possible because risk of waste is lowered though the paranoid kindness of civilized humanity.  Perhaps Marx did not understand that this, not the accumulation of wealth and power is what attracted the whole of humanity to industrialization.  He took a partial view of Adam Smith’s affection for capital as the most significant force in capitalist economics.  Capitalism is about currency, but that currency is derived from property which is a mutually understood provision of autonomy.  Autonomy being the fundamental right of a being to pursue survival.

This is not just another dismissal of Engels and Marx’s ideas, or more specifically not of their observations.  They observed industry leaders accumulating strange amounts of capital.  Capital that was then used to then enslave the poor and diminish the importance of the bourgeoisie or middle class.  They saw the rich becoming much richer.  They noticed that capitalism leaned toward the centralized controls of oligarchy.  They noticed the tendency of to drive wages to the bare substance living, equating it to slavery.  They posited that the societal destructive forces would eventually collapse the social order and subsequently cause an economic collapse.  That people would fold their arms or take up arms and factories and governments would fail alike.  Ultimately they noticed that capitalism seems to promote short sighted selfish behaviour and when the people rejected that behaviour they would form a new order.

Many people have been taken by the validity and verifiability of these claims.  Many were real demonstrable claims as displayed in their home country of Germany.   It would soon face the second and third generations of revolution, war strife and economic collapse that every nation eventually must grapple with.  Their time was the time of Nietzsche and his dark views.  A time where Freud and Jung in neighbouring Austria and Switzerland were desperately trying to understand why people acted in the insane manner in which they did.  He came after a period of hundreds of years of relative economic prosperity that set Germany up for it’s eventual fall.  How could a system that formalized greed and exploitation be accepted such as this?

What no one realized or likely could have realized at the time was that the underlying makeup of the populous had changed.  During the hundreds of years of internally growing prosperity, psychopaths were breeding faster than non psychopaths were.  They had likely grown from some fraction of a percent to several percent.  Likewise attracted to power and wealth they had assumed higher and higher positions in both government and industry.  Germany, along with it’s region had begun a tri-generational social and economic collapse.  Psychopaths accumulate wealth and power to shield themselves from social interaction.  Psychopaths view the world in a binary master/slave model as to ease the same awkward risk, cutting down or kneeling before everyone they meet.  Psychopaths had all but completely overtaken the communal benefits of economy of scale to line their own halls and pockets and the society was crumbling around them for it.

Starting in the revolution, and finally complete with Germany’s forces surrendering to the allies, the psychopaths population had finally been reduced down enough that empathic (non psychopath) humans could near spontaneously generate uncorrupted economies of scale once again.  They had been culled by their own lack of cooperation.  Their inability to blend in to the small self organizing groups that sprung up in the absence of a betrayed central trust doomed them to eventual exile and death.  Not immediately, but over three, long, murderous generations.

Marx was right.  Capitalism was failing, but in error he pointed to the wrong reasons why.  He did not recognize the two separate sets of behaviour, the emapths with their emergent properties as Adam Smith observed, and the game theory selfish logic of the newly prevalent psychopaths.  The capitalist system had been manned, especially at the top by a new people with new rules.  Ones that would lie cheat and steal, at will, to the end of maintaining their own personal veil of normalcy.  Corruption of the trust both implemented and implied by the system.

I was inspired to discuss this by the accusation that the civilization gene is ‘Cultural Marxist crap.’  No, but I can see how someone would think this for the same reasons that someone comes to believe that communism is a valid social strategy.  Marx and Engels correct observations.   The accusation couldn’t  be further from the truth.  Civgene validates Adam Smith and capitalism, when it is undertaken by those with a conscience and it’s inherent attributes property and freedom.  The metamind is undoubtedly guiding the invisible hand, avoiding rationally indiscernible risks.  Meanwhile civgene demonstrates what nature has already demonstrated before.  That the social attributes property and freedom closest work alikes, territory and treaty, only end in a master/slave dichotomy with the end of centralized power as a cheap substitute for trust inspired investment.  Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, Freud, and Jung’s surroundings were distorted.  A madhouse an inch from collapse.  A society collapsing under the weight of it’s psychopaths and their graft, and their desperate corruption.