Go back to Introduction - Part 1.5, An Introduction to Political Power A solitary innovator can have within his head all that is necessary to transform the world so dramatically, that all the wealth and power of an established industry - or, potentially, of a great proportion of those with established interest in the whole economy - is voided. Many of the machinations of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, Rothschilds, and their ilk, are responses to this reality, a reality obviously inconvenient for them. The schism between these two types of men - the innovators and the power brokers - is one of the greatest divisions in the human race. The innovator, in an ordinary work day, will personally progress designing or implementing something lasting, be it a dam, a road, a skyscraper, an airplane, a computer software system, or a work of art. Power brokers seek to prosper without creating the means of prosperity, often eroding it for others in order to gain relative advantage, producing a deficit in the process, which is injurious to others. Innovators seek to prosper by creating the means of prosperity for themselves, or protecting it, producing a surplus in the process, which is enjoyed by others. The great innovators, intrinsically few in number as a consequence of genetic and sociological circumstance, in large part drive the course of the human experience on the scale of centuries. Days and years are the domain of the second hander, but in an honest analysis of the fabric of lifestyle, the constituents that run deepest are the ones put there by the innovators, people of practically boundless means, often independent or even solitary toilers. The innovators are the great givers, the fountains of life. The power brokers are willing to squash the whole of humanity, in order to reach and crush those few great innovators who threaten their hegemony, innovators who are often nameless and faceless until they already present a credible threat to the power brokers. Many of those currently in positions of influence and power pursue fundamentally tyrannical world government, because they want to snuff out any process anywhere which has the potential to erode or destroy their positions of advantage. Even local socio-political evolution, left to its own devices, presents such a potential, so it too is snuffed out to the greatest possible degree, for example through engines of cultural imperialism. In terms of evolutionary psychology, at the very nucleus of the conflict between the innovators and the power brokers is a battle over women. The innovators envision a society in which mates are mutually chosen by free will, based on merit, where merit is a measure of the degree to which an individual enables satisfaction, innovation, and the freedom of others (in a word, prosperity). The power brokers envision a society in which the powerful choose mates who are substantially deprived of free will, and who base what decisions they are let to make on the power of a prospective mate, where power is a measure of the deprivation of free will the power broker exercises as control over others. Indeed, it is precisely because the practices of the power brokers (rape, seduction and coercion by political power in the form of command authority, fame, or monetary wealth, etc.) produce short term procreative dividends, that there are people living today who instinctually practice the predatory corruptions of the power brokers. The great innovators and most effective power brokers have always been, are, and will always be, mostly men. Thus, women are entangled in the middle, and the battle between the innovators and the power brokers is a battle between a system in which women are free (the innovators' society) and one in which they are slaves (the power brokers' society). Women are, nonetheless, a much lesser concern and occupation for the innovators than for the power brokers - partly because other people per se are not a consuming concern or occupation for them. The principal motivation for the power brokers' systematic crushing of uncooperative innovators can be stated another way. From the perspective of the rest of the world, these innovators introduce chaos into society. I do not mean for this to be understood as a metaphorical, approximate concept, but rather as a precise and mathematically meaningful concept. A characteristic of chaotic systems is that aspects of the system that are small at one time can determine very large aspects of the system at a later time. This is the butterfly phenomenon: turbulence from the fluttering of a butterfly in Brazil can (though is of course fantastically unlikely to) weeks later cause a hurricane to befall the eastern seaboard. Innovation is similar: a fleeting thought held in the head of a single individual can years later expand into a social and economic revolution. Though butterflies in Brazil are beyond the reach of meteorological methods, it is feasible to identify those rare individuals who are more likely to have such thoughts. Thus, they are constantly in danger. They threaten whatever world order the establishment has constructed to preserve its advantages. A crucial asymmetry is on exhibit here. The establishment - or the establishments, as it is not at all monolithic - can survive only by exterminating all disruptive innovation everywhere all the time. In contrast, any one of the many disruptive innovators - each of whom is independent and scattered - can overthrow an establishment through disruptive innovation. The prospects for an establishment's survival are in fact vanishingly dim, in the long run. People at the center of the western establishment oligarchy have at times openly aligned themselves with (and less openly, directly subsidized and partnered with) regimes in which individualists and innovators were exterminated by the millions. These are their vain attempts to exterminate all disruptive innovation everywhere all the time. In his book Between Two Ages (1970), Zbigniew Brzezinski (then a professor at Columbia, and shortly thereafter, David Rockefeller protegé, founding director of the Trilateral Commission and National Security Advisor to his disciple, President Jimmy Carter, also a founding Trilateralist) said ``Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world,'' ``Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision,'' and ``The Soviet Union could have emerged as the standard-bearer of this century's most influential system of thought and as the social model for resolving the key dilemmas facing modern man.'' But from its outset, the Soviet Union with Lenin at its helm had ``changed Marxism from the doctrine of a highly organised and literate working class into one of state imposition of socialism by force, based on a despotic party and a police state,'' and the ``worst result of Lenin's bid for power has been the suppression of human freedom. He wrote in 1906: 'Great questions in the life of Nations are settled only by force.' Or, as Mao put it, 'all power comes from the barrel of a gun.''' (quoting Dr Eric Andrews and Cliff Cranfield). Stalin's purges, of course, included an extermination of individualists. David Rockefeller (founder and honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission, the ``unelected if indisputable chairman of the American establishment'' (quoting Bill Moyers)) said of Maoist China, ``The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.'' Mao's Cultural Revolution also included an extermination of individualists. As noted by Jack Newell, ``The original literature of The Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced Communist States could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal.'' John D. Rockefeller's direct support of and complicity with the Nazi democide, which shortly after his death metamorphosed into the attempted genocide of the disproportionately brilliant and innovative Jewish people (over 20% of Nobel Laureates between 1902 and 1995 were Jews), is an outstanding concrete example of establishment alignment with mass extermination. New World Order arch-mage Henry Kissinger (consultant to Psychological Strategy Board architect Gordon Gray, political consultant to the House of Rockefeller and Nelson Rockefeller protegé, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration, and Secretary of State in the Ford Administration), in his role as hypercollectivist sociopolitical architect and as a chief inheritor of the Rockefeller Nazi ideological mantle, has pursued tantamount and unprecedented evils. Barbara Marx Hubbard, theosophist, author, ``futurist'', and 1984 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, has been exposing the establishment (in presentations at conferences, and in her books) to her ideology, which includes a mystical mandate to exterminate the one quarter (this is the proportion she arbitrarily describes) of humanity that is intractibly individualistic. There are always people with established advantages, envisioning and planning a final solution for the innovator problem, so to speak. Fear of chaos is not unique to the power brokers. It is much more common than that. It is, in short, an important example of fear of the unknown - in practical terms, it is fear of the unknowable. This fear is a classic characteristic of small minds and of those of meager confidence. It is often observed that investors tend to hate uncertainty: today, roughly half of the value of US stock markets is held by individual investors, and 45 percent of American households own stock directly or indirectly. Chaos of the type introduced by innovators produces very serious uncertainty for these investors, and they hate it. Thus, because of fear and short-term interest, the bulk of mainstream first-worlders, being small-minded, tacitly supports the neutralization, or even extermination, of uncooperative innovators. In fact, the ordinary feel offended and disgraced by these innovators, and for that the innovators are resented like no other group. The small-minded must become larger-minded if they are to realize that they, too, are slated for enslavement and capricious extermination - except that they have, as a rule, already resigned themselves to obedient slavery in exchange for survival. The power brokers are the total enemies of the innovators and the masses alike, but the masses cower and bow, signalling their surrender. The cultural prejudice against chaos is evident in contemporary language itself. Diseases of the mind are routinely referred to as ``disorders,'' whether or not they present themselves as, or are caused by, an imbalanced abundance of randomness. Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), historically known as Multiple Personality DIsorder (MPD), is not a disorder at all, but is in fact an additional level of ordered mental arrangement. In fact, most DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association standard) mental illness involves minds and brains that are more ordered than healthy minds and brains. Chaos is healthy, and empowers consciousness. Order is morbid. An unusually regular and orderly electrocardiogram (EKG) is an indication of nascent illness; certain elements of chaos in heart rhythms are indications of good health. Another term that propels the prejudice is ``unstable,'' often used as a synonym for ``insane.'' This use of that term must be condemned with equal haste. As Ilya Prigogine (Nobel laureate and Clubber of Rome) observes, "over time, non-equilibrium processes generate complex structures that cannot be achieved in an equilibrium situation." (Uncertainty: the key to the science of the future?). The very word ``establishment'' has for its root the Latin ``stabilis'', meaning stable - that is, the establishment is, even by straightforward etymological analysis, seen to be a force running counter to the non-equilibrium processes Prigogine discusses (evolution itself being the foremost such process). The establishment instinctually seeks to bring about a circumstance in which all movement in the structure of societies, economies, sciences, technologies, and arts, is arrested. This, however, is nothing but Thanatos expanded to the whole of the world. It is the establishment's instinctual desire for death - for extinction. Consider the most orderly and stable arrangement of space: completely devoid of matter or energy. The next most orderly is a purely repetitive, homogenous, isotropic arrangement of matter. Data sets representative of such spaces compress, even with naïve algorithms such as Lempel-Ziv variants, to a negligeable residue of information. As explained in my paper on consciousness, randomness is crucial to creativity, and creativity is itself chaotic. In short, the pursuit of order is intrinsically morbid. The pursuit of organization, which properly comprises a chaotic system that counter-balances distributed random inputs with an ordered scaffolding, is obviously just good architecture. Above, the effect of chaos on ordinary citizens is treated - the recruitment of fear, the actuality of risk and change. The power brokers work to eradicate chaos both because of their own fear of it, and because they seek to eradicate the innovation it leads to (and the chaos which leads from innovation), insofar as that innovation and chaos directly threatens their hegemony. But there is a third motive, a corollary to this latter motive. The ``Harvard Economic Research Project,'' begun in 1948 initially with Rockefeller Foundation money, was a continuation of World War II combat service support operations research. It and the school of system dynamics founded in 1956 by Jay Forrester at MIT's Sloan School led to models that allowed for the prediction and manipulation of economic and social system behavior. Chaos, and particularly the unbridled individual innovation it leads to, thwart the effectiveness of these models. Prediction becomes impossible, and attempts at manipulation are overwhelmed by the intrinsically more robust influence of true innovations. The Harvard model held that economies are like mechanical or electrical systems. The unbridled innovator, therefore, amounts to an electron (or lever) with a mind of its own, that can get other electrons to follow it, brazenly flouting the supposed rules of the system. The MIT model is more generalized, treating economic and social components as generic mathematical abstractions, but there is no fundamental difference between the two schools, mathematically. (Please note that there is nothing inherently wrong with systematics - it is simply a science and methodology.) These models are sources of power for those in positions that allow them to manipulate key economic indicators, but only if the economy is predictable and fulfills the premises of the models. Chaos in general, and innovators in particular, are thus targeted by the establishment, in order to preserve the effectiveness of their models and levers (currency and interest rate manipulation, labor strikes, etc.) it provides them. Note that confusion among ordinary individuals - a lack of understanding of the way the world works, particularly its legal, political, economic, and cultural systems - is a sort of personal chaos which is actually encouraged by the establishment. This confusion actually increases the statistical predictability of populations. The masses are stuck in mind-blowing traffic jams whose behavior (by dint of driver incompetence, or on the most bottlenecked stretches, simply as a consequence of numbers and bad roadway design) can be approximately modelled with simple differential equations, while the establishment helicopters to and fro in uncluttered skies. The establishment wages a ``quiet war'' on the people of the world, but any nation or region that gains substantial immunity to the ``silent weapons'' and credibly imperils the plans of the establishment faces the starker realities of economic warfare, subversive covert insurgencies, overt military subjugation, or even thermonuclear annihilation. The establishment can also be expected to pursue a literal scorched earth policy if they sense their grip has slipped irreversibly. They control the nuclear and bioweapon arsenals. They target the warheads. They have the launch codes. Only by reciprocating the ``quiet war'' and eroding the establishment internally can the non-options of global slavery and global annihilation be averted. (Note that I wrote these passages, and indeed all the material in the “Intro” pages, in the 1998-2000 timeframe. Confrontational, dialectical, two-party, negative-advertising-dominated, alienating politics is a structural consequence of a government of popularly elected representatives chosen in elections that combine a winner-take-all rule with geographic localization of election eligibility. The conflict bias of the media, and the donation patterns of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy seeking to assure that politicians continue to be beholden to them, tend to engender and perpatuate a near-50/50 split. The Hegelian dynamic in American politics can't be eliminated without eliminating the structural features of the American system that underlie it. Furthermore, keeping the two sides in close balance, both in the population and in the representative institutions of government, serves to maintain the impression that acting through and within the system can be an effective avenue of political fulfillment. Thus the people tend to be and remain psychologically invested in the status quo system, and to act to preserve it.) The dialectical method of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) consists of two main steps: the invention of artificial extremes (``thesis'' and ``antithesis'') which superficially conflict with each other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is made to appear to be the product of consensus. The artificial extremes are chosen and propagandized (marginalizing the population) in such a way that the goal is naturally synthesized from them. It is, essentially, a trick - a fraud. It is a strategy of ideological divide-and-conquer. The dialectic ruse dissipates the energy and coherency of its targets - unless they recognize the ruse as such. Another caveat of the Hegelian dialectic is that few if any of society's members are earnestly loyal to the synthesis (they are still attached to the dialectic poles, and the synthesis is only a heartless concession), so it cannot be sustained (and destructive confrontation cannot be inhibited) without an over-powerful central state to enforce and sustain the synthesis through threats and artifice. Hegel was a fountain of awful ideas, liberally cribbed by Marx and Engels, by the sickly and neurologically defective Mary Baker Eddy (founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, which - as evidenced by its concept of ``Malicious Animal Magnetism'' - is in fact similar to Scientology), and by the Unitarians (who are historical proponents of universal government schooling in pursuit of socialist indoctrination). Hegel was an influence on famed phenomenologistMartin Heidegger (1889-1978) (NSDAP#3125894, 1933-May-1) (author of Being and Time (1927) and a critic of Hegel's methods), on French existentialist phenomenologist and Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) (author of The Transcendence of the Ego (1937) and Being and Nothingness (1943)), and on ``spiritualist'' utopian Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (Das Prinzip Hoffnung (The Principle of Hope)). A central precept of the Hegelian ethic is that people are principally motivated by the desire to receive the approval and recognition of others, and to avoid their disapproval. Since this motivation is not predicated on the reasonableness of that approval or disapproval, the principle is a mechanism by which an individual delegates arbitrary control to others. This is, obviously, an enabling principle of collectivism. By encouraging people to embrace this tendency, and amplify it into a preeminent mechanism of decision making, Hegelianism works directly to subvert the individual. Here is a telling excerpt from Critical Theory and the Limits of Sociological Positivism, an essay by Marxists George N. Katsiaficas (UCSD) and Mary Lou Emery (Stanford): The methodological basis of the critical theory of society is the dialectical logic of George F. Hegel (1956). According to the principles of dialectical logic, ``That which is cannot be true,'' (Marcuse, 1941). [...] Other scholars have referred to the critical theory of society as Hegelian/Marxism, or dialectical Marxism (Klare and Howard, 1971). In the above, one can already recognize the denial of facts, the general relativism, the very rejection of reality, that is the hallmark of the cryptomarxist liberal. A Hegelian dialectic can be called a ``triple-false dichotomy'' - three lies that jail. A triple-false dichotomy is an ostensible dichotomy between two artificial, i.e. false, extremes, which are not in fact diametric in consequence (that is, the third falsehood is the precept that the extremes are related dichotomously). Each extreme is nonsensical or otherwise morally void, and by causing rhetoric to be dominated by ostensible adherents of these extremes, those exposed lose some or most of their capacity to reason about the topic. The most frightening, insidious way that reason is subverted is this: a dialectical environment is one in which the synthesis is something like a geometric bisection of the positions of two roughly equally extreme (and irrational) poles. In this environment, people at the poles (most people) fear to venture toward forthright support of a rational middle ground (solution, as distinct from synthesis) because they expect the synthesis to then be skewed in the direction of their polar opponents. People are locked at the poles and unwilling to openly discuss the domain of the solution, expecting such discussion to be interpreted as weakness, with the result that the synthesis has free reign and the solution has little chance to be realized. Sometimes one of the two dialectic extremes is sufficiently absurd in the present cultural context that it has no adherents, and is employed only as a rhetorical tool. A very familiar example of a dialectic is the Mac vs. Windows question. Amusingly, there is even an evident liberal loyalty to the Mac and conservative loyalty to Windows. Both of these operating system families are essentially bad. If you synthesize the two, producing an operating system exhibiting characteristics of both parent operating system families, you still have an essentially bad operating system. If you want to solve the problem and enjoy operating system reliability, security, performance, flexibility, and versatility, you run Unix - the nominally unpopular, nominally esoteric, largely unsupported third option. The sheer number of people who have rejected the Mac-Windows dialectic and adopted Linux (7.5m-10m according to the Economist 1999-Feb-20) is producing a demand many software houses can't and don't ignore. The establishment cannot enforce dialectics on software because of its ethereal mobility, and because of first amendment protection in the US and similar protections in other countries. Also observe that Microsoft has now invested in Apple, yet Apple's next generation operating system (``Darwin'' a.k.a. MacOS X) is a dialect of Unix (based on BSD 4.4) - with systems software, Hegelian synthesis does not work, and only that which works can survive. In the realm of public elections, however, the situation is quite the opposite. The establishment can and does enforce dialectics, shredding morale and integrity. In popular voting and in legislatures, there is a 50% (or in elections, often a simple plurality) threshold for approval, an artificially low threshold subject to flittering and hysteresis, ideally suited to manipulation by the dialectical method and by the mass media. The winner-take-all model is an obviously corrupt principle, in which the intent of those voters who voted against the victor are ostensibly represented by the victor, who then claims to command the authority not just of those who voted for him, but of all those who were eligible to vote for him. Since most of any large population - 60%, 70%, or more - consists of people of ordinary intelligence, preoccupied with the mechanics of making a living in a specialty disconnected from politics, centralized control of a mass media apparatus can always be translated into overpowering influence over who is elected (or, actually, of who is not elected). This centralization of control is detailed in the media chapter of my compilation. Finally, the two-party system is a prima facie dialectic, perpetuated by the mass media apparatus, and permitting a second major form of centralized electoral control by controlling who is eligible to run under the banner of one of the two politically subsidized perpetual parties. In short, this is a degenerate oligarchy with sympathy for and tendency toward tyranny, masquerading as a tyranny of the majority, masquerading as a democracy, masquerading as a representative republic. The US is still the best thing going, but it has serious structural and circumstantial problems. As a preface to the unabridged catalog of establishment tactics which follows, the following enumerates the principal Hegelian dialectics promulgated by the power brokers. For each dialectic, I identify the commonality between the ostensible extremes (undermining the precept of opposition), the intended synthesis, and the solution by which the dialectic trap can be escaped. For the solutions, I crib liberally from my Innovist constitution. spiritualism vs. materialism The spiritualist is the mystic who believes in consciousness without existence, and preaches subordination to an incomprehensible ``God.'' The materialist is the mystic who believes in existence without consciousness, and preaches subordination to a vague and unaccountable ``Society'' variously called ``public interest,'' ``the people,'' ``world opinion,'' ``the common good,'' etc. There are different definitions in common use for each of these terms that are not similarly objectionable. god-fearing vs. god-men ``god-fearing'' is the theistic stance: men obeying other men, believing they are obeying a god or gods with the power to grant any reward and impose any punishment. The ``god-men'' premise is that man can take on the role the theists believe ``god'' plays. Marxism is the preeminent historical example of the ``god-men'' principle. The ``god-men'' believe they can act as gods, commanding men without constraint and defining right and wrong. Fyodor Dostoevsky's ``Ivan'', in The Brothers Karamazov, asserts that within a godless ethic ``everything is lawful''. This is from a work of fiction, but the false premise is cited so often it is worthwhile to debunk it: the laws of nature (which are absolute and immutable) define what is and is not fundamentally permitted. These laws forbid a great deal, and discourage (punish) a great deal more. love vs. hate Here, ``love'' is the premise that ``all we need is love''. This is diffuse and indiscriminate love. It is the unifying emotion of socialism and new age religion. John Lennon once sang this silly anthem. Love tends to prevent one from harming the loved, and to cause one to take action to protect the loved and assist it in achieving its goals. It is clearly useful to the establishment to instill in others a tendency to love, since this results in an unthinking social conservationism, to say nothing of exploitability. Love collapses boundaries, often irrationally. Here, ``hate'' is the wall around the wholesome community that ostensibly protects it from the perceived oblivion of the perceived other. It is the unifying emotional principle of nationalism and bigotry. Hate enforces boundaries, often irrationally. idealism vs. pragmatism Here, ``idealism'' means adherence to a value system that conflicts with natural law, and ``pragmatism'' means the near-absence of a value system, even that necessary to adhere to natural law, with decisions made on the basis of expediency, i.e. minimization of immediate effort, change, and risk. There are different definitions in common use for each of these terms that are not similarly objectionable. good by nature vs. evil by nature An old debate is whether humans are good by their basic nature, or evil. This debate is flatly bogus. hierarchical authoritarianism vs. unionism Hierarchical authoritarianism is the traditional military mindset, and the type of societal structure characteristic of ``right'' fascism (e.g. Mussolini's Italy). Unionism is the traditional guild or commune mindset, and the type of societal structure characteristic of ``left'' fascism (e.g. Soviet or Chinese communism). primacy of bourgeoisie vs. primacy of proletariat order vs. randomness For examples of randomness, consider found art, abstract expressionism (Jackson Pollock et al), certain schools of improvisational jazz, serial and atonal music (Arnold Schoenberg, Olivier Messaien), and lotteries. There are, of course, many other examples of institutionalized randomness. oligarchism vs. democracy Christianity vs. Maitreyanism nationalism vs. anarchy Here, nationalism is any situation in which the territorial extent and integrity of a nation-state have been made to take precedence over the desires of the territory's residents. This includes traditional imperialism, regionalism (the ostensibly consensual combination of diverse sovereign states into a single state), and the rigid maintenance of territorial integrity when a nation is sprawling (as the USSR, the USA and Canada, and to a lesser degree, China). Anarchy is a period during which no sovereign, effective, law-enforcing state is associated with a territory. An effective state invariably appears, usually promptly, usually authoritarian, and often nationalist. More specifically, an existing outside state will usually take advantage of the power vacuum. multiculturalism vs. chauvinism Note that affirmative action is one of many practical implmentations of multiculturalism. Amusingly, affirmative action is a definitively racist family of policies. orthodoxy vs. nihilism progress through idealism vs. sticking with the tried and true Here, ``progress'' means increases in prosperity and improvements in quality of life, and ``sticking with'' means maintaining prosperity and quality of life. ``Idealism'' is, in particular, the Idealism of Immanuel Kant and his intellectual descendents - this ``ideal'' is not actual, it is imagined. ``The tried and true'' means the methods and institutions through which prosperity and quality of life have been historically attained. gun-grabbers vs. gun-anarchists ``Gun grabbers'' are people and organizations who pursue the uniform and complete prohibition of private firearms. Sarah Brady's ``Handgun Control Incorporated'' is an example. ``Gun anarchists'' are people and organizations who resist any policy that impedes or inconveniences popular access to or ownership of firearms. They oppose trigger lock (and other physical security) requirements, gun safety training prerequisites, forensic tagging of weapons paraphernalia, and in the most extreme version, custody transfer audit trails of any sort. gun-grabbers vs. discretionary incarceration This is a dialectic which started coalescing mid-summer 1999. The gun-grabbers in this dialectic are the same as in the previous one. Those supporting discretionary incarceration, however, are a wholly different group from the gun-anarchists. Discretionary incarceration is a blunter term for involuntary commitment. The principle is that the state, in concert with board-certified psychological practitioners, has the authority to incarcerate any individual, simply by declaring (on any basis, or no basis) that the individual represents a threat to himself or others. The synthesis is not in fact that suspected by most defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. The establishment seeks to arm those citizens deemed cooperative, disarm those deemed uncooperative but unthreatening, and incarcerate (and exterminate) those deemed a threat to their hegemony. The State of Connecticut has most closely approached this synthesis, with its recent (1999) enactment of a law permitting the state to forcibly disarm any citizen deemed by the state to be mentally unsound. This modus operandi is nearly indistinguishable from that of the German National Socialists. limiting right to free speech vs. limiting right to keep and bear arms pro-life vs. pro-choice Dialectically, ``pro-life'' is the stance that abortion must be prosecuted as first degree homicide except when the child is sure not to survive the pregnancy. Pro-life extremists generally place higher priority on survival of the child than on survival of the mother. For them, nothing legitimates abortion, not even rape. Pro-life extremists generally seek to criminalize commerce in contraceptive technologies and techniques, compounding the offense. ``Pro-choice'' is the stance that surgical and pharmaceutical abortion must be available ubiquitously, state-subsidized when the patient is unable to pay. Pro-choice extremists also support ubiquitous state-subsidized availability of contraceptive technology, and extensive state-subsidized youth education programs to teach the methods of contraception and urge their practice. mutant marriage vs. traditional marriage A ``mutant marriage'' is any marriage that is not a marriage of one man and one woman. ``Traditional marriage'' is the framework within which sex is forbidden before marriage, marriage is between one man and one woman, any infidelity or proactive withdrawl from the marriage is considered a betrayal of the marriage, and betrayal of the marriage causes the betrayer to forfeit most of his or her property and interests in the marriage. Both ``mutant marriage'' and ``traditional marriage'' involve government sanctification of the relationship at issue. parental sovereigntists vs. state paternalists ``Parental sovereigntists'' hold that parents can raise and treat their children in any manner they see fit, without the possibility of a loss of custody due to a formal determination of neglect or abuse. The core principle is that children are the property of their parents. In practice, however, even the most extreme parental sovereigntists unhesitatingly support a loss of custody when substantial physical injury, sexual molestation, or gross neglect is involved. ``State paternalists'' hold that children are the property of the state, and that parental custody is predicated on the discretionary consent of the state. Parents must facilitate attendance of their children in state-operated socialization and education programs, starting shortly after birth and continuing until the threshold of legal adulthood. Stringent guidelines governing parents' conduct with respect to their children are promulgated, and deviation from the guidelines is prima facie justification for immediate abdication of custody privileges, at the discretion of the state. The state monitors households for compliance, and frequently interviews children to ascertain compliance. In practice, state paternalists subscribe to this stance in undiluted form. radical feminism vs. patriarchicalism ``Radical feminism'' is the somewhat incoherent stance that women should reject all the traditional constraints and responsibilities associated with womanhood, but exploit all its traditional advantages and assets. It is something of a misnomer, since its agenda is the masculinization of females and the feminization of males. It is driven by power lust and is alternately amoral or immoral. Marriage, on the occasion that it actually occurs, is viewed as an instrument of control to be exploited. Childrearing is viewed with suspicion and disdain, and is largely delegated to others. Women are viewed as inherently superior to men, and stereotypically male (though in fact universally applicable) methodologies such as rationalism and taxonomy are dismissed whenever they are invoked in opposition to a desire or fear. Positions of ever greater authority - through corporate careers and through marriage to powerful men - are sought with no discernible consideration for honor or integrity. The corruption that is Lesbianism is also intimately associated with radical feminism. ``Patriarchicalism'' is the orthodoxy of woman as full time homemaker. The woman is completely occupied by the bearing and raising of children, the maintenance and preparation of victuals, the maintenance of a clean and tidy household, the servicing of her husband's desires, inconsequential domestic pastimes, and meetings and volunteer work (churches, charitable organizations, women's clubs, etc.). The authority of the man is insusceptible to challenge, and the man's responsibility is confined to financial provision, heavy labor, and defense against external threats. Under no circumstances is the woman permitted to attain economic independence from her husband. extremist conservationism vs. laissez faire (destructivist) environmentalism Extremist conservationists believe that humanity has a moral obligation to leave the earth untouched by humanity where we have yet to impact it, and to return the earth to its prior condition where we have already impacted it. They believe humans are intrinsically and collectively evil, and that we are obligated to be ashamed of ourselves individually and collectively. They recognize no human right to existence, much less to self-determination or development. Laissez faire environmentalism is the pattern of rampant environmental abuse observed in the activities of major corporations and the military. This includes old growth clearcutting, the blending of toxic waste (including heavy metals, radioactive waste, dioxins, etc.) into agricultural fertilizers and construction materials, release of toxic waste into water tables, lakes, rivers, oceans, and the atmosphere, gross abuse of antibiotics in livestock, careless productization of recombinant foodstuffs, etc. communism vs. dialectical (concentrationist) capitalism communism vs. fascism self-sacrifice vs. short-sighted inconsiderateness ``Short-sighted inconsiderateness'' is what people mean when they use the term ``selfish'' in a derogatory manner. altruism as apex virtue vs. selfishness as apex virtue Altruism is action of benefit to another individual or set thereof, and exacting a net cost on the actor if emotional considerations are ignored. Selfishness is action of benefit to self, even if emotional considerations are ignored. That is, the costs and benefits at issue here are principally monetary and material. There is nothing inherently wrong (evil) with either of these. However, it is wrong to maintain that either of them is a virtue in and of itself, much less that either is an apex virtue. sexual regimentation vs. sexual liberalism Sexual regimentation is a patriarchal system in which sex is forbidden except between formally and officially married couples, and must be in the traditional ``missionary position.'' In sexual regimentation, marriage is between people of opposite sexes, typically similar ages with the female younger than the male, equal races, equal classes, and similar religious alignments. The production of children commences soon after marriage, and the raising of children is traditional and performed principally by the mother. Divorce is considered to be a disgrace, masturbation is considered to be an unmentionable perversion, birth control is risqué, and abortion is all but verboten. There is virtually no frank discussion of sexuality. Prostitution and mistresses are components of sexual regimentation, and are names for sexual infractions by patriarchs which are forgiven if engaged in discretely. Harems are a variation of sexual regimentation. In many cases, infanticide constrained by a system of standards is an aspect of sexual regimentation. Compulsory, institutionalized eugenics is also a form of sexual regimentation. A mouthpiece of sexual regimentation is the Catholic Church. Sexual liberalism is a system in which a loosely defined ``sex'' is acceptable between one or more people who are all consenting adults or all consenting non-adults, and can involve any combination of genders, organs, fetishes, and practices. Sexual liberalism pointedly and explicitly rejects sexual regimentation in all its dimensions. Adherents of sexual liberalism do not value, or even recognize, any degree of inviolability in relationships, instead viewing the universe of candidate sexual partners as a population either without internal partitions or with constantly shifting internal partitions. No sexual morality is practically adhered to. Birth control and abortion are routine. Sexuality is discussed freely and routinely. Children, when they happen to be born, are often not part of complete families for many or all of their formative years, and are often subjected to various ``progressive'' child-raising programs and trends in which the parent or parents have little participation. The genetic parents are often not the guardians. Sexual liberalism includes androgynism, transvestitism, and partial and full transsexualism. A dimension of feminism is a component of sexual liberalism. Cosmopolitan magazine (Hearst) is an undiluted mouthpiece of sexual liberalism. ``Change of Heart,'' seen on the WB network (Time Warner), is an extreme exhibition of sexual liberalism. Loveline, distributed via Viacom's MTV and Westinghouse's WXRK (K-Rock east, home base of Howard Stern) and KROQ (K-Rock west, home base of Loveline), is a striking though less uniform mouthpiece. Note also that an endless stream of movies and books portray the romantic, epic love affair as an imperative for full and satisfactory living, thereby encouraging people to fall in love without reserve. However, the practical realities of contemporary culture generally thwart the success of such affairs. In fact, such affairs are practically seen as absurd and naïve, and those who embrace them as mentally ill. The effect of this system is to manufacture broken hearts, and the utility of this to the establishment is self-evident, since the broken hearted tend toward distinctly attenuated adherence to personal principle and the dictates virtue. moral totalitarianism vs. economic totalitarianism states' rights vs. federal preemption ``states' rights'' is the idea that provinces (called ``states'' in the United States) have substantial sovereignty the national government (called the ``Federal Government'' in the United States) cannot supercede, and their legislatures can erect whatever constitutional and statutory measures they please, even if the national Constitution authorizes no such measures, or indeed forbids the national government to erect such measures. ``federal preemption'' is the idea that any measure not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution is within the purview of the national government, and any measure erected by the national government supercedes provincial measures. total peace (categorical law and order) vs. total war draconian law enforcement vs. liberal permissiveness and apologism rampant lawlessness vs. studious regulatory conformity Rampant lawlessness: glorified in the movies, heros who break all the rules, Bill Clinton war on drugs vs. drugs are good white supremacism vs. whites as pox and scourge institutional, particularly state, education vs. no education plodding peer-reviewed institutionally accredited formal science vs. nonsensical mysticism specialism vs. superficial generalism intuition vs. reason This is not a triple-false dichotomy at all: the intuition of a reasonable person is itself reasonable. The intent of the false dichotomy is to neuter the capacity to reason. state religion vs. state nihilism ``State religion'' is any situation in which an instrument of state policy or of state-funded education treats any theistic belief system, or any other degenerate mental censorship or distortion, as possibly or certainly true or reasonable. ``State nihilism'' is any situation in which such an instrument states or implies that good and evil lack reality, or that opinions or consensus bear decisively upon the ascertainment of moral right and wrong. zionism vs. antisemitism consumptive asceticism vs. profligate consumption overweight vs. underweight statism (big intrusive government) vs. anarchism (no government) intrusive state vs. organized crime workaholism vs. indolence Bill Clinton vs. Ken Starr Democratic vs. Republican This is not a real dichotomy: it is used to confuse and politically neuter the public, and to facilitate and conceal legislative actions that lack popular support. Liberal vs. Conservative This is a second-order dialectic, composed from many of the other dialectics in this catalog, specifically from dialectic monopoles - though as it turns out, it is composed almost entirely of complete first-order dialectics. The definitions of ``Liberal'' and ``Conservative'' here are obviously the working American definitions, and do not correspond to historical definitions. This is a dialectic theatrically displayed on CNN's Crossfire and Fox News's intolerable Hannity and Colmes. Bill O'Reilly, as it happens, is almost surely a representative of the grand liberal-conservative synthesis as listed below. In their fully implemented forms, Conservatism is fascism, as in Mussolini's Italy, and Liberalism is mystical (``spiritual'') Marxism. A Moderate is someone who adheres to the grand synthesis. New Age and Naziism are a particular synthesis, an intensely collectivistic one. Moderatism tends toward Naziism. Conservatism is right-totalitarian, Moderatism is center-totalitarian, and Liberalism is a left-totalitarian. Evidently, all three are hopelessly morally bankrupt. Here is the crucial practical realization regarding the Liberal-Conservative dialectic: if you, as a candidate for office, take a strictly reasonable stance on issues - for example, Innovism - then not only do you ``terminally'' alienate Conservatives and Liberals because of their treasured dialectic monopoles, but you also alienate so-called Moderates, since Moderates are in practice simply people who have progressed to the stage in which they treasure dialectic syntheses (as quite distinct from dialectic solutions). The effect of the Liberal-Conservative system is to lump together a whole bunch of mistakes, walk each individual up to a fork in the road, and convince him that he must go one way or the other - choose one or the other big bag of blunders. Most people do as they're told, and a reasonable, innovative candidate of integrity cannot now be elected by Americans anywhere at the state (province) or national level.
A Theory
``There are three ways of ruining myself: women, gambling, and inventors. The last is the least agreeable but most certain.''
-Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild``What we want to avoid is the situation where a small group of financially and technologically interested people develop something and thrust it on the rest of the world.''
-Douglas Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 2003-Jul-25, "Greenpeace Warns of Pollutants Derived From Nanotechnology", by Antonio Regalado``This study of technological change over the history of the disk drive industry revealed two types of technology change, each with very different effects on the industry's leaders. Technologies of the first sort sustained the industry's rate of improvement in product performance (total capacity and recording density were the two most common measures) and ranged in difficulty from incremental to radical. The industry's dominant firms always led in developing and adopting these technologies. By contrast, innovations of the second sort disrupted or redefined performance trajectories--and consistently resulted in the failure of the industry's leading firms.''
[...] In analyzing which firms led and lagged at each of these points of change, I defined established firms to be those that had been established in the industry prior to the advent of the technology in question, practicing the prior technology. I defined entrant firms as those that were new to the industry at that point of technology change. [...]
[...] Finding new applications and markets for these new products seems to be a capability that each of these firms exhibited once, upon entry, and then apparently lost. It was as if the leading firms were held captive by their customers, enabling attacking entrant firms to topple the incumbent industry leaders each time a disruptive technology emerged.''
-from chapter 1 of The Innovator's Dilemma (Harvard Business School Press 1997) by Clayton M. Christensen
The power brokers, those who center their identities on their established interests in that which has already been achieved, are frequently morbid men of frequently great malice. In an ordinary work day, such a man will make make phone calls and attend meetings, and do little or nothing else of substance.The Innovations We're Missing
Picture this.
All the electricity that powers your house is generated on your roof and in your basement. On your roof, you have some vacuum solar panels for heating your house and hot water. You also have some panels filled with water and genetically engineered photosynthesizing microbes that turn water and atmospheric carbon dioxide into methanol. This methanol is skimmed off to power silent-running thermionic generators in your basement, and a furnace to heat the house and hot water when there's not enough sunlight. At any given time, you store many months' worth of methanol, so that you can make it through cold dark winters. Some of the methanol is also apportioned for your car, your snowblower, snowmobile, lawn mower, wherever fuel is needed. If you're living in an urban area, you probably have to buy the methanol since you don't have a monopoly on the roof. This methanol is produced either in a microbe farm, or in a hemp farm where hemp is processed into a variety of fuels and chemicals for use in industry, agriculture, and food. Hemp seeds also directly supply the fuel to power jet engines in aircraft.
The air conditioning in your house and car uses thermionics, runs dead silent except the sound of the breeze from the vent, and is almost perfectly efficient. It also lasts for decades and never needs any sort of recharge. Your car uses thermionics to generate electricity from the methanol, and stores energy in vacuum magnetic bearing eddy-compensated flywheels. Each of the four wheels has its own motor-generator with traction control, and when you use your brakes, the motor-generators transfer the power to the flywheel so that the energy can be used later for acceleration or hill-climbing. Non-vehicular applications that require large bursts of electrical power (welding, power tools, high-power amplifiers, etc.) use the same flywheel battery technology.
Your pocket computer's CPU is a volumetric hardware-microthreaded fault-tolerant ULSI device, with thousands of processors in the space of a cubic inch. It uses a maximum of 3 watts of power; when it is not working hard, most of it is idled and it uses only a couple hundred milliwatts. Memory is distributed throughout the volume, to the tune of many gigabytes of RAM, and companion photocrystal volume memory cartridges (no moving parts) store a terabyte each. On many computation-
Your electronic communications pass transparently through a fine mesh of point-to-point pay-per-packet frequency hopping spread spectrum microwave links positioned on private rooftops and short towers across the country, each with a bandwidth of between 100mbits/s and 2gbits/s. If you aren't running your own node in the microwave mesh, you can jack into this network by subscribing to wireless LAN's, each of which covers an area with a radius of about a quarter mile, and can handle between 10mbits/s and 100mbits/s at a time. LAN's can coexist, and the entire system is almost completely impervious to accidental or deliberate interference. In fact, it can survive the electromagnetic pulse from a high altitude nuclear explosion, as can your computer, your car, and the electrical systems in your house and workplace. The microwave mesh is owned by thousands of distinct individuals and companies, and there is an almost infinite number of usable routes to get information from one place to another. No one is in a position to control the network as a whole. Link providers compete with each other to provide the highest level of service and the lowest price. For applications that require it, binding bandwidth guarantees can be purchased.
Using the mesh, your town library gives you access to every publication in the Library of Congress, including every movie and record album, and you only pay for the packets to get it there. You can also buy any publication for download to your own computer. When you place a phone call, it passes over a LAN and the mesh, and you can choose various levels of quality, from minimum usable audio, to high-fidelity audiovisual. You can choose any level of security, up to iron-clad privacy and guaranteed authenticity with trace-foiling. You can make your own ``telephone'' filter out calls and email from anonymous callers, telemarketers, and lists of bothersome individuals and companies.
Satellites are routinely launched for about $20,000, using a combination of specialized electromagnetic artillery and rocket assistance. The entire nation, and neighboring portions of Canada and Mexico, are protected by a missile defense which is capable of knocking out an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile or reentry vehicle every second for up to 10 minutes, and a lesser pace while recharging. Populated areas are thoroughly protected against cruise missile and other atmospheric attacks. And the border regions of the country are surveilled with such resolution that large birds and beaching seals are detected and identified as such, as are small submarines. All ports of entry are equipped with machines that directly detect explosives, radioactive material, chemical and biochemical toxins, and biological weapons, regardless of their manner of camouflage.
This is not today's reality, but it could have been - if it weren't for the anti-innovationalism of the establishment. And the astonishing truth? Many of the inventions I described already exist. Check out
Here is an inventory of historic American inventions.Theory Restated
Long-Term Capital Management, LP LLC
On 2000-Feb-8, PBS aired a Nova documentary chronicling the origins, rise, and fall, of LTCM.
What follows are some key excerpts from the program.
NARRATOR: Since the dawn of capitalism there has been one golden rule: if you want to make money, you have to take risks. Then came one of the most ambitious intellectual endeavors of the century: the attempt to find a mathematical way to conquer risk, to turn finance into a science. If it worked, it would open new realms for the world's financial exchanges and forever change the way traders trade. [...]
NARRATOR: Here was a formula that would enable investors, by dynamically hedging, to control risks by spreading them across individuals, financial markets, and through time. Academics marveled at its elegance and sheer audacity. [...]
NARRATION: At the very height of their careers, Merton and Scholes were already multi-millionaires. Five years earlier, John Meriwether, the legendary bond trader at Salomon Brothers, had enticed Scholes and Merton to join him and 13 other partners in a new company he was launching, Long Term Capital Management. In 1994, Business Week introduced the public to the "Dream Team" Meriwether had assembled. [...]
NARRATOR: LTCM launched a giant hedge fund that promised to use mathematical models to make investors tremendous amounts of money. Meriwether's track record, along with Merton and Scholes' reputations, made it easy to raise capital. The most prestigious investors, banks, and institutions all competed to get in. The minimum investment allowed was $10 million, and it could not be withdrawn for three years. [...]
ROGER LOWENSTEIN: What they did was study the relationships between various markets all around the world, bond markets, eventually equity markets, interest rates, the rate at which those prices change themselves. And when the relationships between these various markets got out of whack, which is to say became different than what had been their historical norm, LTCM would place bets, the bets being that the historical relationships would re-assert themselves. And they did this all over the world.
NARRATOR: And it worked. LTCM was a spectacularly successful money machine. Merton and Scholes had proved that the science of finance could cut it in the real world, and they basked in their success. [...]
NARRATOR: In the summer of 1997, across Thailand, property prices plummeted. This sparked a panic that swept through Asia. As banks went bust from Japan to Indonesia, people took to the streets - events so improbable they had never been included in anyone's models. [...]
NARRATOR: But at LTCM, the models told them everything would return to normal soon. There was no reason to panic. After all, they were hedged. With enough time, their bets would converge. All they needed was patience. But their bets diverged. As LTCM lost money, its ratio of assets to liquid capital reached 30 to one. The fund's debts exceeded $100 billion. [...]
NARRATOR: In August, Russia suddenly and without explanation refused to pay all its international debts. LTCM's models had not accounted for this unprecedented event. As frantic investors all sought liquidity, LTCM could not unload its positions which continued to diverge.
MYRON SCHOLES: In August of 1998, after the Russian default, you know, all the relations that tended to exist in a recent past seemed to disappear.
MERTON MILLER: Models that they were using, not just Black-Scholes models, but other kinds of models, were based on normal behavior in the markets and when the behavior got wild, no models were able to put up with it. [...]
NARRATOR: In Greenwich, LTCM faced bankruptcy, but if the company went down, it would also take with it the total value of the positions it held across the globe - by some accounts $1.25 trillion, the same amount as the annual budget of the US government. The elite of Wall Street would suffer heavy losses. [...]
NARRATOR: On Sunday, September 20th, officials of the Federal Reserve and US Treasury headed for Greenwich, Connecticut. [...]The Hegelian Dialectic
Solutions Liberal-Conservative Syntheses · obedience to and prosperity by the laws of nature · masses fearing and obeying god-men · recognition of individuality of morality · profound incoherence in conception of human morality · loves and hates consistent with individual goals · delegated control social inclusion and exclusion · individualism · hybrid hierarchy of unions · individualism · instillment and perpetuation of class distinctions · compartmented randomness, facilitation of evolution · compartmented order, subversion of evolution · constitutionalism · pseudodemocratic oligarchism · rational self-interest · bourgeois socialism · employee ownership, rigorous anti-trust regulations · incremental centralization of economic control · Innovism · incoherence on matters of social morality · no initiation of force · popular assent to establishment imperial bullying · Innovism · authoritative orthodoxy, personal quotidian nihilism · minimally intrusive proactive environmental regulation · incremental state intrusion by environmental regulation · honest responsible relationships · sexual and moral confusion · intimate child rearing and pursuits of consequence · incoherence and ambivalence in women's self-image · lawful access to private abortion · state determination of access to abortion · parental sovereignty with basic standards · state control of those domains crucial to socialization · moral and economic libertarianism with anti-trust · moral and economic intrusion · excision of frivolous regulatory requirements · compliance with regulations pursuing the establishment agenda · decisive legal system free of unnecessary complexity · labyrinthine legal system · right to own and carry weapons · state discretion in firearms custody · deism, scrupulous avoidance of state religion · promulgation of amorality and agnosticism · commercial availability of psychotropics to adults · drug use only as institutionally prescribed Dialectic Commonalities · rejection of the laws of nature, imposition of laws invented by men and inconsistent with the laws of nature
· irrationality, self-sacrifice, and death worship, fostering externally designed emotional dynamics, bending will and creating internal inconsistencies (irrationality)
· grossly collectivistic view of individual morality
· subordination of real individual interest to fiat collective interest
· alienation, insecurity
· central control of society
· marginalization of individualists
· subversion of evolution
· perversion of the ego, with a view to its destruction
· degenerate view of culture
· removal from reality
· extinction of humanity
· neither recognizes nor permits natural romantic pairing, and denies the validity of the epic romance
· gross immorality and perversion of lifestyle
· state intrusion in human procreation
· failure to properly place the interests of the child at the forefront of decisions affecting the child
· totalitarianism
· abridgement of individual rights and autonomy
· gross injustice
· moral corruption by instruments of the state
· deadly weapons concentrated in the hands of criminals and those favored by the establishment Liberal Poles Conservative Poles god-men god-fearing materialism spiritualism love hate evil by nature good by nature unionism hierarchical authoritarianism primacy of proletariat primacy of bourgeoisie communism dialectical capitalism democracy oligarchism randomness order Maitreyanism Christianity multiculturalism chauvinism nihilism orthodoxy extremist conservationism laissez faire environmentalism sexual liberalism sexual regimentation radical feminism patriarchicalism pro-choice pro-life state paternalists parental sovereigntists economic totalitarianism moral totalitarianism lawlessness studious regulatory conformity permissiveness and apologism draconian law enforcement drugs are good war on drugs state nihilism state religion gun-grabbers discretionary incarceration
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Posts
