The only future option is progressive. If the insane, outdated, stale, toxic political policies of today prove anything at all, it’s that they’ve had their day long ago. They’re obsolete, unworkable, and regressive at best, and genocidally suicidal at worst.
The society of the future simply cannot have the mindset of the past. The ideas of 1958 and 2018 were formed in totally different environments.
The pedant-clogged, dysfunctional “thinking” of hack policies is its own most appropriate tombstone.
Goodbye politics, progressive societies don’t need you
Politics itself is proving itself obsolete beyond redemption in so many ways. Who needs a herd of largely talentless gravy train riders, spruiking last century’s myths, literally at the expense of billions of people? The whole idea of politics needs to be reinvented as representation only, not the right to destroy lives, start wars, actively and deliberately encourage global hate, and contaminate the planet.
For an example of a progressive perspective – If the ridiculous, downright fraudulent social “choices” sold by politics now causing so much total grief to humanity are invariably, and uselessly, polarized, the solutions can only be depolarized. Polarization causes nothing but social dysfunction; that’s no sudden revelation. This is the general ethos of progressive thinking. Find problem, fix problem, move on to next problem. When problem solving, start with this obscene, useless polarization, and you’ll prevent problems for millennia to come.
(How, you ask? By using basic mediation and negotiation techniques. Find the common ground. Meet essential needs, and nobody has anything to bitch about. Then eliminate the remaining, much less important, sticking points. Simply by meeting needs, you’ll pre-defuse the polarized detonators. You’ll also make your fixes much more credible to both sides.)
Progressive vs problems basics
The new solutions have to be progressive, simply to keep up with the problems, and hopefully anticipate them and prevent future problems. Going backwards therefore helps nobody. It never has. It simply reinstates the problems of the past, while failing utterly to address the issues of the present or future. In many cases, it even fails to comprehend the present, let alone the future.
The 21st century Stone Age can be creatively counteracted. Creating solutions, creating better options, you name it; this is the way out of the sewer.
Traditions can come and go, but the ultimate functional human tradition is survival. Progressive thinking is also the natural antidote to a serious, systemic issue in current history for that reason. The only available choice for human survival is to bring in new methods, new perspectives, and new, idiot-proof working social dynamics.
Proper, expert global governance could clean up the global mess, fix health, and end poverty, and do it without anyone being disenfranchised, let alone persecuted or oppressed. Anything humanity needs is perfectly possible, but not with this hideous disease of regressive thinking attached to it. Like anything which is nothing but a liability, regressionism must go. It’s no longer “democratic” or inclusive, even in theory any more at government level. Socially, it’s worse. Well past expiry date, and due for the scrap heap before World War 1, society must be rebooted as a useful, positive environmental force for humanity.
I’m currently working on a book called Social Capitalism, which is an attempt to create a view of working options for a truly progressive, inclusive, sane, society. The future may not fully understand the level of total insanity now running this world, but hopefully, it’ll understand the cure.
The bizarre spectacle of stupid old guys bleating about climate, pollution, and everything else caused directly by the carbon sector is getting even older and dumber. Commercially, we’re now at the level of pure idiocy, combined with business pig ignorance.
What most of these alleged people don’t seem to know is that carbon can be made a lot more valuable in any other use than as fuel.
None of this revolting situation would have happened, if carbon was used more productively.
Carbon science isn’t exactly new. There are carbon polymers which can be tailored to just about any purpose. Buckminster Fullerene, the “wonder lubricant”, is a case in point. As raw carbon, oil or coal, that carbon is worth $X. As the Buckminster Fullerene, “Bucky Balls”, polymer, it’s worth millions a day to the patent owners, distributors and users. The same applies to just about all the non-fuel applications of carbon.
Graphene, the newer frontier in polymers, is a similar high value polymer, better than plastics, and open to more development. The rise of 3D printing using polymers and other materials has also changed the economic landscape for “advanced carbon” technologies. If you can print an 800 square feet house for $5000 cost to the end user, what would the value be to materials suppliers, given the gigantic demand?
A little pep talk for the carbon sector (Not PG)
Listen, you ultimate fucking morons:
Your entire output is being devalued by your addiction to fuels.
There are no excuses whatsoever for not upvaluing your own products to advanced carbon technologies, or is that idea too “nerdy” for you?
You’re making $X a barrel or ton when you could be making $X000. Yes, you really are that stupid, and you insist on proving it.
Your sector is run by absurd geriatrics who know nothing but money and have no plans at all for going forward. That’s not even debatable any more. Why the hell are you tolerating this situation? It’s your future which is being obliterated by this senility.
Obsolete industries, technologies and materials have only one future – The scrapheap. Your stock owners don’t have to stick around just to lose their money. Equities are vulnerable, and will become more so.
Advanced carbon products can solve pollution and other problems created by old carbon products. Membrane tech, etc. could clean up the world, literally atom by atom. See any future, or money, in that? If you don’t, get back in your M&Ms box.
Carbon can be repurposed for anything and turned in to top quality products with excellent commercial values, notably high-end technologies of all kinds. …And you’re still pissing about with fuels? Why, in the name of cute little spreadsheets, are you bothering with this crap?
The possibilities of advanced carbon technologies are almost literally limitless. Materials science is moving so far and so fast that those left behind have no chance of catching up. That’s particularly the case if you refuse to advance your own technologies to capitalize on new opportunities. The carbon sector is notorious for its lack of innovation, regressive inclinations and total refusal to face facts of any kind. That’s always been commercial suicide, since the Bronze Age.
These are just the basics. Trillions of dollars are at risk by failure to move forward, in commercial terms. Carbon fuel technologies will be fossils themselves soon enough, regardless of politics or the Tooth Fairy in DC.
Take your pick: Oblivion, with massive financial losses, or a future. It’s that simple, and there’s no middle ground. Now get off your arses and get it happening.
The Internet of Things will be Christmas for the hardware guys. Give them credit, promoting garbage is their real strong suit. The Internet of Things isn’t even remotely necessary. Existing tech can do all of it, with very minor modifications. It’ll be an excuse to add some Duh-level software, and call it smart, much like smart phones. This will be crap incarnate, as everyone knows. What’s interesting is the way it’s being sold.
Think about it. Do you actually need a fridge that can tell you need milk, or an oven that can tell you it needs cleaning? How about a washing machine that can analyse your washing and tell you that you might have rabies? Of course not. Yet the Internet of Things is being sold like sliced bread, as if you can’t live without it.
The processes and the selling process, are based on perception.
Tech is good, right? Sometimes, sure, but hardly always. New is good, right? Occasionally, at best. Tech comes and goes. Sometimes you’re glad to see the back of it. The Internet of Things, however, is about to be rammed down your throat as a must-have.
In the cheap and nasty world of hardware, engineers might get a look in, but it’s mainly sales at consumer level. Think of all the crap you’ve ever bought which failed almost immediately or simply didn’t live up to expectations on any level. Now apply that to every possible type of basic tech you have.
Internet of Things = Insecure
The “connectivity factor” is another load of bull. Creating multiple security risks where you currently have none is also apparently essential. In all the years I’ve been watching the Internet of Things emerging from the butthole of mediocrity which is promoting it, nobody has EVER addressed this issue in any degree of depth, if at all. It’s being ignored, entirely. It’s a familiar pattern. Just about every expert has said the Internet of Things is a huge risk, therefore nothing is being done about it.
What to expect from the Internet of Things
Constant malfunctions. Either hardware, software, or both, the plague will descend like a void warranty Woodstock on the public.
Shoddy software, hardware, and connections. This is normal. New tech teething usually takes about 5-10 years.
Overpriced and ridiculous. You get something which can measure mould in a fridge. It uses a chemical particle detector, which means if it’s not calibrated properly, it can shut down your fridge.
The mystic ability of onboard software to interfere with normal operations. (Like a dysfunctional sound file that won’t let you close Windows, for example. The operating processes dictate, and the processes in the Internet of Things will be truly half-ass at best.
Your wardrobe will deliver a display, a lecture on how to wash your clothes, and SFA of any practical value.
No opt-out options. When you buy an Internet of Things gizmo, you won’t be able to avoid the features. It’s not like a car, where you can take or leave certain features. You get the crap whether you want it or not. The Internet of Things should be optional, but what fun would that be for the Internet of Things shills, if they can’t gouge you for something?
The economics of the Internet of Things
The good news? You’ll stop being such a materialist, (you awful person, you) after buying these things and fixing them has sent you broke. The trouble with cash cow tech is that nobody ever wonders how people will pay for them, pay for fixing them, or pay for new tech that actually works after having been incinerated a few times.
The 21st century Stone Age can be creatively counteracted. Creating solutions, creating better options, you name it; this is the way out of the sewer.
Better still, you can have some more stress to go with your techno-menagerie. Imagine trying to figure out whether your automatic ordering fridge (A fridge that can spend your money for you is a selling point, if you’re an idiot) has been helping launder money around the world. You can simply be ripped off by anyone with a few minutes to spend doing so.
More subtly, you can be ripped off for years by micro transactions milking your account, linked to anything from taxes to service charges and simply adding a bit more. These micro transactions actually predate the internet, robbing a few dollars or cents here or there, and with a world full of connected gadgets, you’re talking billions of dollars per second.
Won’t the other end of the transactions do something, you ask, from your sparkly new hand-dug burrow under a main road? No. They’re only responsible for their own due fees, charges, etc. They can happily dump any problems on you, because they’re not parties to any illegal transaction. You’d have to prove they had any liability. Cute, huh?
Parasites, rejoice! The Internet of Things hath come!
So for everyone but consumers, the Internet of Things will be wonderful. You can be happily sold more expensive crap in the sure knowledge that yet another type of tech will create a lot more problems with no solutions.
Things you might want to ask your wonderful, wise Internet of Things salesperson:
Will the new Internet of Things alarm clock which also provides medical advice be able to help with euthanasia?
Can your handy new clothes dryer/auditor/priest provide spiritual salvation, or at least a few good excuses?
Can your dishwasher help to spread more diseases, and keep those nice guys in Big Pharma out of jail?
Can your toaster oven incubate more politicians?
How many ways can your new Domestic Gestalt of Things help with sending you broke?
How many relationship problems can you have with a new dining table which also provides help with toxic waste foods selection?
Is it possible to buy a connected chair which also does electrocutions while preventing you from watching anything?
I’m having nothing to do with the Internet of Things until someone can prove to me it’s not a total liability and total waste of time and money from inception.
The theory and practice of female empowerment doesn’t seem to have travelled far, at least, not yet. It’s still a word, not a fact. Having basic rights isn’t empowerment. Getting the odd, grudging bit of recognition of an issue isn’t empowerment. Not getting raped, abused, or harassed isn’t empowerment. Sprinkling a few women, out of billions of women, in better jobs isn’t empowerment.
Tokenism isn’t success. It’s certainly not empowerment, or empowering. It’s a dog biscuit. Arguing about equal pay, for example, which the law says you should have anyway, hasn’t yet resulted in that happening. Empowerment is about results, not talk.
Neo feminism may be better at raising issues than old feminism, but it’s downright lousy at delivering lethal punches. The scum are still around. #metoo did get somewhere, but nowhere near far enough.
If you define empowerment as:
The power to achieve goals
Actual power to manage life problems
Actual power to take positive action
Standalone power to defend your rights
Actual power to deliver security and freedom from fear
…. How far has the empowerment come? Not very. The problems remain, in all their inglorious squalor. So-called men and their bizarre behaviours are still the lifetime obstacle course for women.
Ladies, as I’ve been saying for years, the glass ceiling is made of the same material as their jaws. They can’t take a punch. You’re dealing with a pack of inferior, talentless office boys that most other men see for what they are – Cowards, fools, nasty little bullying insects who need to be trodden on, not “debated with” as if they were anything but cockroaches.
Maybe you don’t see them the same way, due to the vast range of issues, but they’re not fighters. There’s a very old male joke about bullies getting married – “Finally found someone you could beat?” which pretty much covers the image of these misogynists with other men. We despise them, for so many good reasons.
Many of us guys are baffled that these uninvited insults to our gender brand are anti-female at all, let alone making an industry of being anti-female. We’re not anti-female. Why the hell would any real guy have some psychosis about oppressing women? Why would you beat up the one person who can stand the sight of you enough to marry you and have your kids? How much more of a friend could anyone be? It’s irrational, not to say downright insane.
We have nothing against women. We’ve never had any reason to be hostile to women. We all had mothers, sisters, girlfriends who are/were real friends, daughters, and associates as friends, lovers and long term partners. Even these misogynist filth know better than to risk certain death when it comes to a fight with other guys on these subjects.
Ways to empowerment
Allow me/us to offer a few suggestions:
Hit these bastards with anything and everything – Class actions in the workplace, whatever hits their bottom lines professionally and personally. Their money and status are sacred to them. (This is mainly because like good little clichés they simply do not know any other values. Their BS is literally who they are.) Threaten that, and it’s as good as a hard kick in the balls.
They’re weak and stupid – They fear personal risk of any kind. They couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag, let alone fight their way out. Any conflict will show a lot of weak points you can exploit. The weakest point will be the breaking point. You may not get the satisfaction of turning them in to hamburger with your fists, but you’ll see a shrivelled up little bastard or so falling to bits.
Their “business savvy” and social skills are as fake as their masculinity – They’re parrots, hiding behind anything they can find to make them look good in a group. Make them look stupid and incompetent in front of professional peers, and they’ll get nasty, but not if those peers tell them where to go, (which at some point they will) and particularly if anything requires them to stand up and make themselves targets for criticism.
They’re scared of their own methods – Fear is their weapon, but it works even better against them. Outmaneuver them, get them to fear any sort of personal consequences, real or imagined, and their own cowardice and genetic incompetence will do the rest. This is ad hominem in the most practical sense. Nothing more hilarious than a terrified bully, too, always good for some featherweight entertainment.
Their “friends” are as untrustworthy and weak as they are – These vermin always align with the stronger side in any conflict, so they’ll bail out and join the other side when things get difficult, particularly if they’re at risk. Don’t trust them, obviously, but they’ll cave in and get out of the way of the juggernaut if you push the right buttons.
They usually have long track records of mistakes – Get as nasty as you like about making these records of ridiculous behaviour visible, preferably through a third party. Just do a good job of it. Even a mountain can be undermined if it’s on shaky foundations.
Please, please, please – Do NOT descend to the level of “boys vs girls”. That’s for kindergarten, not adult life. It’s also a potential own goal. It gives easy cover to “men” who will try to use it as a negative against you. Other guys may feel threatened, or more likely, irritated by the “all men are monsters” sort of thing which wore itself out through overuse in the 80s. Being a human being standing up for your rights doesn’t need explaining, anyway. Also very much to the point;hard facts and real leverage do far more real damage than rhetoric which puts people in a position of having to take sides based on gender.
Male friends will be happy to support in practical ways. It’s the same as taking out the trash, in so many ways. More sanitary, more aesthetically pleasing, and so on.
You want to be empowered? You’re on the right basic track, so make sure you stay on track.
So get on with it!
Yet more issues with website, thanks to a spammer. Will fix when possible.
Is “Science” totally thoughtless? Or just very stupid? From the ongoing mass of research which might be used to oppress humanity, it seems so. Very little thought appears to go in to handing the means of oppression to anyone prepared to pay for it.
In China, the Surveillance Society already exists, in a particularly pernicious form which drags in friends, family and associates in to culpability for an individual’s behaviour. This tech didn’t exist a decade ago, nor did the processing power, but now it does, and it’s being used against a nation of over 1.5 billion people.
That hideous spectacle may be just a taste of what’s possible. The new “wonder”, decoding thought, could be a lot worse. This technology is being given to governments, corporations, and other life-destroying, unaccountable, imbecile groups. Imagine cults, nutcase religions and terrorists with mind reading technology. They could literally be able to oppress people simply for thinking.
Speaking of thinking – Did anyone ever wonder why this great interest in decoding thought? Let’s consider the usual wrong answers:
Psychological/psychiatric benefits – For whom? Not for the patients, obviously. You don’t stop having a psych problem simply because some machine can decode your thoughts.
Understanding the human mind – Since when has that ever made a difference? Understanding what? To do what with that understanding? It’s a bit like inventing a gun to see what happens. No good can come of it, because the method can never be good for whoever’s on the receiving end of it.
There is no way this technology can ever “benefit mankind”, when it’s simply intruding, doing nothing much of value of itself, and making thoughts accessible to third parties. Would you voluntarily tell just anyone what you’re thinking, at any given moment, let alone invent a technology to help people know what you’re thinking? Nor is there any clear limit to how much intrusion is possible. It’s the ultimate invasion of privacy, and it shouldn’t be allowed to exist at all. Yet “Science” is trundling along on its tricycle, happily handing this tech over to anyone who wants it. People who couldn’t find a sunny day or be trusted with the contents of a urinal are supposed to be trusted with something so fundamental? If you do trust them, you’re morons, and not the good sort.
You, Science, are going to be responsible for what may well be the worst oppression in human history. The fact that most of the idiots who weaponized the technology will also be oppressed by it is small beer compared to the responsibility for creating these technologies.
Didn’t know that, eh?
Does “Big Science” ever think about these things? Not noticeably. Consider the vast range of current risks and threats to privacy and personal freedoms “Science” has unleashed, unwittingly or otherwise:
Genetics: The issues of genetic disease as a risk factor, accessible to employers, and basically anyone who knows how to set up business to find this information. Who knows what sort of other genetic information can be used to disadvantage individuals? I could guess, and you should be able to, too. Let’s also not forget GMOs, crank stem cell science, etc., etc.
Surveillance: A truly maniacal type of relatively new science, now much more efficient, where tiny minds use advanced tech to monitor employees in bathrooms, but can’t stop massive amounts of data being lifted from governments and the military.
Automation: A type of science whereby the entire life model of humanity and global economics will be irrevocably altered. The theory is that automation releases people from drudgery. If there’s no way of earning a living however, it also throws perhaps billions of people in to poverty and probably more crime. Careers, education and personal wealth by default, may well become things of the past through this single line of research. What’s the point of getting an education if you can’t have a life?
Hacking: I don’t have much time for hackers since I managed to get in to some firewall-making company’s email using four characters through a search engine. To me, that’s way too easy. No mental challenge at all. How much easier could it get than that? The fact is, however, that hacking, which is also highly preventable, is also highly profitable. It’s an industry. Internet security, that contradiction in terms, isn’t doing the obvious A-B things to stop it. Corrupt, like all other security? Bet your plastic petunias. The working practice is that someone creates a problem, you build an entire industry about NOT solving it.
Pharmaceuticals: You could hardly leave out the world’s least responsible area of science, creating iffy quality drugs for sick people at incredible prices. Suicidal thoughts as a side effect? Whoever thought that up should be shot, and so should anyone who tolerates it. Yet, it’s “Science”, in its modern clown suit of mistakes and idiotic ramifications. This, you trust? Why?
Science is naïve? Maybe not, but… About managing spin
Arguably, Science is totally naïve in one way. Modern science isn’t necessarily a pretty environment. The bitching, the backbiting, the bullying, you name it; it’s like an office environment, and no better ethically in many ways. Any rat race is still a contest of rats, and if the rats have PhDs, it’s a very complex marathon.
Being naïve in this environment isn’t a good move. You can have your work stolen, and maybe your money, too, if you’ve got skin in the game. More likely, in fact almost certain, is that your work will be subverted to some whacko mindset of the more or less totally criminal culture in all areas of management now able to abuse technologies.
If you want to read about science and corruption, read this actual history of a true obscenity, created by massive corruption. This was over 50 years ago, and it’s a lot worse now.
OK, so how do you be a scientist and be sure you’re not naïve? It’s tricky. You need to manage the spin on any science you’re doing. That’s a true qualitative issue, but you have an advantage. You’re dealing with criminals, sycophants, and often the usual corporate psychopaths. Any form of information can be stolen or otherwise accessed by these vermin if it exists in an accessible form. The easier to interpret the information is, the less secure it can be. The “cat sat on the mat” form of science, spelling out everything, is particularly vulnerable. Any fool can interpret it accurately.
The more secure form is “puzzle” form, where only the real experts can put together all the elements in any research scenario and extrapolate correctly. Expertise is a strange thing. The only truly consistent thing about it is that experts on the higher levels are much more risk aware, and more able to withhold potentially dangerous information from the global nutcase environment.
Anything can be broken up in to hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of components. Think of it as SSL2000, any number of elements. Destructive practices can be derailed in the process. A very simple example – The new antidepressant, for instance, can be delivered without the unforgivable “suicidal thoughts” side effects, even if some moron wants to include a very dumb, dangerous psychoactive compound. The dangerous elements can be written out of the research very easily simply by quoting the usual performance of garbage of this kind. Nobody needs to know why, just dollar values, and that sort of crap doesn’t stack up too well on that basis, either.
Put it this way – Research and its effects are the responsibility of REAL science. What idiots can’t see, can’t interpret, and can’t act upon can’t be used against humanity. Just bear that in mind before you give yet another weapon to some herd of imbeciles.
The 21st century Stone Age is the regressive, backward mentality which is obstructing humanity. If you think you’re living in a primitive environment, you are. In future, perhaps the near future, this mismanaged, idiocy-addicted world will look like the medieval era, filthy, unsanitary, and full of things knowledge can cure and fix.
The problem is the constipated, consolidated dead weight of old thinking, combined with arguably the dumbest bastards in human history running nations and corporations. We could have Star Trek almost instantly without these deranged obscenities. From the Stone Age to “we have all our material needs” would be well worth doing, if only to kick humanity’s miserable history of deprivation in the face. It’s an interesting, if irritating, fact that just about everything the human conceptual dunghill collective unconscious has ever considered impossible has happened.
The 21st century Stone Age, however, isn’t just about ignorance. It’s active obstruction, in the hideous tradition of the past. The same idiot mindset has obstructed medicine, engineering, research, human rights, and pretty much everything else of value to humanity. Continue reading →
World War One was the death of a prosperous, relatively happy world. If you read the biographies of people who fought in that war, you’ll see something very familiar – The loss of a world of youth, and its replacement by a hideous world of ideologies and political insanities. Everyone who fought in that war resented it, and what it did to their lives in so many ways.
The sheer madness of World War One was a guide to the future in so many ways:
Ridiculous basis for a war: The Archduke who was shot and triggered the war was one of the progressives, trying to address the issues for which he was assassinated. It was a sad event, certainly, but not a good reason for an estimated 20 million deaths and four years of mass human misery. There was no reason for this war at all, on any rational basis. One authority comments that the most striking cause for the war was the sheer mediocrity of the people involved, office boys with no clue about warfare or its possibilities, or how to stop a war from happening.
Maniacal conduct of the war: Even those who assumed a war was inevitable never predicted the results. The sheer slaughter of World War One is still statistically as bad as later wars in terms of massacring combatants, usually to achieve absolutely nothing of military or political value. People were walking in to literal hails of machine gun and artillery fire, and they just kept doing it. Millions were killed, and many more maimed for life. The only people who benefited were the arms manufacturers. Everyone else lost.
The most vague political concepts of the war: By 1915, Europe and Russia were annihilating their soldiers at thousands per day, with no clear view of what was to be achieved except “victory”, at the price of an entire generation. Even the Vietnam War doesn’t quite reach this level of mindless obsession.
Social catastrophes: The Russian Revolution, the creation of a maimed and barely viable Germany, and the legacy of Britain’s horrendous war costs were the catalysts for a disgusting, politically corrupt future and the endless local wars of today. 1918 was the benchmark for political failures of all kinds, and the predecessor of “austerity”, that worldwide obscenity, in its first form.
Hijacking democracy: The rise of Fascism, Nazism and Communism date from 1918, too. Ultra-capitalism in the US the early “1%” and the Depression consolidated capitalism in the West as the so-called antithesis of the anti-democratic movements. In practice, capitalism enforced another form of anti-democracy, the hijacking of government by the big capitalists. The New Deal dealt only with the physical problems, not the venal, verminous mindsets which contaminate the world now.
Propaganda and disinformation: Fake news is nothing new. During and after World War One, it became a science, and the basis for Orwell’s 1984. By 1946, it was a standard tool of governments. Some people still fail to recognise that Big Brother is a stagnant, self-limiting, self-oppressing society, dedicated to preserving its owners, not the society.
Ideological warfare in war and peace: The ideologies which sprouted like diseases from World War One’s gigantic cemeteries were arguably worse than the war. These were the excuses for genocide, fire bombing, mass executions, and the vast human disasters in Europe and Asia. Even colonial genocides didn’t reach these industrial scales of mass murder.
Yes, World War One is your problem in 2018
If you’re one of those people who believes that nothing which happened before you were born is relevant to you, you’re very wrong. The map of human misery as it now exists was made in 1918. A war which never needed to happen at all caused it all.
There’s no reason to believe that so many prosperous countries would have torn each other, and themselves, to pieces and set the scene for the 20th century’s hideous “entertainments”. The Holocaust, the Great Depression, and the Cold War could never have happened without World War One.
This book is all about fears. It includes a monster which learns how to bore people to death and the wonderful town of Pithcurdle, in which the coming of the dreaded Toothpaste Man is a cause for celebration.
Germany, a middle class country in normal times, could never have been the scene for Nazism without the Treaty of Versailles which sent it broke even before the Depression. Global colonialism would have come and gone on its own. Social changes and improvements for the poor were already happening in the West, and percolating to the East. Before World War One, there were no fanatics running nations. Even when the Russian and Chinese Revolutions first happened, they were led by moderates and academics, not fanatics and criminals.
Science couldn’t have been so easily diverted to military industrial uses, either. World War One turned basic technologies in to high value commercial assets. War, in effect, became truly profitable, and easy to distribute, worldwide. No prizes for seeing the modern parallels and their equally repulsive ramifications.
The same methods, the same stupidity and same basic mindsets are still in play. They’re like some sort of rotting corpse centre stage at a wedding which never quite happens. For some reason, these ugly bastard children of World War One are still calling the shots, a century later.
World War One As Part of Your Life? Yes. Lucky You.
Those who don’t learn from history are fools at best, traitors to humanity at worst. Look and learn. History is the greatest horror stories ever written, and you’re in it, whether you like it or not. NONE of the problems have been solved. If you don’t recognise history as a threat, you may well become history well before your time.
Readers note: Having some database issues with the blog, which is why it’s been off and on recently. Hopefully fixed now, but will believe when I see it.
What IS a modern good guy? Incredibly unfashionable, for one thing. Guys are taught to be jerks, and all else follows. It’s as if being a jerk is an achievement. It isn’t, never was, and never will be, but that’s the role model guys are given, the nasty little jerk who makes money and is hated by just about everyone.
It’s a mediocre aspiration. Anyone can be a jerk. Anyone can be a hypocrite, a coward, a thief, a stooge, or a lackey getting a few extra bucks. There’s not really very much to achieve. The problem with being a jerk is that you can’t actually be a real person, or even pretend to be a human being. Animals can pretend to be friendly to get food, run away, steal, be part of a pack, or grovel for some patronising reward.
Not being a jerk, basics
Being a good guy can be purely a personal values issue, but more often it’s a mix of experience and thinking, too. The decision not to be a jerk comes from multiple areas:
Disgust with jerks, jerk culture, and jerk behaviour
Experience of jerks
Some genuine personal ethical standards
Growing up; jerks are often permanently infantile
This can be tough for younger people, whose jerk recognition systems aren’t fully developed. Not surprisingly, younger people prefer not to think of their world as full of jerks and untrustworthy, sometimes very dangerous and expensive, jerk-based risks.
Younger people usually experience jerks as bullies. You’ll note that bullying is ALWAYS the same behaviour. Whether it’s an obnoxious kid in day care, or a CEO, the actual behaviour is identical. The early experience effectively starts the revulsion against jerks, but a few decades of it can become rather tiresome.
The good guy perspective
Good guys see the world diametrically opposite to the way jerks see it. Their aspirations are always positive. Good guys build, add value, and improve things for themselves and others, naturally, sometimes not even consciously. Jerks are always trying to do damage to someone. They never build or improve anything. If they do build, it’s at someone else’s expense, and risk.
Fear of creativity is the sure sign that you should be a publisher. Read this, and you’ll never need homicidal maniacs again.
Good guys, ironically, aren’t “good on principle”. It’s a much deeper motif, based on some sort of sense of what’s good and what’s not. It simply doesn’t occur to good guys to think like jerks. Jerks have no idea what’s good, or why it should matter to them, and what’s not good seems natural to them, so jerk-dom is their default behaviour in all circumstances. There’s no real intersection between good guys and jerks.
The difficulties with being a good guy, however, are pretty demanding. Having a very different perspective on everything in Jerk World is hard work, requiring personal and emotional stamina and sometimes baffling depth within oneself:
You have to stand on your own two feet. That makes you the inexcusable loner, the uncooperative non-team player (absurd, isn’t it?) or some sort of implied sociopath.
You have to understand and define what you’re trying to achieve. That can be extremely difficult, and take years to really get a grip on what you’re trying to do, while you’re doing it.
You have to disagree, sometimes often. Jerks can sit around fearlessly agreeing with themselves for years. Good guys can’t. They have to be honest, particularly with themselves, whatever the cost, because hypocrisy and lying is the basis of the difference between a jerk and a good guy. Those easy options for jerks are not available for good guys.
You can’t take all your life cues from some damn TV show or movie. Jerks do, and it’s one of the reasons everything they do is so superficial. They’re just lousy actors, trying to look good, while being incapable of even understanding their role beyond the dog biscuit level. Real actors are believable; jerks make any role look ridiculous, usually very melodramatic and overstated to mindless levels.
Nobody understands the good guy perspective on any level, and they will think you’re stupid, naïve, a dreamer, whatever. That doesn’t make doing things any easier. (Not that it matters to you, but you find yourself being a good guy with obstructive, pig-ignorant, useless jerks under foot everywhere.)
Being a jerk is no longer an option. You may have to reinvent your entire life, if you grew up in Jerk World. You have to do the right thing, partly because it’s your normal reaction, and partly because the jerk option becomes so much more repulsive over time. That can be a problem, in Jerk World, because you’re no longer any kind of fit for that world.
Your jerk-free social life has to be created. The society of jerks is no longer even slightly tolerable to you, as a working good guy. That raises a few social logistics issues. Jerks have the luxury of being able to associate with swarms of their own kind. They’re the fruit flies of society, passing nuisances with very limited roles, but always in spoiling any fruit they can find. Everyone in Fruit Fly City thinks being a jerk is better than sex. So you basically have to invent your own private society, somehow, in that environment.
Survival as a good guy
OK, so as a good guy, you put a certain self-imposed weight on yourself as a load to carry. The good news is that you do develop the strength to do it easily. The other news is that survival in Jerk World is the next hurdle.
It’s not quite as difficult as it might seem. Jerks have no stamina. They defocus easily, and often. They can’t do step logic beyond A-B. A-F is too much for them. They’re not really fighters, and won’t fight unless they’re a few thousand times bigger than what they’re fighting.
Jerks are very risk averse. Anything at all that looks like a risk will be studiously avoided. Be a risk to them, and they’ll avoid you. Any risk to their social status, in particular, will be considered far too dangerous, and they’ll leave you alone in droves. Any kind of defeat is real damage for jerks, too. They are extremely vulnerable to any perception of weakness by others, as most weaklings are. Make them look weak, and you’re killing them.
Jerk culture, however, is much harder to avoid. The pathological liar, the asshole supervisor, that nasty little object in the workplace, etc. are endemic. The best way to dodge this culture is to create your own, inaccessible, space. Anything involving intelligence, perception, or actual passion will do.
These things are incomprehensible to jerks. They’ll avoid the subjects, unless there’s some cliché so they can be loudmouth jerks, “asserting” themselves, which is their sole social ranking capability. If something you care about is under scrutiny, that can be a problem. To avoid the problem if a relevant subject comes up, ask them a question where their answer can only make them look stupid, even to other jerks. Their ignorance will do the work for you. Problem solved.
You can, and will, move on from the local grotesqueries, anyway, in time. Jerks do come and go, if they never go fast enough. The trick is to disengage from the jerks, preferably ASAP, and keep your space separate from them.
It’s not easy being a good guy. There are no moral Brownie points for good guys. You don’t spend decades in self-congratulation, like the jerks, because that’s not how you see things. You do, however, get to be yourself and lead a meaningful, fulfilling life on your own terms. Those are things no jerk can ever do.
If polarization was a disease, it would be classified as a hereditary condition, with risk of death and severe psychological symptoms. There are very few, if any, cases of polarization ever being mitigated, let alone cured. Polarization is a disease for which humanity has never found an effective treatment.
Active polarization includes:
Exclusionism, separating one group from a society
Legislative actions against minority or disadvantaged groups
Corruption, ignoring rights of people
Active hate groups
Constant reiteration of hate dogma and prejudices
Polarization is spread by social groups, often using coercive means to ensure that a group sticks to the script in terms of expressions of polarization. The classic case of true polarization may include violent prejudice against people that polarized groups have never met, or ever had any interaction with. Continue reading →
When you live in a world based on bad management, you have to start wondering whether the culture of the Rich Insane has any possible basis in fact. You don’t have to be rich to be insane, but it certainly is much more convenient. The problem here is that being rich is becoming synonymous with being insane.
We all know the rich conspiracy theories. Nobody cares about them. Drivel is drivel, and that’s it. The simple fact is that rich people don’t need conspiracy theories. For example – The endless theories about the Rothschilds running the world; they did that 200 years ago, dominating European commerce and politics. Then they apparently got out of the habit. People that rich have better things to do than run the world and burden themselves with tedious politicians. Ditto the Rockefellers, etc etc.
Some rich people, however, apparently can’t get enough of politics, the last word in human insanity. The Koch brothers, some incomprehensible reason, wallowed in the absolute epitome of human mediocrity, the American Tea Party. Trump, who is by any standards a very low ranking billionaire, if that, has collected a rabble of evangelists, a cacophony of rednecks, and buffoonery of businessmen around him. It seems the rich don’t mind associating with scum, either.
Who you associate with says a lot about who you are. Like calls to like, scum calls to scum, and so on. You have to question the judgement, however, people who are running countries and corporations who associate with people like that.
Rich equals dumb, or just insane?
The old theory goes that mediocrities hire people even stupider than they are. Dumb hires dumber. Idiots hire morons. Criminals hire fall guys. This theory would explain the world rather nicely, if people weren’t paying so much money for it.
Of all people on Earth, the rich have the most to lose. Why would rich people want to live in a global sewer? Let alone a sewer full of diseases, nutcases, and “useful idiots”? They don’t need to do that. Can you be sane, and tolerate such utter stupidity?
This is a world made by bad calls:
World War I
The Great Depression
World War II
The Cultural Revolution
Fundamentalism of all kinds
Breakdown of rule of law tolerated by politicians around the world
This is a virtual inventory of all the major human issues which are absolutely critical for the existence of a civilisation. The chronic, systematic mismanagement is effectively anti-humanity.
… And the rich are OK with that? The only people who actually have a say in anything, aren’t saying anything. At all. About anything.
There may be a clue – Some years ago, Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson & Johnson group, made a video called The 1%. Johnson was astonished to find people reacting very badly to his questions, including his family.
One of his interviewees, in fact, even got disinherited, simply for talking to him. Not one of these people understood that the questions he was asking were exactly the questions his generation needs to ask.
If being rich is grounds for optimism, you need to read this. All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, eh?
One thing that occurred to me was that these very rich people seem to be scared of something. What do multi-billionaires have to be scared of, you may well ask? Being a rich person can be very risky, but you can buy yourself some security. You don’t really have to put up with anything much when you’re that rich.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense that people who made their money out of making good calls can tolerate people making so many bad calls, particularly at their expense. Even the theory that you make money out of pharmaceuticals doesn’t help very much when most of your products are tangled up in lawsuits, many don’t work, and people simply can’t afford your products.
It’s lousy economics, and it’s worse business practice. Even in an ultra-materialistic (not to say totally vacuous) society, legal, personal and corporate suicide isn’t necessarily the best option. It cannot possibly be any kind of mystery to people who have direct access to any information they want that global mismanagement is now all that is happening.
Would you have to be insane to accept this situation? Yes. In clinical theory, anything which is anti-personal survival is irrational. Even if you happen to be one of the very naive people who believes in exterminating the poor and replacing them with artificial intelligence and robots, supporting a situation which guarantees your own extermination is not particularly intelligent.
Brave New World is about a stagnant,, class-based society which does nothing and goes nowhere. You may be an Alpha, but that’s compared to idiots.
It is well known that rich people are very much like junkies. They are basically money addicts, needing more to get a high every time. That’s not news. The best description of this phenomenon is something like “status masturbation”; it’s harmless among underachievers, but very dangerous among the very rich. It is a type of obsessive compulsive disorder, taken to extremes.
… Which is all very nice, but when it comes to destroying the planet and humanity, nobody has to put up with it. During the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, the rich were immediately attacked, and effectively destroyed. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a similar outbreak, anywhere on Earth, anytime in future. It is quite impossible that the rich could be unaware of that situation, either. As it is, they are inevitable targets for extortion, blackmail, and any other hobbies that criminals might find interesting. If an entire society goes on the rampage, however, things could get a lot worse, very quickly.
Forms of insane
So why antagonise the entire human race? Arguably the only people on Earth hated more than politicians are rich people. The rich are seen as controlling the politicians, and therefore responsible for everything that goes wrong.
The fact that so many very rich people try to help doesn’t have much of an impact. Charity from the rich is seen as an obligation, not as a personal contribution. The rich as a class are seen as the problem, rather than role models or aspirational goals. Celebrity culture, the bargain bin discount version of being rich, is also an antagonistic image to most people. Flaunting wealth is a very good way of annoying people. People naturally want what they don’t have, and reminding them that they don’t have it is not a good move.
Is it insane to antagonise the entire human race? Probably. Showing off is very cute among very young kids, but among adults, it is considered very poor taste, actually offensive. Yet, with a sort of maniacal glee, it happens every single day of the week. At the same time, not one single attempt at solving any of the real human problems is made.
I was reading a thing in the New Yorker the other day about a public relations consultant who advised Margaret Thatcher. This job could be said to be very much like advising a house brick, yet the public relations consultant was full of admiration for Thatcher, and her non-existent ideals and achievements. I suppose that happens when you’re in public relations; you create the image, and then you have to believe in it.
The rich are creating an almost unbelievably negative image for themselves. No good can possibly come of it. I’m not saying that you could instantly make the rich popular with some sort of hand out or give away, but shutting up would be an extremely good idea. Supporting obviously incompetent political idiots is also something that can be stopped pretty easily. Worth a thought? Because doing nothing really would be insane.
Read a few of my books and claim that they’re interesting. Nobody will believe you, they’ll think you’re a nut, and you can frolic to your heart’s content.