The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth—Kenneth E. Boulding

No matter how many wise voices over time express that nature has all the answers, we will continue to follow the empty promises of greedy, needy men who have never listened to nature and never will. We see ourselves in these childish men rather than ourselves in nature. —sc

The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth Kenneth E. Boulding In H. Jarrett (ed.) 1966. Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, pp. 3-14. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press. First presented by Kenneth Ewart Boulding at the Sixth Resources for the Future Forum on Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy in Washington, D.C. on March 8, 1966.

Listen to a deep dive audio podcast about the text.

We are now in the middle of a long process of transition in the nature of the image which man has of himself and his environment. Primitive men, and to a large extent also men of the early civilizations, imagined themselves to be living on a virtually illimitable plane. There was almost always somewhere beyond the known limits of human habitation, and over a very large part of the time that man has been on earth, there has been something like a frontier. That is, there was always some place else to go when things got too difficult, either by reason of the deterioration of the natural environment or a deterioration of the social structure in places where people happened to live. The image of the frontier is probably one of the oldest images of mankind, and it is not surprising that we find it hard to get rid of.

Gradually, however, man has been accustoming himself to the notion of the spherical earth and a closed sphere of human activity. A few unusual spirits among the ancient Greeks perceived that the earth was a sphere. It was only with the circumnavigations and the geographical explorations of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, however, that the fact that the earth was a sphere became at all widely known and accepted. Even in the nineteenth century, the commonest map was Mercator's projection, which visualizes the earth as an illimitable cylinder, essentially a plane wrapped around the globe, and it was not until the Second World War and the development of the air age that the global nature of the planet really entered the popular imagination. Even now we are very far from having made the moral, political, and psychological adjustments which are implied in this transition from the 2 illimitable plane to the closed sphere.

Economists in particular, for the most part, have failed to come to grips with the ultimate consequences of the transition from the open to the closed earth. One hesitates to use the terms "open" and "closed" in this connection, as they have been used with so many different shades of meaning. Nevertheless, it is hard to find equivalents. The open system, indeed, has some similarities to the open system of von Bertalanffy, in that it implies that some kind of a structure is maintained in the midst of a throughput from inputs to outputs.[1] In a closed system, the outputs of all parts of the system are linked to the inputs of other parts. There are no inputs from outside and no outputs to the outside; indeed, there is no outside at all. Closed systems, in fact, are very rare in human experience, in fact almost by definition unknowable, for if there are genuinely closed systems around us, we have no way of getting information into them or out of them; and hence if they are really closed, we would be quite unaware of their existence. We can only find out about a closed system if we participate in it. Some isolated primitive societies may have approximated to this, but even these had to take inputs from the environment and give outputs to it. All living organisms, including man himself, are open systems. They have to receive inputs in the shape of air, food, water, and give off outputs in the form of effluvia and excrement. Deprivation of input of air, even for a few minutes, is fatal. Deprivation of the ability to obtain any input or to dispose of any output is fatal in a relatively short time. All human societies have likewise been open systems. They receive inputs from the earth, the atmosphere, and the waters, and they give outputs into these reservoirs; they also produce inputs internally in the shape of babies and outputs in the shape of corpses. Given a capacity to draw upon inputs and to get rid of outputs, an open system of this kind can persist indefinitely.

There are some systems - such as the biological phenotype, for instance the human body - which cannot maintain themselves indefinitely by inputs and outputs because of the phenomenon of aging. This process is very little understood. It occurs, evidently, because there are some outputs which cannot be replaced by any known input. There is not the same necessity for aging in organizations and in societies, although an analogous phenomenon may take place. The structure and composition of an organization or society, however, can be maintained by inputs of fresh personnel from birth and education as the existing personnel ages and eventually dies. Here we have an interesting example of a system which seems to maintain itself by the self-generation of inputs, and in this sense is moving towards closure. The input of people (that is, babies) is also an output of people (that is, parents).

Systems may be open or closed in respect to a number of classes of inputs and outputs. Three important classes are matter, energy, and information. The present world economy is open in regard to all three. We can think of the world economy or "econosphere" as a subset of the "world set," which is the set of all objects of possible discourse in the world. We then think of the state of the econosphere at anyone moment as being the total capital stock, that is, the set of all objects, people, organizations, and so on, which are interesting from the point of view of the system of exchange. This total stock of capital is clearly an open system in the sense that it has inputs and outputs, inputs being production which adds to the capital stock, outputs being consumption which subtracts from it. From a material point of view, we see objects passing from the noneconomic into the economic set in the process of production, and we similarly see products passing out of the economic set as their value becomes zero. Thus we see the econosphere as a material process involving the discovery and mining of fossil fuels, ores, etc., and at the other end a process by which the effluents of the system are passed out into noneconomic reservoirs - for instance, the atmosphere and the oceans - which are not appropriated and do not enter into the exchange system.

From the point of view of the energy system, the econosphere involves inputs of available energy in the form, say, of water power, fossil fuels, or sunlight, which are necessary in order to create the material throughput and to move matter from the noneconomic set into the economic set or even out of it again; and energy itself is given off by the system in a less available form, mostly in the form of heat. These inputs of available energy must come either from the sun (the energy supplied by other stars being assumed to be negligible) or it may come from the earth itself, either through its internal heat or through its energy of rotation or other motions, which generate, for instance, the energy of the tides. Agriculture, a few solar machines, and water power use the current available energy income. In advanced societies this is supplemented very extensively by the use of fossil fuels, which represent as it were a capital stock of stored-up sunshine. Because of this capital stock of energy, we have been able to maintain an energy input into the system, particularly over the last two centuries, much larger than we would have been able to do with existing techniques if we had had to rely on the current input of available energy from the sun or the earth itself. This supplementary input, however, is by its very nature exhaustible. The inputs and outputs of information are more subtle and harder to trace, but also represent an open system, related to, but not wholly dependent on, the transformations of matter and energy. By far the larger amount of information and knowledge is self-generated by the human society, though a certain amount of information comes into the sociosphere in the form of light from the universe outside. The information that comes from the universe has certainly affected man's image of himself and of his environment, as we can easily visualize if we suppose that we lived on a planet with a total cloud-cover that kept out all information from the exterior universe. It is only in very recent times, of course, that the information coming in from the universe has been captured and coded into the form of a complex image of what the universe is like outside the earth; but even in primitive times, man's perception of the heavenly bodies has always profoundly affected his image of earth and of himself. It is the information generated within the planet, however, and particularly that generated by man himself, which forms by far the larger part of the information system. We can think of the stock of knowledge, or as Teilhard de Chardin called it, the "noosphere," and consider this as an open system, losing knowledge through aging and death and gaining it through birth and education and the ordinary experience of life.

From the human point of view, knowledge or information is by far the most important of the three systems. Matter only acquires significance and only enters the sociosphere or the econosphere insofar as it becomes an object of human knowledge. We can think of capital, indeed, as frozen knowledge or knowledge imposed on the material world in the form of improbable arrangements. A machine, for instance, originated in the mind of man, and both its construction and its use involve information processes imposed on the material world by man himself. The cumulation of knowledge, that is, the excess of its production over its consumption, is the key to human development of all kinds, especially to economic development. We can see this pre-eminence of knowledge very clearly in the experiences of countries where the material capital has been destroyed by a war, as in Japan and Germany. The knowledge of the people was not destroyed, and it did not take long, therefore, certainly not more than ten years, for most of the material capital to be reestablished again. In a country such as Indonesia, however, where the knowledge did not exist, the material capital did not come into being either. By "knowledge" here I mean, of course, the whole cognitive structure, which includes valuations and motivations as well as images of the factual world.

The concept of entropy, used in a somewhat loose sense, can be applied to all three of these open systems. In the case of material systems, we can distinguish between entropic processes, which take concentrated materials and diffuse them through the oceans or over the earth's surface or into the atmosphere, and anti-entropic processes, which take diffuse materials and concentrate them. Material entropy can be taken as a measure of the uniformity of the distribution of elements and, more uncertainly, compounds and other structures on the earth's surface. There is, fortunately, no law of increasing material entropy, as there is in the corresponding case of energy, as it is quite possible to concentrate diffused materials if energy inputs are allowed. Thus the processes for fixation of nitrogen from the air, processes for the extraction of magnesium or other elements from the sea, and processes for the desalinization of sea water are anti-entropic in the material sense, though the reduction of material entropy has to be paid for by inputs of energy and also inputs of information, or at least a stock of information in the system. In regard to matter, therefore, a closed system is conceivable, that is, a system in which there is neither increase nor decrease in material entropy. In such a system all outputs from consumption would constantly be recycled to become inputs for production, as for instance, nitrogen in the nitrogen cycle of the natural ecosystem.

In regard to the energy system there is, unfortunately, no escape from the grim Second Law of Thermodynamics; and if there were no energy inputs into the earth, any evolutionary or developmental process would be impossible. The large energy inputs which we have obtained from fossil fuels are strictly temporary. Even the most optimistic predictions would expect the easily available supply of fossil fuels to be exhausted in a mere matter of centuries at present rates of use. If the rest of the world were to rise to American standards of power consumption, and still more if world population continues to increase, the exhaustion of fossil fuels would be even more rapid. The development of nuclear energy has improved this picture, but has not fundamentally altered it, at least in present technologies, for fissionable material is still relatively scarce. If we should achieve the economic use of energy through fusion, of course, a much larger source of energy materials would be available, which would expand the time horizons of supplementary energy input into an open social system by perhaps tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Failing this, however, the time is not very far distant, historically speaking, when man will once more have to retreat to his current energy input from the sun, even though this could be used much more effectively than in the past with increased knowledge. Up to now, certainly, we have not got very far with the technology of using current solar energy, but the possibility of substantial improvements in the future is certainly high. It may be, indeed, that the biological revolution which is just beginning will produce a solution to this problem, as we develop artificial organisms which are capable of much more efficient transformation of solar energy into easily available forms than any that we now have. As Richard Meier has suggested, we may run our machines in the future with methane-producing algae.

The question of whether there is anything corresponding to entropy in the information system is a puzzling one, though of great interest. There are certainly many examples of social systems and cultures which have lost knowledge, especially in transition from one generation to the next, and in which the culture has therefore degenerated. One only has to look at the folk culture of Appalachian migrants to American cities to see a culture which started out as a fairly rich European folk culture 7 in Elizabethan times and which seems to have lost both skills, adaptability, folk tales, songs, and almost everything that goes up to make richness and complexity in a culture, in the course of about ten generations. The American Indians on reservations provide another example of such degradation of the information and knowledge system. On the other hand, over a great part of human history, the growth of knowledge in the earth as a whole seems to have been almost continuous, even though there have been times of relatively slow growth and times of rapid growth. As it is knowledge of certain kinds that produces the growth of knowledge in general, we have here a very subtle and complicated system, and it is hard to put one's finger on the particular elements in a culture which make knowledge grow more or less rapidly, or even which make it decline. One of the great puzzles in this connection, for instance, is why the take-off into science, which represents an "acceleration," or an increase in the rate of growth of knowledge in European society in the sixteenth century, did not take place in China, which at that time (about 1600) was unquestionably ahead of Europe, and one would think even more ready for the breakthrough. This is perhaps the most crucial question in the theory of social development, yet we must confess that it is very little understood. Perhaps the most significant factor in this connection is the existence of "slack" in the culture, which permits a divergence from established patterns and activity which is not merely devoted to reproducing the existing society but is devoted to changing it. China was perhaps too well-organized and had too little slack in its society to produce the kind of acceleration which we find in the somewhat poorer and less well-organized but more diverse societies of Europe.

The closed earth of the future requires economic principles which are somewhat different from those of the open earth of the past. For the sake of picturesqueness, I am tempted to call the open economy the "cowboy economy," the cowboy being symbolic of the illimitable plains and also associated with reckless, exploitative, romantic, and violent behavior, which is characteristic of open societies. The closed economy of the future might similarly be called the "spaceman" economy, in which the earth has become a single spaceship, without unlimited reservoirs of anything, either for extraction or for pollution, and in which, therefore, man must find his place in a 8 cyclical ecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction of material form even though it cannot escape having inputs of energy. The difference between the two types of economy becomes most apparent in the attitude towards consumption. In the cowboy economy, consumption is regarded as a good thing and production likewise; and the success of the economy is measured by the amount of the throughput from the "factors of production," a part of which, at any rate, is extracted from the reservoirs of raw materials and noneconomic objects, and another part of which is output into the reservoirs of pollution. If there are infinite reservoirs from which material can be obtained and into which effluvia can be deposited, then the throughput is at least a plausible measure of the success of the economy. The gross national product is a rough measure of this total throughput. It should be possible, however, to distinguish that part of the GNP which is derived from exhaustible and that which is derived from reproducible resources, as well as that part of consumption which represents effluvia and that which represents input into the productive system again. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever attempted to break down the GNP in this way, although it would be an interesting and extremely important exercise, which is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper.

By contrast, in the spaceman economy, throughput is by no means a desideratum, and is indeed to be regarded as something to be minimized rather than maximized. The essential measure of the success of the economy is not production and consumption at all, but the nature, extent, quality, and complexity of the total capital stock, including in this the state of the human bodies and minds included in the system. In the spaceman economy, what we are primarily concerned with is stock maintenance, and any technological change which results in the maintenance of a given total stock with a lessened throughput (that is, less production and consumption) is clearly a gain. This idea that both production and consumption are bad things rather than good things is very strange to economists, who have been obsessed with the income-flow concepts to the exclusion, almost, of capital-stock concepts.

There are actually some very tricky and unsolved problems involved in the questions as to whether human welfare or well-being is to be regarded as a stock or a flow. Something of both these elements seems actually to be involved in it, and as far as I know there have been practically no studies directed towards identifying these two dimensions of human satisfaction. Is it, for instance, eating that is a good thing, or is it being well fed? Does economic welfare involve having nice clothes, fine houses, good equipment, and so on, or is it to be measured by the depreciation and the wearing out of these things? I am inclined myself to regard the stock concept as most fundamental, that is, to think of being well fed as more important than eating, and to think even of so-called services as essentially involving the restoration of a depleting psychic capital. Thus I have argued that we go to a concert in order to restore a psychic condition which might be called "just having gone to a concert," which, once established, tends to depreciate. When it depreciates beyond a certain point, we go to another concert in order to restore it. If it depreciates rapidly, we go to a lot of concerts; if it depreciates slowly, we go to few. On this view, similarly, we eat primarily to restore bodily homeostasis, that is, to maintain a condition of being well fed, and so on. On this view, there is nothing desirable in consumption at all. The less consumption we can maintain a given state with, the better off we are. If we had clothes that did not wear out, houses that did not depreciate, and even if we could maintain our bodily condition without eating, we would clearly be much better off.

It is this last consideration, perhaps, which makes one pause. Would we, for instance, really want an operation that would enable us to restore all our bodily tissues by intravenous feeding while we slept? Is there not, that is to say, a certain virtue in throughput itself, in activity itself, in production and consumption itself, in raising food and in eating it? It would certainly be rash to exclude this possibility. Further interesting problems are raised by the demand for variety. We certainly do not want a constant state to be maintained; we want fluctuations in the state. Otherwise there would be no demand for variety in food, for variety in scene, as in travel, for variety in social contact, and so on. The demand for variety can, of course, be costly, and sometimes it seems to be too costly to be tolerated or at least legitimated, as in the case of marital partners, where the maintenance of a homeostatic state in the family is usually regarded as much more desirable than the variety and excessive throughput of the libertine. There are 10 problems here which the economics profession has neglected with astonishing singlemindedness. My own attempts to call attention to some of them, for instance, in two articles, as far as I can judge, produced no response whatever; and economists continue to think and act as if production, consumption, throughput, and the GNP were the sufficient and adequate measure of economic success.

It may be said, of course, why worry about all this when the spaceman economy is still a good way off (at least beyond the lifetimes of any now living), so let us eat, drink, spend, extract and pollute, and be as merry as we can, and let posterity worry about the spaceship earth. It is always a little hard to find a convincing answer to the man who says, "What has posterity ever done for me?" and the conservationist has always had to fall back on rather vague ethical principles postulating identity of the individual with some human community or society which extends not only back into the past but forward into the future. Unless the individual identifies with some community of this kind, conservation is obviously "irrational." Why should we not maximize the welfare of this generation at the cost of posterity? "Après nous, le deluge" has been the motto of not insignificant numbers of human societies. The only answer to this, as far as I can see, is to point out that the welfare of the individual depends on the extent to which he can identify himself with others, and that the most satisfactory individual identity is that which identifies not only with a community in space but also with a community extending over time from the past into the future. If this kind of identity is recognized as desirable, then posterity has a voice, even if it does not have a vote; and in a sense, if its voice can influence votes, it has votes too. This whole problem is linked up with the much larger one of the determinants of the morale, legitimacy, and "nerve" of a society, and there is a great deal of historical evidence to suggest that a society which loses its identity with posterity and which loses its positive image of the future loses also its capacity to deal with present problems, and soon falls apart. Even if we concede that posterity is relevant to our present problems, we still face the question of time-discounting and the closely related question of uncertainty-discounting. It is a wellknown phenomenon that individuals discount the future, even in their own lives. The very existence of a positive rate of interest may be taken as at least strong supporting evidence of 11 this hypothesis. If we discount our own future, it is certainly not unreasonable to discount posterity's future even more, even if we do give posterity a vote. If we discount this at 5 per cent per annum, posterity's vote or dollar halves every fourteen years as we look into the future, and after even a mere hundred years it is pretty small - only about 1 and 1/2 cents on the dollar. If we add another 5 per cent for uncertainty, even the vote of our grandchildren reduces almost to insignificance. We can argue, of course, that the ethical thing to do is not to discount the future at all, that time-discounting is mainly the result of myopia and perspective, and hence is an illusion which the moral man should not tolerate. It is a very popular illusion, however, and one that must certainly be taken into consideration in the formulation of policies. It explains, perhaps, why conservationist policies almost have to be sold under some other excuse which seems more urgent, and why, indeed, necessities which are visualized as urgent, such as defense, always seem to hold priority over those which involve the future.

All these considerations add some credence to the point of view which says that we should not worry about the spaceman economy at all, and that we should just go on increasing the GNP and indeed the gross world product, or GWP, in the expectation that the problems of the future can be left to the future, that when scarcities arise, whether this is of raw materials or of pollutable reservoirs, the needs of the then present will determine the solutions of the then present, and there is no use giving ourselves ulcers by worrying about problems that we really do not have to solve. There is even high ethical authority for this point of view in the New Testament, which advocates that we should take no thought for tomorrow and let the dead bury their dead. There has always been something rather refreshing in the view that we should live like the birds, and perhaps posterity is for the birds in more senses than one; so perhaps we should all call it a day and go out and pollute something cheerfully. As an old taker of thought for the morrow, however, I cannot quite accept this solution; and I would argue, furthermore, that tomorrow is not only very close, but in many respects it is already here. The shadow of the future spaceship, indeed, is already falling over our spendthrift merriment. Oddly enough, it seems to be in pollution rather than in exhaustion that the problem is first becoming salient. 12 Los Angeles has run out of air, Lake Erie has become a cesspool, the oceans are getting full of lead and DDT, and the atmosphere may become man's major problem in another generation, at the rate at which we are filling it up with gunk. It is, of course, true that at least on a microscale, things have been worse at times in the past. The cities of today, with all their foul air and polluted waterways, are probably not as bad as the filthy cities of the pretechnical age. Nevertheless, that fouling of the nest which has been typical of man's activity in the past on a local scale now seems to be extending to the whole world society; and one certainly cannot view with equanimity the present rate of pollution of any of the natural reservoirs, whether the atmosphere, the lakes, or even the oceans.

I would argue strongly also that our obsession with production and consumption to the exclusion of the "state" aspects of human welfare distorts the process of technological change in a most undesirable way. We are all familiar, of course, with the wastes involved in planned obsolescence, in competitive advertising, and in poor quality of consumer goods. These problems may not be so important as the "view with alarm" school indicates, and indeed the evidence at many points is conflicting. New materials especially seem to edge towards the side of improved durability, such as, for instance, neolite soles for footwear, nylon socks, wash and wear shirts, and so on. The case of household equipment and automobiles is a little less clear. Housing and building construction generally almost certainly has declined in durability since the Middle Ages, but this decline also reflects a change in tastes towards flexibility and fashion and a need for novelty, so that it is not easy to assess. What is clear is that no serious attempt has been made to assess the impact over the whole of economic life of changes in durability, that is, in the ratio of capital in the widest possible sense to income. I suspect that we have underestimated, even in our spendthrift society, the gains from increased durability, and that this might very well be one of the places where the price system needs correction through government-sponsored research and development. The problems which the spaceship earth is going to present, therefore, are not all in the future by any means, and a strong case can be made for paying much more attention to them in the present than we now do.

It may be complained that the considerations I have been putting forth relate only to the very long run, and they do not much concern our immediate problems. There may be some justice in this criticism, and my main excuse is that other writers have dealt adequately with the more immediate problems of deterioration in the quality of the environment. It is true, for instance, that many of the immediate problems of pollution of the atmosphere or of bodies of water arise because of the failure of the price system, and many of them could be solved by corrective taxation. If people had to pay the losses due to the nuisances which they create, a good deal more resources would go into the prevention of nuisances. These arguments involving external economies and diseconomies are familiar to economists, and there is no teed to recapitulate them. The law of torts is quite inadequate to provide for the correction of the price system which is required, simply because where damages are widespread and their incidence on any particular person is small, the ordinary remedies of the civil law are quite inadequate and inappropriate. There needs, therefore, to be special legislation to cover these cases, and though such legislation seems hard to get in practice, mainly because of the widespread and small personal incidence of the injuries, the technical problems involved are not insuperable. If we were to adopt in principle a law for tax penalties for social damages, with an apparatus for making assessments under it, a very large proportion of current pollution and deterioration of the environment would be prevented. There are tricky problems of equity involved, particularly where old established nuisances create a kind of "right by purchase" to perpetuate themselves, but these are problems again which a few rather arbitrary decisions can bring to some kind of solution. The problems which I have been raising in this paper are of larger scale and perhaps much harder to solve than the more practical and immediate problems of the above paragraph. Our success in dealing with the larger problems, however, is not unrelated to the development of skill in the solution of the more immediate and perhaps less difficult problems. One can hope, therefore, that as a succession of mounting crises, especially in pollution, arouse public opinion and mobilize support for the solution of the immediate problems, a learning process will be set in motion which will eventually lead to an appreciation of and perhaps solutions for the larger ones. My neglect of the immediate problems, therefore, is in no way 14 intended to deny their importance, for unless we at least make a beginning on a process for solving the immediate problems we will not have much chance of solving the larger ones. On the other hand, it may also be true that a long-run vision, as it were, of the deep crisis which faces mankind may predispose people to taking more interest in the immediate problems and to devote more effort for their solution. This may sound like a rather modest optimism, but perhaps a modest optimism is better than no optimism at all.

Notes 1. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1952). 2. Richard L. Meier, Science and Economic Development (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956). 3. "The Consumption Concept in Economic Theory," American Economic Review, 35:2 (May 1945), pp. 1-14; and "Income or Welfare?," Review of Economic Studies, 17 (1949-50), pp. 77-86. 4. Fred L. Polak, The Image of the Future, Vols. I and II, translated by Elise Boulding (New York: Sythoff, Leyden and Oceana, 1961. NCSE Boston University All text is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Neutrality Policy Supported by the Environmental Information Coalition and the National Council for Science and the Environment

Satan is Ignorance — Eat An Apple A Day

Where is our Prince of Peace?

You don’t want peace and won’t work to engender it. I understand. You need enemies to give your life meaning and distract you from the true causes of your predicament, the human condition. Since we could make tools and fire, domesticate animals, plants, and ourselves, and settle in large-scale communities, also known as civilizations, empires, nation-states, and ultimately global economic alliances designed to funnel power and resources to the lucky few at the top of the pyramid, we have known only war.

Fossil fuels and technology have only given us the illusion of peace. Modern Techno Industrial civilization is omnicidal; it’s violent as hell, but we find violence entertaining and lucrative, so it’s acceptable.

You follow the leader who makes you feel secure in the face of those competing with your leader’s position as you think your leader sticks up for your luck. You are a believer. That’s nice. It feels good to believe.

You think your enemies are not like you. You think they are inhuman, irrational, and barbaric. If your enemies disappear, the world will be perfect, and you can do whatever you want. It feels good to believe your leaders have a way to make your enemies disappear. Your leaders ravage the Earth to engineer and create machines that make killing more efficient and less personal. Soldiers don’t have to fight in face-to-face pitched battles much anymore. Our leaders can send hypersonic missiles to kill civilians, believing that this will make the leaders of the warriors and their people give up fighting for what they want and need.

We have studied this kind of warfare in great detail since World War Two, and we know it never settles anything.

Regarding the bombing of civilian targets:

• Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified? by A.C. Grayling delves into the morality and effectiveness of bombing civilian targets during World War II, examining the consequences and ethical dilemmas involved.

• Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History by Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn B. Young analyzes the 20th-century shift in military strategy toward targeting civilian populations.

Books on Curtis LeMay:

• LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay by Warren Kozak. This biography offers a comprehensive look at LeMay’s life, career, and controversial decisions, including his role in the bombing campaigns of World War II and the Cold War.

• Iron Eagle: The Turbulent Life of General Curtis LeMay by Thomas M. Coffey. This is another biography of LeMay, focusing on his personality and his significant contributions to the development of the United States Air Force.

• Superfortress: The Boeing B-29 and American Airpower in World War II by Curtis Emerson LeMay and Bill Yenne. LeMay co-authored this book, which details the development and deployment of the B-29 Superfortress, the aircraft instrumental in the bombing of Japan.

• Black Snow: Curtis LeMay, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Road to the Atomic Bomb by James M. Scott focuses on LeMay’s role in the firebombing of Tokyo, a devastating event that killed over 100,000 civilians.

The bombing of civilian targets remains a highly controversial topic, with ongoing debates about its morality, effectiveness, and long-term consequences. Controversial? Go figure. We are indeed unwell.

We have become death, the destroyer of our life on Earth. We sit and watch cities become rubble on our screens and think it’s justifiable. If not them, then us. Bull Shit! We are doing “wet work,” not “good works.”

Ecclesiastes 12:14

For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Matthew 25:40

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Western Civilization claims it’s Christian, no?

Believing in our kind of civilization and the utility of war has a problem — these things are false Gods. The enemy is within. It grows from false beliefs and blindness to Big Nature’s actual laws. The enemy is in you, your country, mind, system of government, and ideological beliefs. It lurks inside, waiting to destroy any possibility of security and posterity.

Consider the wisdom of the ages and the teachings of the great minds. Love your enemy? Treat others as you wish to be treated. It may seem absurd, but these truths have been given to us for millennia. For now, the good books are instantly available to WEIRD lucky people on your miraculous, super-smart electronic device. There’s no excuse not to immerse yourself in their perspectives on life.

So that’s nice; we spend time each day with the wise ones. We don’t have to believe them because we know what they say makes sense and is grounded in Earth Life.

Now, let’s study Entropy and Thermaldynamics; you need to know about this subject so you won’t think that The Government controls the weather.

Thermaldynamics is a fascinating subject with applications everywhere, from your refrigerator to the engine in your car. The Earth is a living heat engine; without life, it would be more like Mars or Venus. Living on Earth is extraordinary and requires all kinds of life forms to allow for Homo sapiens to exist.

Here are some excellent resources for studying and learning about thermodynamics geared toward laypeople with varying levels of depth.

Beginner-friendly:

• Paul Sen’s “Einstein’s Fridge: How the Difference Between Hot and Cold Explains the Universe” explores the history of thermodynamics and explains key concepts in an engaging and accessible way.

• “Understanding Thermodynamics” by H.C. Van Ness: A classic introductory text known for its clear explanations and focus on fundamental concepts.

• Videos: Crash Course Physics: Their thermodynamics episodes offer a fun and fast-paced introduction to the basics. [Search “Crash Course Thermodynamics” on YouTube.]

• TED-Ed: Search for thermodynamics on TED-Ed’s website for engaging animated lessons.

Intermediate level:

• Daniel V. Schroeder’s “An Introduction to Thermal Physics” provides a more in-depth look at thermodynamics while still accessible to those without a strong physics background.

• “Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach” by Yunus A. Cengel and Michael A. Boles is a widely used textbook that covers a broad range of topics with clear explanations and examples. (May require some math comfort)

• Online Courses: Khan Academy offers a comprehensive course on thermodynamics with interactive exercises and videos.

More advanced (but still accessible):

• “The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I” by Richard Feynman. Feynman was a master at explaining complex topics clearly and intuitively. This volume includes his lectures on thermodynamics.

• Website: Hyperphysics offers a wealth of information on physics, including a detailed section on thermodynamics with interactive diagrams and clear explanations.

Tips for Learning:

• Start with the basics: Understand fundamental concepts like energy, heat, temperature, and entropy before moving on to more complex topics.

• Use visual aids: Diagrams and animations can be incredibly helpful in understanding thermodynamic processes.

• Relate to real-world examples: Think about how thermodynamics applies to everyday things like cooking, refrigeration, and weather patterns.

• Be bold and ask questions: If you’re struggling with a concept, seek help from online forums, tutors, or friends with a science background.

Please trust me when I say that studying thermodynamics for fifteen minutes a day until you have a decent understanding of it is time better spent than listening to your politicians lie.

Our leaders lie to manipulate you emotionally so you won’t think of fundamental challenges and their complex causes that make you feel vulnerable.

Our leaders could quickly eliminate threats to a peaceful, sustainable way of life if they bothered to practice diplomatic communication with people and understood that everyone has basic needs that must be fulfilled. To be peaceful neighbors with time to educate ourselves about intricate life systems on Earth, we must first fulfill people’s needs through compassionate work, emotional intelligence, and a profound understanding of our limitations—the limits Great Nature imposes that allow for life.

Understanding life on Earth is a loving activity.

Do you think I am hopelessly naive? Are you a true believer in the never-ending utility of war?

THINK NUKES!

Think again. Learn how to behave as part and parcel of BIG NATURE.

True believers in our current form of civilization will bring an end to many more species of life, including our own. In the meantime, the descent of Homo hubris will be a painful one.

Speaking of Thermodynamics

Nature lives and has conspired to evolve into a conscious animal with fantastic potential, and we still have time to hear what it’s telling us.

Listen to your heart.

Be loving.

Perusing the Modern Techo-Industrial Pathologies of Intelligent Men

Intellectual influencers are irksome to little old me.

In many ways, Jim and Cliff have a warped perspective of Reality.

“Reality” is an extensive set and hard to get one’s educated mind around.

An infinite geometric series is the sum of an infinite geometric sequence.

Complex Systems Theory involves the systematic, scientific and mathematical study of complexity itself, as it is found throughout the natural world. With a view to dealing with complexity, this approach looks at the nature of complexity rather than trying to simplify a situation in order to process it.

The problems with their thinking have to do with:

1. Being mindful of the framing of a thing
   2. A misunderstanding or ignorance of context
   3. Causality errors
   4. System thinking errors (stocks & flows, feedback loops)
   5. Hubristic assumptions
   6. Basic assumptions
   7. Stubborn ideological adherence (My beliefs are better than yours.)
   8. Beliefs (the true believer syndrome)
   9. Ignoring the forest for the trees (not listening to or being mindful of BIG NATURE, the Natural Sciences. Of course, all intelligent men believe they do this. Naturally.)
   10. Succumbing to the illusion of control
   11. A blindness to seeing the contradictions in their mental models
   12. Audience capture
   13. Bad incentives
   14. Groupthink & motivated reasoning
   15. Posturing to maintain status

One could go on.

They each have passionate beliefs without an accurate, best guess at the moment, understanding of complex reality. Even though they claim to be sincerely interested in systems and complexity science, they are clumsy in applying such methods of inquiry to sociological and economic domains, much less environmental and ecological impacts. (Of course, they both think they are experts in all of the above.) They both come from a worldview that is assumed to represent reality when, in fact, it describes recent models of a particular approach to socioeconomic controls over natural resources (including hard questions like the uncanny valley of human consciousness) meant to be exploited by a specific ideological tribe that thinks it has all the answers.

“He broke a norm.” Without exploring the reasons why one would want to do something so costly. Why is “the norm” the norm? Groups of people usually have good reasons for doing things. It’s a fatal flaw not to explore those reasons carefully and open-mindedly.

Spending resources on war in the twentieth century is insane. We need new “norms” to help us transcend our obsession with war.

“They started it!” Almost always, all parties to a conflict “start it” through mutually influential and consequential actions. People are compelled to act due to conscious, unconscious, and subconscious factors. What signals were there that you refused to examine?

The smart-asses in public view are terrible at game theory despite pretending they are good strategic thinkers.

Homo hubris is accelerating towards extinction. On that journey, there will be more and more pain and suffering that could have been significantly mitigated if we had paid attention to the things in the list above.

Americans, in particular, are so twisted and myopically arrogant in their assumptions that I think, at this point, the minority of thoughtful, evidence-based, reality-heeding, well-meaning, and considerate experts and kind human participants in social discourse will never have their understanding of our world’s essential challenges gain traction.

The mysteries of the black box hypnotize members of the masses who seek only those emphatic opinions that tell them what to believe.

“Okay then, make me a believer.”

These gentlemen are enamored by their opinions despite merely being nodes in a pathological ideological operating system accelerating toward the abyss.

The labels they fling about so effortlessly are cardboard cutouts and hardly helpful at describing anything that matters.

“Don’t bother your pretty little heads with things you can’t control. Meditate, read the Stoics, Nietzsche, become a neo-platonist philosopher, an orthodox or cultural Christian, a militant atheist, or a science enthusiast — join a clique now. We all need friends and community. Start a new religion. Become a meaning maker…”

If you are WIERD and privileged (lucky), have fun and watch civilization crumble as if it’s a Netflix series. Above all, stay entertained.

“Horray! To the last Ukrainian! To the last Palestinian! To the last Homo sapiens standing! It’s been a wild ride, and I was always right. Death and taxes!”

Guard your ignorance like a family heirloom. Go with the flow. Stick to your clique. Enjoy the emotional roller coaster. Enjoy the super stimuli. Life is short, but not as short as those other poor assholes!
_____________________________

Jim talks with Cliff Maloney about the November election and his get-out-the-vote campaign, The Pennsylvania Chase. They discuss Cliff’s libertarian background, why Pennsylvania is a crucial state, a Republican return to grassroots, the structure of the operation, the effectiveness of door-knocking, choosing the highest-impact doors to knock on, why Cliff is helping the Republicans, Jim’s political trajectory, oikophobia, why Jim finds Trump intolerable, Cliff’s political background, working for Ron Paul, the loss of the anti-war left, Trump’s gut instinct, Trump’s deficit record, comparing the foreign policy of Nikki Haley & John McCain, hurricane relief & Ukraine relief, whether support for Ukraine is a good investment, the drug war, returning abortion rights to the states, transgender surgeries for kids, luxury beliefs, Christian nationalism in the Republican Party, woke ideology vs the nuclear family, the unsustainability of American public education, teacher’s unions, politics as the adjudication of power, the importance of open disagreements, Thomas Massie, and much more. Episode Transcript Get Out the Vote, by Donald Green and Alan Gerber “Dividend Money: An Alternative to Central Banker Managed Fractional Reserve Banking Money,” by Jim Rutt (YouTube) Cliff Maloney is a United States political strategist and commentator. He is nationally known for launching the grassroots program “Operation Win at the Door,” which has now knocked on over 3 million doors and elected 300+ state legislators. His life’s mission is to create a liberty state by targeting the 5,413 state legislative seats in America to elect principled citizen legislators.

I’m listening to The Jim Rutt Show | EP 262 Cliff Maloney on a Libertarian’s Case for Trump. Check it out!

Do Our Political Candidates Credentials Matter?

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”  — William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Understanding the backgrounds, educational experiences, credentials, and professional histories of political figures like Kamala Harris and Donald J. Trump is crucial. It equips us with the knowledge to comprehend their roles as serious, professional support players in the system I refer to as The Great Game.

In my opinion, former President Donald J. Trump is an entitled con artist and entertainer whose performances are revered and appreciated by many Americans who believe he represents their interests.

Former President Trump's credentials are far from as grand as Vice President Harris's.

I don't think former President Trump has any particular political ideology or agenda. He works for the applause. He's already wealthy, famous, and influential. He's a man who has everything and is mainly concerned with staying center stage and bathing in his admirers' attention.

One can find their political campaign platforms here and here.

All politicians in 'The West' work for the same special interests, such as private interests, national interests, and corporate persons. These groups often influence policy decisions, creating conflicts of interest between what the demos want (the populous of a country as a political unit) and what powerful, profit-seeking, globally engaged organizations want. Recognizing this difference in quality and kind of power is crucial for an informed and engaged citizenry.

One example of an immensely influential special interests organization is The Israel Lobby, also known as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

AIPAC is a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States. It advocates for policies that strengthen the U.S./Israel relationship and support Israel's security and interests. I will not go into the history of Israel's creation, but it is an important topic worth understanding in depth, as are the creations of many modern nation-states.

AIPAC's activities include:

• Lobbying Congress and the Executive Branch: AIPAC engages with lawmakers and officials to influence legislation and policy decisions related to Israel.

• Educating the Public: The group organizes conferences, events, and publications to inform and mobilize public support for its agenda.

• Campaigning for Candidates: Although AIPAC itself is bipartisan, it supports candidates who align with its pro-Israel stance through its affiliated political action committees.

AIPAC is considered one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, D.C., and its impact on U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel is significant. However, it also faces criticism for its perceived role in promoting policies that some view as detrimental to Palestinian rights and regional peace efforts.

Another powerful corporate interest group is the conglomeration of corporations and their related supply chain businesses, often called The Military Industrial Complex.

The military-industrial complex is a well-established concept with significant historical and contemporary relevance.

The military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to the interconnected network of relationships between a nation's armed forces, the government, and the defense industry that supplies it. This network significantly influences public policy, particularly defense spending and foreign intervention.

The MIC's dynamics can lead to a self-perpetuating cycle. Defense contractors lobby for increased military spending, which fuels their growth and profits. This relationship can incentivize policymakers to prioritize military solutions even when diplomatic or other approaches might be more appropriate.

Some notable quotes that capture different perspectives on the MIC:

• President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961 Farewell Address): "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."  

• C. Wright Mills (The Power Elite, 1956): "The military-industrial complex is not a conspiracy, it's a coalition... and it's up to us to make sure that coalition serves the interests of the people, not just the interests of the powerful."

• Noam Chomsky (Understanding Power, 2002): "The military-industrial complex is a major driving force in the economy and a major factor in setting social policy and foreign policy."

The concept of the MIC has been subject to extensive debate and analysis. Critics argue that it can lead to excessive militarization, wasteful spending, and a focus on war over peace. Proponents contend that it is necessary for national security and provides economic benefits through job creation and technological innovation.

The influence of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) remains a significant factor in contemporary politics and international relations. Engaging in informed discussions about defense policy, military spending, and the defense industry's role in society is essential and a responsibility for all citizens.

Candidates are all indoctrinated in basically the same suite of ideological algorithms. This is uncontroversial; Americans, like people in other countries, come from a culture with values and stories that support it. These 'ideological algorithms' refer to the set of beliefs, values, and narratives that shape our political and economic systems. Global, legally coded, and rules-based business has its tenants, dogmas, and ideological belief systems. Power and control over socioeconomic conditions and resources is a core concern of our leaders within the modern techno-industrial market system.

Studying influential economists of the twentieth century, among other domains related to society and social systems, can help one learn how these belief systems arose. For example, one can read books like Quin Slobodian's Globalists, The End of Empire, and The Birth of Neoliberalism.

There are hundreds of books, papers, and articles about our global socioeconomic structures and belief systems, so if one wants to know about critical aspects of one's thinking, it's easy to find information on the relevant subjects.

However, sociology and economics are only two facets of our world we can explore. There are many more.

Interrogating our thought processes and beliefs is crucial to understanding how the world works and our place in it.

One could, for example, analyze socioeconomics from a thermodynamic frame, a perspective that considers the dynamic and complex energy flows/cascades unique to life. This approach views economic systems as energy systems, where resources and wealth are constantly in flux, and can provide a new context for understanding socioeconomic structures.  

Thermodynamics in a Nutshell:

Thermodynamics is the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. It describes how thermal energy is converted to and from other forms of energy and how thermal energy affects matter.  

Key Concepts:

1. Energy: The capacity to do work or cause change. It exists in various forms like heat, light, mechanical, chemical, etc.

2. Heat is a form of energy transferred between objects or systems due to a temperature difference. Heat always flows from a hotter object to a colder one.

3. Work: The transfer of energy that causes a change in the motion or configuration of a system.

4. System: The specific part of the universe being studied. It can be as simple as a container of gas or as complex as a power plant.

5. Surroundings: Everything outside the system.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:

These are fundamental principles governing how energy behaves in systems:

• Zeroth Law: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. (Basically, it establishes the concept of temperature.)  

• First Law: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transferred or transformed. This is also known as the law of conservation of energy.

• Second Law: The entropy (disorder) of an isolated system tends to increase over time. It explains why some processes are irreversible and why heat naturally flows from hot to cold.

• Third Law: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. It's impossible to reach a temperature of absolute zero.

Before we continue with applications of thermodynamics, let's explore how modern techno-industrial market economies' critical energy source came to be. Without it, our current world and way of doing things could not exist.

Fossil Fuels

The transformation of organic matter into oil is a complex process that spans millions of years and involves a combination of geological and chemical factors:  

1. Accumulation of Organic Matter:

• Primarily, marine organisms like plankton and algae die and sink to the ocean floor.  

• They accumulate along with other organic debris, forming layers of sediment rich in organic material.  

• This process occurs in low-oxygen environments, preventing the complete decomposition of the organic matter.

2. Burial and Compaction:

• Over vast periods, additional layers of sediment bury the organic-rich layers deeper into the Earth's crust.  

• The increasing weight and pressure compact the sediment, squeezing out water and other fluids.  

3. Heat and Pressure Transformation:

• As the buried organic matter descends further into the Earth's crust, it is subjected to increasing temperatures and pressures.  

• This intense heat and pressure initiates chemical reactions that break down the complex organic molecules into simpler hydrocarbons.  

• This process, known as catagenesis, transforms the organic matter into a waxy substance called kerogen.

4. Formation of Oil and Gas:

• Continued heat and pressure (between 60°C and 150°C) over millions of years further break down the kerogen, generating liquid hydrocarbons (oil) and gaseous hydrocarbons (natural gas).  

• The type of hydrocarbon formed depends on the temperature and duration of the process. Higher temperatures and longer durations tend to produce more gas than oil.  

5. Migration and Trapping:

• The newly formed oil and gas are less dense than the surrounding rock and tend to migrate upwards through porous and permeable rock layers.

• They continue to migrate until they encounter an impermeable layer (cap rock) that traps them, forming an oil or gas reservoir.  

Important Considerations:

• The entire process of oil formation takes millions of years, making it a non-renewable resource.  

• The quality and type of oil formed depend on the original organic matter, the temperature and pressure conditions, and the duration of the process.

• The presence of suitable geological structures, such as traps, is essential for the accumulation and preservation of oil and gas deposits.  

The transformation of organic matter into oil is a remarkable geological process that showcases the power of time, pressure, and heat to transform the remains of ancient organisms into a vital energy source for modern society.  

Back to thermodynamics.

The biosphere is a dynamic heat pump.

Everyday Applications:

Thermodynamics is all around us! It helps us understand:

• How engines work (converting heat into mechanical work)

• Refrigerators and air conditioners (transferring heat from a cold space to a warmer one)

• Weather patterns (driven by heat transfer in the atmosphere)

• Chemical reactions (involving energy changes)

• Even the behavior of the universe as a whole!

In a nutshell, Thermodynamics is about understanding how energy, especially heat, moves and changes things. It provides a framework for explaining many natural phenomena and technological processes.

Here are some excellent books on thermodynamics for the layperson, balancing accessibility and depth:

1. "Four Laws That Drive the Universe" by Peter Atkins

• A clear and engaging introduction to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, emphasizing their conceptual beauty and universal significance.

1. "An Introduction to Thermal Physics" by Daniel V. Schroeder

• A well-written textbook with a focus on conceptual understanding and real-world examples. It starts from the basics and gradually introduces more advanced topics.

1. "The Second Law" by P.W. Atkins

• A fascinating exploration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, its implications for the universe, and its role in shaping our understanding of time and change.

1. "A Student's Guide to Entropy" by Don S. Lemons

• An approachable guide to the often-misunderstood concept of entropy, demystifying its connection to disorder, information, and the arrow of time.

1. "Thermodynamics: A Very Short Introduction" by Peter Atkins

• A concise and accessible overview of thermodynamics, ideal for those seeking a quick introduction to the key concepts and their implications.

The biosphere, governed by the laws of BIG NATURE, is the most vital energy system. Most politicians never consider this fact.

It's essential to define what we mean by energy. I am not discussing unsubstantial, supernatural, mythical, or magical energy concepts.

In the realm of science, energy is a fundamental concept that encompasses various forms and manifestations. Here are some prominent definitions that capture its essence:

Physics:

• The capacity to do work: This is the most widely accepted and general definition of energy. It highlights the functional aspect of energy, emphasizing its ability to cause changes or bring about effects.

• The ability to cause change: This definition expands on the concept of work, acknowledging that energy can also transform matter or systems, such as changes in temperature, phase, or chemical composition.

• A conserved quantity underscores a fundamental principle in physics—the law of conservation of energy. It states that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

Living systems, ecosystems and our biosphere are energy systems that our species is part of and dependent on. We cannot separate our species from BIG NATURE's energy flows.

Quotes from influential scientists:

• Richard Feynman: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." This quote emphasizes the elusive nature of energy, even as we understand its manifestations and laws governing its behavior.

• Albert Einstein: "Energy and matter are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing." This profound statement encapsulates Einstein's famous equation E=mc², demonstrating the equivalence of mass and energy.

• James Prescott Joule: "I shall lose no time in repeating and extending these experiments, being satisfied that the grand agents of nature are, by the Creator's fiat, indestructible; and that whatever mechanical force is expended, an exact equivalent heat is always obtained." This quote reflects Joule's contribution to establishing the conservation of energy, particularly the relationship between mechanical work and heat.

Additional scientific perspectives concerning energy:

• Chemistry: Energy is often viewed in terms of its storage and release in chemical bonds. Reactions involve changes in energy levels, with energy being absorbed (endothermic) or released (exothermic).

• Biology: Energy is crucial for sustaining life. Organisms acquire and utilize energy through various processes, such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration.

• Thermodynamics: This field focuses on the relationships between heat, work, and energy, including the concept of entropy, which describes the tendency for energy to disperse and systems to become more disordered.

A single, all-encompassing definition of energy remains elusive, but its significance in various scientific domains is undeniable. It is the driving force behind change, the fuel for life, and the foundation of our understanding of the universe.

Here are examples of energy flows within the biosphere from various scientific domains:

Ecology:

• Food webs: Energy flows through ecosystems as organisms consume one another. Producers like plants capture sunlight and convert it into chemical energy through photosynthesis. This energy is transferred to consumers like herbivores when they eat plants and further transferred to carnivores when they eat herbivores. Decomposers break down dead organisms, releasing energy back into the ecosystem.  

• Nutrient cycling: Energy is involved in the movement and transformation of nutrients within ecosystems. For example, energy is required for plants to absorb nutrients from the soil and for bacteria to decompose organic matter and release nutrients back into the environment.  

Physics:

• Solar radiation: The sun is the primary source of energy for the biosphere. Sunlight reaches Earth and is absorbed by plants, water, and land. This energy drives many processes, including photosynthesis, weather patterns, and ocean currents.  

• Heat transfer: Energy is transferred within the biosphere through various mechanisms, including conduction (direct contact), convection (movement of fluids), and radiation (electromagnetic waves). These processes play a crucial role in regulating the temperature of the Earth and its various ecosystems.

Chemistry:

• Photosynthesis: During photosynthesis, plants use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to create glucose (a sugar) and oxygen. This process converts solar energy into chemical energy stored in the bonds of glucose.  

• Cellular respiration: Organisms break down glucose and other molecules during cellular respiration to release energy for their activities. This process converts chemical energy into usable forms like ATP (adenosine triphosphate).  

Geology:

• Geothermal energy: Heat from the EarEarth'sterior is released through volcanic activity, hot springs, and geysers. This energy can support unique ecosystems like those found around deep-sea hydrothermal vents.  

• Fossil fuels: The energy stored in fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) originated from ancient organisms that captured solar energy millions of years ago. When these fuels are burned, that stored energy is released.

Other domains:

• Meteorology: Energy flows are crucial in understanding weather patterns. Solar radiation drives atmospheric circulation, evaporation, and cloud formation.  

• Oceanography: Ocean currents are driven by differences in temperature and salinity, which are influenced by energy flows from the sun and the Earth's interior.

These examples showcase the interconnectedness of energy flows within the biosphere across different scientific domains. Understanding these processes helps us appreciate life's complexity and delicate balance.

I included these examples to emphasize that we are part of a complex, emergent, evolving, dynamic living energy system that exists above our ideological belief systems, which have been constructed and developed over time by communities of people to exercise the expansion of our power over people and the domination of every aspect of nature.

The Players of The Great Game, in particular, are not wise to BIG NATURE.

For tens of thousands of years, our species has expanded across the Earth. For over ten thousand years, organized human societies at larger and larger scales have competed for control over vital resources needed to maintain their power and "win" The Great Game. The Great Game game never ends, so there can be no winners, only temporary victors in an ongoing, often violent, and tragic saga.

Our politicians work for the BIG PLAYERS of The Great Game. These people with immense ambition have learned from their education, environment, and circumstances how to play The Great Game and care foremost about being dominant players. Money and things and control over resources are their way of keeping score.

The Players of The Great Game feign concern for ordinary people; their primary concern is being recognized as important Players. Players want to be seen as winners.

The Great Game is fundamentally energy-blind and posterity-blind; it is blind to the workings of Big Nature, and because of this, it is doomed.

The Great Game is in its most dangerous period, and technology, energy, and ambition are important factors.

1. Fossil Fuels are a limited resource.

2. Technology is a double-edged sword used for The Great Game, not for developing a sustainable future in harmony with the laws of nature.

3. Modernity is omnicidal.

4. Modern techno-industrial market-based civilization depends on limited material resources.

5. People are programmed to eschew knowledge and wisdom in favor of simplistic belief systems that feel good.

6. People are easily conditioned and programmed by stories that support feel-good belief systems.

A global revolution is the only way out of "The Polycrisis," our unique and dangerous predicament. Unfortunately, The Great Game does not produce a population of enlightened revolutionaries committed to the stewardship of BIG NATURE in favor of our precious living systems upon which we all depend.

Our leader's primary commitment is to The Great Game.

BIG NATURE operates under its own set of laws and is not concerned; it can not, in fact, care about one invasive species that has been the apex predator for the past seventy-five thousand years.

It does not help us to anthropomorphize BIG NATURE.

There is a high probability that The Great Game will only end when our species is extinct.

It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of The Great Game.

But life will likely go on and thrive without our species.

The things I referred to above do not begin to address all of the qualitative aspects of human communities and the many possible ways of life yet unimagined and experienced.

In the face of a long and gruesome fate, I can only imagine and hope for people to organize and create a more peaceful, equitable, healthy, sustainable, and loving way of life.

I can not live without hope.

We can not share this miraculous system of life without sacrifice.

Go vote, but don't expect our leaders to make the changes we need to create a better world. Expecting The Players to do that is the definition of insanity.

Why The Thirty Years War Never Ended

“The real enemies of our life are the ‘oughts’ and the ‘ifs.’ They pull us backward into the unalterable past and forward into the unpredictable future. But real life takes place in the here and now.” — Henri Nouwen”

— https://henrinouwen.org/

Most preachers are probably sincere, true believers who have faith in the stories they have been given. Sociopathic preachers are not deluded; in most cases, they are very clever con artists. They claim to know what God thinks because it's lucrative to make such claims, and their flock believes what they preach because it feels good.

The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson 

People who don't think God wants you to take hormones are Satanic.

The Baffler, Maud Newton August 21, 2024

True Believer Syndrome is not limited to Religious people—secular people suffer/benefit from the same disorder.

Learning is hard work requiring deep commitment over time, but we all want to know, so people spin stories to believe in. Having heard a narrative that feels right, they think they know everything they need to know without learning anything.

Culture is a complex emergent system, and how our brains and minds work is part and parcel of that complex emergent system. It's surprising and amazing that we can learn as much as we can about the Nature of complex emergent systems and how they work.

Our species has special powers: creative/imaginative consciousness, reason, logic, language, and the ability to make all kinds of tools. We can use these extraordinary talents and tools to understand how we became so powerfully unique, an animal that seems to transcend all other animals.

I don't know what I don't know, but learning is a good thing, and I know we have some reliable tools that can help us learn about reality as far as our species is capable.

We have ways of discovering how things work that are more reliable than blind faith.

Still, believing a story feels much better than doubting it. Doubting leaves us in a precarious situation, requiring us to work hard to learn about difficult subjects.

We are still punishing each other for not believing what we believe. The primary motivation for making people punish "other" people is profit. Today, we really have nothing to fear and no true enemies but manufactured ones. Those who covet power create enemies for profit-making purposes.

It's easier than it seems to understand each other.

Who gets rich telling people what to believe? Who benefits from telling people who to punish for "aberrant" beliefs? Who punishes people for telling the truth about how things work or the true Nature of things as far as we can know at any given time?

I call the people who manufacture contempt The Players. These are people programmed by stories to play The Great Game. Many of them are sociopaths and psychopaths.

We keep killing the "good news."

People in the context of their immediate family are mostly lovely folks, but once organized into a mob, whether in church, on the streets, or online, they lose their minds.

"Listen to me, Brotherin, Families are lovely. Does that make sense? But remember, only this kind of family is good." Those other types are sick, satanic, evil, against freedom and democracy, or whatever.

Stories are passed along and can be good for keeping us out of danger. They can also be entertaining, edifying, and enlightening. Stories are an essential aspect of our being. However, stories can also be dangerous and lead to destruction. Read the story of The Sword of Damocles. We should respect the power of stories and not abuse them.

We benefit by going along to get along (motivated reasoning/group think) because we are social animals, and belief feels good because we are "Homo storyteller" "Homo hubris," "Homo follower," and "Homo true believer." Our species has many mysterious and evolved facets.

If you studied the great apes for a while, you'd know more about what kind of creature we are.

Clever sociopaths and psychopaths know how to take advantage of "human nature," allowing them to hoard power and gain more control over mechanisms that determine what and how we do things.

Today, we have the energy resources, technology, and industry to torture and kill with Cheetos, carbonated sugar drinks, petrochemical products, machines, recreational drugs that numb the pain of alienation, carbon emissions, pharmaceuticals that medicate manufactured diseases, and all manner of weapons and omnicidal poisons, runoff from modern fossil-fueled financialized industrial civilization. All these we do for profit, power, and control.

We envy the powers and attributes we imagine God has.

In the end, Nature dictates our circumstances. God created the thing; it is what it is and will act according to its Nature. God (or evolution) made birds fly, but people can only fly in their machines. We're special.

We are an invasive, hyper, super predator and not inclined to listen to Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, Gaia, and the Sages. We are much more inclined to listen to hucksters, con artists, and psychopaths who can invent all kinds of reasons to believe their stories.

Throw a dart at a historical timeline at any global location and interrogate its circumstances and way of doing things: its ontology, empiricism, metaphysics, technology, stories, etc. At a large scale, when we become conquerors, expansive, and organized into civilizations, we become brutal and creative/destructive.

You may have read the Old Testament, if not the Bhagavad Gita, Norse or Greek mythology. You may have paid some attention to Anarchism, Communism, Conservatism, Neoliberalism, Environmentalism, Fascism, Feminism, Identity Politics, etc., but have you honestly interrogated what you believe?

We rationalize what we believe because we want to feel good.

It's nice that we have come to depend on petrochemical slaves rather than human slaves to do our work. It's freed us up to serve our beliefs better. We are slaves to fashion, habit, and belief. We pray to God or revere technology and progress while working in the fields, factories, cubicles, or on Zoom calls on computers. We take our worldview for granted.

Meanwhile, we are living through a crisis in our living systems. We have become death, the destroyer of habitats and ecosystems.

If we listened to Nature, we'd be better off, but we won't; we will listen to the sociopaths and believe what they have to say because it feels good. And we'll continue to shoot the messenger who wants us to understand the limits Nature imposes on life forms on Earth.

Joshua’s Love Is Hard As Hell

Recently, I shared an article with a dear friend: "Whitehead and Evolution" by John B. Cobb, Jr.

Below are his thoughtful and well-considered comments, which are much appreciated.

Thanks for the article. Open Horizons looks like a great website, and the particular article you sent is quite interesting. I pretty much agree with all of it except the point made at the outset that "If one supposes that the Bible is inerrant, then we must affirm the biblical account quite literally, difficult as that is." I disagree. Why, if I suppose the Bible is inerrant, must I also take it literally? The Bible is often highly allegorical (i.e., NOT to be taken literally) but still "inerrant" in the lessons it teaches us. This is just a misstatement by the author of the article, Cobb, not Whitehead. But I've seen this before in other articles. It's true that many fundamentalist Christians take (or try to take) the Bible literally, but in my experience, most Christians understand that it's packed with symbolism. There are all sorts of Christians, as there are scientists. One size does not fit all.

Our shared understanding of the symbolism in religious texts is truly profound. Language, like the Bible, is symbolic, and mathematics is a form of symbolism.

In mathematics, a symbolic language is a language that uses characters or symbols to represent concepts, such as mathematical operations, expressions, and statements, and the entities or operands on which the operations are performed.

Christians interpret the Bible literally because it is, at its core, literature. This shared understanding unites us, even as we acknowledge the diversity of interpretations among Christians. We are extraordinary creatures, and our shared exploration of these texts is a testament to our shared curiosity and understanding.

We may never know what it's like to be a whale or a crow.

"Godly" below is used in the Christian sense stemming from Western Civilization. My comments are limited to "White Empire" belief systems that were coopted and converted to Christianity AD. Joshua was not a Christian, and Buddha was not a Buddhist.

Why would Christians take the Bible literally when they know people created the stories? How could a creature/person know anything about what God thinks, wills, or is? I take the lessons as accounts of the Godliness of people's sentiments. People are not Gods; we are complex, conscious animals that evolved on Earth, and we may have a "soul" (whatever that means to someone). There may be a heaven, but how would you know? It's easy to believe in heaven; why wouldn't it be? We don’t want to die, and we don’t want to be separated from our loved ones.

Homo hubris has an epistemic problem, a puzzle filled with belief. My mystic musings are perfectly natural to me and my species. I am Homo true believer.

Science is a suite of tools and activities we use to understand how Nature works (imperfect and inadequate as it is). Theology is a suite of tools that explain religious dogma. Religion doesn't tell us a darn thing about God (a Human construct). But we all fuck around, and we all will find out eventually what it means to "know" God.

The curtain will fall.

When a man tells you he knows what God thinks, he is a con man, not a Godly man. When a man loves like Joshua, he maintains patterns of behavior that we feel are profoundly Godly (not the Punisher God, but the Fatherly, Motherly Loving God). Learning to Love is hard, knowing Love can be even harder, and living Lovingly is sadly not as prevalent as we want. So we keep trying, and the brutes keep shooting the messenger, but Nature is the most consistent Marksman and always hits its target. Nature is one thing none of us can avoid. We are part and parcel of Nature and one with God whether we believe it or not. We are the storytellers. We are creators.

Joshua was an antidote for Civilization, a social disease that may eventually drive our species to extinction. I'm not sure that if, after the collapse, with five thousand people left and nothing but time to get LOVE right, we wouldn't make all the same mistakes again despite the many talents of Homo storyteller.

Belief releases all the comfy endorphins. But LOVE, my friend, can be hard as hell.

Angels vs. Aliens, it sounds reasonable to me.

I am a fan of Eric Lee’s train of thought, and I like the work he references. There is wisdom in it. Eric’s recent post on Medium, “Is Human Rationality a Myth? inspired the musings below.

There are many ways of viewing a predicament; these perspectives don’t all smell like elephants. (Please excuse my synesthesia.)

"When you argue with reality, you lose, but only 100% of the time." ― Byron Katie

Stories can lead to questions that lead to constructing telescopes, and Kuhnsian paradigm shifts lead to new stories that, in part, reflect reality as it is.

I'm not LESSWRONG, but I can infer the presence of water from living green things. How do the extraterrestrial machines we've constructed do it on Mars? How will sentient humanoid, generally artificially intelligent, construct their reality? We didn't have Nash Equilibriums before Nash, but Homo Storyteller still played the game. We are what we are and part and parcel of Nature and willy-nilly and willfully.

When we fall to the graceful tribal number 150 and stand on our clothes like little children, where fruit is sweet and edible, will we forget where we've been? Perhaps. Hopefully? Will ALEXA be a myth, like ancient giants and Atlantis? Will the data we generate be meaningful? Will there even be data anymore? What "technology" did Plato imagine Atlantis had? We are talking about Angels vs. Aliens. Now, that would be a fun movie franchise.

We don't need Bayesian reasoning to know those mushrooms are deadly or that we don't want to get in the lion's way and become its prey. But we feel safer when the nuclear warheads are on hypersonic missiles pointed at a Marvel supervillain. And CO2, can you smell it, can you see it, well can you, punk?

We can be Homo storytellers, Homo hubris, Homo firestarters, and Homo dypshyte and be taken in by what we are motivated to believe by our group's thinkers. Homo Kant, Homo Zarathustra, Homo scientist, Homo true believer, Homo flea-market-demockassie-fossil-fueled-neoliberal-global-financialized-capitalist-deus are the originators of the predicament and therefore want to own it, more precisely wish to control it. The scale of the predicament is an outgrowth of the imagination and will to power inherent to this animal. 'The Greatest Story Ever Bold' has its imagined teleology stochastically going nowhere in particular, always arriving while trying to explain away the destination we cannot comprehend.

And if the clown is lucky, the prince will make good use of him, and he will rise up the ranks.

"I fight for the status quo for the people! I support business as usual because I just want to fit in. I am good for something. I belong."

Our epistemic arrogance reflects what we create and our baked-in empiricism. Would we be cats and dogs and not to blame for the destruction of our habitat, pigs, chickens, and cows, innocent prey haplessly playing our role in stasis and unapologetic for being liked by Homo hubris for our companionship and tasty dishes—sometimes that's all it takes to survive and rise to the status of abundant mammalian biomass.

But goodness gracious, we evolved to be something different from Bonobos and Chimps and come what may, panic or grace, we will conform to reality as we must until, in this part of the Universe, all the stories stop and storytellers and their audience is no more.

There is nothing to believe in without true believers.

The frog doesn't hate the scorpion, and the scorpion doesn't hate itself.

The deaf, dumb, and blind Players will continue their destructive games, and the plebs and proles will do what they are trained to do and buy into The Great Game and place their bets if they can afford to, and it will all be so stimulating.

It is what it is, was what it was, and shall be what it shall be by virtue of having been.

Still, some look for stories that motivate reasoning in the group's thinkers that might produce a healthier, happier, and peaceful world where life gets on with it and thrives.

I don't have to believe it because, in my experience, it seems to be true. Still, extinction is the rule, and there will probably be life after humans.

A Kinder, Polite, Establishment Type

Underneath the stylized bluster of the current Republican zeitgeist, it’s business as usual, and if their guy gets reelected, things will carry on much as they are now.

Rinse and repeat at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, this is what political focus groups, when asked if they would vote for someone other than Joe Biden, said they wanted:

1. A Centrist
2. A stabilizing, non-chaotic force
3. A decent and civil person

In other words, a firmly “establishment” candidate who supports the agenda of the usual corporate power players and their “agency” protectors who run the country. How does this solve any of the problems that persist administration after administration? 

Some of us refer to the disastrous circumstances we have been in for decades as the metacrisis, characterized by war, anthropogenic climate change or earth ecosystems destruction, growing economic inequality, the powerlessness of people, a potentially catastrophic artificial general intelligence arms race, energy crisis, limited material resources, looming world war three, a new global nuclear arms race, mental health and on and on.

We are far from the best of all possible worlds. Oh, and too many of us believe aliens or God Almighty are waiting in the wings to save us at the last minute after decades, no, thousands of years of horrific trials and tribulations. Modernity’s tortures are simply more addictive and entertaining and make us feel more comfortable and self-righteous—if we are lucky, i.e., born in the right place, time, and circumstances to take advantage of all the bells and whistles.

Has there not been enough horror, and is there not enough atrociousness now?

The problems we are facing are structural and systemic. We are living in a crisis in education and our worldview. We have lost our connection with GREAT NATURE.

Groupthink and motivated reasoning characterize The Players and their Professional Clerks and Minions. To The Players, the Plebs and Proles are simply a nuisance to be toyed with.

And let me be clear, The Players know not what they do anymore than you do, they are only “Lucky” as stated above. They were born with opportunities and eventually encountered pathways to Club membership.

The Uber Wealthy want Transhumanism, “The Singularity,” Accelerationism, and a rewilded “Country Club Earth” without so many deplorable, useless consumers. Their ethics and philosophies require them to gamble the fate of solar systems and not merely terrestrial material resources, cannon fodder, and ecosystems while playing the geopolitical Great Game Reboot. The war, disease, and distraction economy is just a means to an end.

They want to replace biological life with machines. How ironic that people in the Age of Discovery and The Enlightenment thought all life save human life was “mechanical,” that humans were endowed by their creator with a soul, and that all the living systems we depend on were only sustenance to be exploited by elites endowed with divine rights. 

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it, you will certainly die.”

Ultimately, the arrogant fools who purport to lead us desire immortality and the opportunity to compete among themselves in a luxurious, well-mannered Greater Game where they still risk little as they measure their elite status—the only quantity that matters.

I would be happier with a benevolent and civil leader willing to take the world in entirely new directions. 

Our way of life no longer produces courageous leaders who understand deeply how the world works.

Our culture has so poorly conditioned people that they no longer have the consciousness to recognize what they need. People don’t understand how pathological business as usual is.

We need to suck it up and find the courage to change some of the ways we do things, or the future is going to be unfathomably painful.

Unfortunately, the kinds of leaders we need now are not allowed to play in our current political system; they would never be admitted to the club.

We need a new culture, the development of which is the most challenging endeavor imaginable.

We have all the tools to reengage with Great Nature and create a new world with a culture subservient to and in harmony with it. However, in all its glory, Great Nature is a complex emergent system that few are willing to comprehend.

No one listens anymore.

Turn away from the clown show and its audience of addicts and embrace a new, exciting, and life-affirming adventure of building a healthy new culture everyone can participate in and be proud of.

Somehow, we must show the establishment that we are doing something else.

I have a dream.

I Know You Are But What Am I?

What we really should be concerned about is that one of them is going to win.

Do you remember when CNN and MSNBC had psychiatrists on 24/7 talking about Trump having Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

I dislike Trump. He should not be running for anything; he could not manage his way out of a paper bag, but he was their guy for some reason. What does that tell you about tens of millions of Americans?

What are the myriad of systemic and structural preconditions that have led the United States to this point? (We ask this question every four years during each histrionic “constitutional crisis.”)

If everything is "cool" and wonderful in "The City on the Hill," then why not relax and vote for your guy? #Winner! Things will be grand. We don't have a care in the world. Your candidate can beat the other candidate in a boxing match or a round of golf. Domestic and World issues “be gone!” your candidate demands it.

Of course, DJT is a con man, a criminal, a cad, a fool, and an ignorant jackass; check the lineup on your streaming services; Americans are obsessed with gangsters and petty criminals. Where is Dirty Harry when you need him?

Joe and Donald are both corrupt, but for whatever reasons, the DNC and the RNC have decided that that's what the American people need and want, so a certain percentage of Americans are going to the polls to vote for one or the other. Apparently, most people believe that's okay.

If you have the time, just for fun, review U.S. politics after WWII—heck, since after the Revolution. Was it not always, to some extent, a bloody shyte show? America has been making war since the armistice. People have been fighting in the streets for one thing or another for the past eighty years.

It's easier to imagine the end of The United States than the end of rapacious neoliberal capitalism.

So relax, enjoy the dance, or rearrange the furniture. Crack open a bottle, pop a pill, delve into your favorite addiction, and let sleeping dogs lie.

---

The Twenty-fifth Amendment

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do his or her job, the Vice President becomes the President (Section 1) or Acting President (Sections 3 or 4). This can happen for a short time if the President is just sick or disabled for a short time. It could also occur until the end of the President's term (the President's time in office) if the President dies, resigns, or is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office[1]".

The Twenty-fifth Amendment also says what should happen if there is a "vacancy" in the Vice President's office (meaning there is no Vice President).

The Amendment, a pivotal moment in U.S. constitutional history, was ratified by the states and became part of the U.S. Constitution on February 10, 1967.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment has been invoked (used) six times since it was added to the Constitution. Section 1 has been used once; Section 2 has been used twice; and Section 3 has been used three times. Only Section 4, which involves the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declaring the President unfit for office, has never been used, though it was considered twice.

---

Look, I know DJT is an evil man (or God’s instrument). I don't like him, but that doesn't mean Joe hasn't been corrupt his whole life. His son has some problems, so what? His son is a Democrat, and DJT Jr. is a Republican, so depending on which team you identify with, one is worse (or better) than the other.

It's more than tragic that Americans can't find better leaders to rely on. Why is that?

If Americans demand illicit drugs and the free market provides them, then the politicians declare a War on Drugs, and the money keeps flowing, and everybody wins. I'm amazed that big business (not for lack of trying) hasn't found a way to cash in on addiction treatments and, instead, left the business of fixing people's addictions to vitamin pill pushers and complementary and alternative medicine. Whether pharmaceuticals (many of which were invented to solve preventable medical conditions) or proxy wars, what's good for corporate profits is good for the world—only the pathologies remain, jeopardizing the health of all living creatures.

US AGAINST US—Like A National Version of Kramer vs. Kramer

Indictments against Joe go back decades. Politicians and major Players of The Grate Game rarely get more than a slap on the wrist and as much shame as a deluded narcissist can feel.

From The Comitty of Oversight and Accountability

Summary

Chairman James Comer and Oversight Committee Republicans are investigating the Biden family's domestic and international business dealings to determine whether these activities compromise U.S. national security and President Biden's ability to lead with impartiality. Members of the Biden family have a pattern of peddling access to the highest levels of government to enrich themselves, often to the detriment of U.S. interests. We are committed to following the Biden family and associates' money trail—consisting of many complex, international transactions worth millions of dollars—and providing answers to the American people. The American people deserve to know whether the President's connections to his family's business deals occurred at the expense of American interests and whether they represent a national security threat.

Evidence obtained by Committee Republicans reveals Joe Biden lied to the American people about his involvement in his family's business schemes. The Biden family business model is built on Joe Biden's political career and connections with Joe Biden as the 'chairman of the board.' Biden family members sold access for profit around the world to the detriment of American interests. If President Biden is compromised by deals with foreign adversaries and they are impacting his decision making, this is a threat to national security. The American people deserve transparency and accountability about the Biden family's influence peddling. With the new Republican majority, Oversight Committee Republicans will continue pressing for answers to inform legislative solutions to prevent this abuse of power.

—CHAIRMAN JAMES COMER

Since taking the gavel in January, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability has accelerated its investigation of the Biden family's domestic and international business practices to determine whether the Biden family has been targeted by foreign actors, President Biden is compromised, and our national security is threatened. Records obtained through the Committee's subpoenas to date reveal that the Bidens and their associates have received over $20 million in payments from foreign entities.

Below is a timeline that details key dates in our investigation.

The main points of interest are:

1) Romania: On September 28, 2015, Vice President Biden welcomed Romanian President Klaus Iohannis to the White House. Within five weeks of this meeting, a Romanian businessman involved with a high-profile corruption prosecution in Romania, Gabriel Popoviciu, began depositing a Biden associate's bank account, which ultimately made their way into Biden family accounts. Popoviciu made sixteen of the seventeen payments, totaling over $3 million, to the Biden associate account while Joe Biden was Vice President.  Biden family accounts ultimately received approximately $1.038 million.  The total amount from Romania to the Biden family and their associates is over $3 million.

2) China- CEFC: On March 1, 2017—less than two months after Vice President Joe Biden left public office—State Energy HK Limited, a Chinese company, wired $3 million to a Biden associate's account. This is the same bank account used in the above "Romania" section. After the Chinese company wired the Biden associate account the $3 million, the Biden family received approximately $1,065,692 over a three-month period in different bank accounts. Additionally, the CEFC Chairman gives Hunter Biden a diamond worth $80,000. Lastly, CEFC creates a joint venture with the Bidens in the summer of 2017.  The timeline lays out the "WhatsApp" messages and subsequent wires from the Chinese to the Bidens of $100,000 and $5 million. The total amount from China, specifically with CEFC and their related entities, to the Biden family and their associates is over $8 million.

3) China- Bohai Harvest RST Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. (BHR): More information will be provided in our upcoming Fourth Bank Memorandum.

4) Kazakhstan: On April 22, 2014, Kenes Rakishev, a Kazakhstani oligarch used his Singaporean entity, Novatus Holdings, to wire one of Hunter Biden's Rosemont Seneca entities $142,300. The very next day—April 23, 2014—the Rosemont Seneca entity transferred the exact same amount of money to a car dealership for a car for Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden and Devon Archer would represent Burisma in Kazakhstan in May/June of 2014 as the company attempted to broker a three-way deal among Burisma, the Kazakhstan government, and a Chinese state-owned energy company.

5) Ukraine: Devon Archer joined the Burisma board of directors in spring of 2014 and was joined by Hunter Biden shortly thereafter.  Hunter Biden joined the company as counsel, but after a meeting with Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky in Lake Como, Italy, was elevated to the board of directors in the spring of 2014.  Both Biden and Archer were each paid $1 million per year for their positions on the board of directors.  In December 2015, after a Burisma board of directors meeting, Zlochevsky and Hunter Biden "called D.C." in the wake of mounting pressures the company was facing.  Zlochevsky was later charged with bribing Ukrainian officials with $6 million in an attempt to delay or drop the investigation into his company.  The total amount from Ukraine to the Biden family and their associates is $6.5 million.

6) Russia: On February 14, 2014, a Russian oligarch and Russia's richest woman, Yelena Baturina, wired a Rosemont Seneca entity $3.5 million.  On March 11, 2014, the wire was split up: $750,000 was transferred to Devon Archer, and the remainder was sent to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a company Devon Archer and Hunter Biden split equally.  In spring of 2014, Yelena Baturina joined Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to share a meal with then-Vice President Biden at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.  The total amount from Russia to the Biden family and their associates is $3.5 million.

Beyond this timeline, here are links to our First, Second, Third, and Fourth Bank Memorandums that provide detailed descriptions and show actual bank records and wires.

The above references are not even close to a comprehensive list of legal grievances logged against that side over the past fifty years.

---

I Am Not Affiliate With A Political Party

I don't care which side you are on. We need significant changes if we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Finger-pointing is not going to cut it.

Let me suggest you read this to understand better where I am coming from.

On the Abolition of All Political Parties

---

If you are a citizen of "The West" and you think you live in a democracy, then take responsibility and make sure your leaders understand what you want. Of course, this assumes you are well-grounded in civics and know what you want.

Reactionaries and other ideological groups that support limited "democracy" by the elite (who are the ones that know what's best for people. Right?) will tell you to sit tight and let them fight it out, and you will all soon see who rules you. Do your duty as workers, clerks, service providers, data generators, consumers, taxpayers, and cannon fodder and be happy with your big box stores and your addictions and monster truck payments; you're damn lucky to live in "The West" where people are civilized. "The West" will eventually civilize the rest of the world; it has been working at it since The Age of Discovery—good things take time. Eventually, every city on earth will have a Burger King and a Ford dealership. Every town will have a woke, neo-Marxist university to fret about and an evangelical mega-church to save the world from those damn universities and their progressive educations.

For goodness sake, forget about mainstream and alternative media, books, and education—what good will any of that do? Grab a beer, a “joint,” a super-food shake, or whatever makes your day; turn on the game or your favorite streaming channel, or “navigate” to your favorite social media platform and enjoy the action. Or get yee to the mega-church and get yourself right with The End of Days. It’s all good.

All the best.

Where Are All The Peacemakers?

Scriptures: Matthew 5:9
Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers because God will make them sons of God" (Matt. 5:9).

Colt Single Action Army revolver of 1873—AKA, The Peacemaker.

Does Peace include endowing our natural, living world with sacred status, or is it simply a world with fewer knife fights?

Over two thousand years ago, in a violent and hateful world, for two to three years, Jesus taught that God favors peacemakers.

Far from implying a lack of conflict, peacemaking is a robust response to discord. It is a call to action, a testament to the strength and resilience of those who choose to be peacemakers.

Ignoring conflict won't make it disappear, and Peace at any price is untenable.

Despite our technical, scientific, and philosophical/intellectual progress, the need for peacemakers remains as crucial as it was two thousand years ago. This is a stark reminder of peacemaking's ongoing relevance and importance today.

Few of our leaders today are peacemakers, and this is shameful. Venal, dark triad fools lead us. Our passivity allows careerist showboats to play the role of leaders.

As followers, we don't have the courage Jesus exhibited during the three years he taught before the State put him to death. Many of us lack the moral fortitude to sit quietly under a tree for five minutes. We don't have the stomach for the kind of revolution Jesus suggested—Jesus the myth or Jesus the man or Jesus the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. How many Christians do you know who are peacemakers?

How many secularists think that all spiritual and religious traditions are useless stories of no importance in a world where wealthy people seek everlasting life through technology that will eventually replace their status as human beings with that of a machine or ones and zeroes on a hard drive?

How many of us feel a profound connection with the web of life that created us and allows us to exist? We hardly recognize nature as sacred anymore. For many of us today, wisdom traditions are so much pabulum— mere grist for entertainment.

A peacemaker must work in concert with her community to achieve understanding and establish Peace that respects, cares for, and considers all life.

We should work together to put the fear of God into our falsely pious posers, also known as "leaders." We must make them understand it's the Hell on Earth they are creating that they should be concerned about.

"Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Your heart must not be troubled or fearful" (John 14:27)

"Shalom." "Peace to you!" (Luke 24:36).

In 1781, Benjamin Franklin wrote to John Adams, "'Blessed are the peacemakers' is, I suppose, for another world. In this world, they are frequently cursed."

Peacemaking is hard work too few of us want to engage in.

I'm not saying you must believe; I'm suggesting you make them do.

Leaders Producing New Kinds of Leaders

The following was inspired by a conversation I listened to from the Planet Critical podcast titled, “The Thermal Dynamics of Degrowth.”

Behold the Energy

Light, Heat, Electricity, Pressure

Cumulonimbus clouds are the most energetic and destructive/violent kind of cloud. They grow, shed energy, and disappear as empires rise and fall.

The constant growth of gross domestic product (GDP) under our current economic system requires more energy and materials. We will need more oil and gas to develop and implement alternative forms of energy (second-generation nuclear fission or fusion, hydrogen, solar, whatever). 

We want to produce more, and we need trillionaires. We will grow our economies until there are no more means to grow. Why? Some say physics, the laws of the universe, make our actions inevitable. Others say it's human nature, while others know beyond doubt that it's the will of God or a curse from Satan. 

Living within particular limits to certain kinds of economic growth is something we can't imagine. "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."

Wars over economic growth and energy will continue to rage. War is a uniquely human expression of growth. War requires vast sums of energy.

Castle Romeo Nuclear Explosion

To all sides, what matters most is who is in control.

#PedalToTheMetal 

We are "homo actuosus"; as consumers of vast amounts of energy, we are all "accelerationists" now. We require many things to live. Some want to see our species transformed into a mechanical machine. We want and need artificial intelligence because organic intelligence isn't enough. We want to live forever because leaving the world to our offspring surrenders our will to power.

For life on earth, extinction is the rule, not the exception. We will live the way we are programmed to live until we pass away. Nature and technology in the form of human communication are powerful programmers of the human mind, motivating our thoughts and, by and large, governing behavior. Influential people have never had more powerful ways of programming, nudging, and directing people’s beliefs and behaviors.

Amazon Beauty

How much agency an individual has depends on many mysterious things. Most of us are unaware of cultural changes. Those with the power and resources to program culture are responsible for what happens. 

The people's power is as nebulous and fleeting as bursts of emotion. A practically invisible fog of endurance and interdependence keeps people going. Tradition, faith, and habit are their refuge.

What convinces influential people to care for their habitat and those they depend on? Is it fear of revolution, competition with rivals, the incentive for personal gain, something more socially intricate, or all of these?

If there are better ways of living within our means, how do people who understand better ways convince those in power to change? Is that even possible?

I often imagine social groups organizing and meeting weekly to discuss such things and commit to pestering their leaders to listen.

“Democracy” is already owned by the major players of The Great Game: the alpha energy owners, users, and controllers. We can’t vote their attitudes out. We lack the culture that would produce the kinds of leaders to vote for. The structures and systems influential people have designed and implemented make that impossible.

People must commit to working together to convince Influential Players that doing things differently is in their best interest. People must convince them that to pass on generational power and wealth, the health and welfare of living systems must be carefully maintained.

Our leaders no longer understand the importance of deep ethical and moral concerns. We must convince them that they have lost their way. We must appeal to whatever compassion, consideration, and love they still possess. We must make them want to learn again. 

"Sir, you have worked hard to get so smart—don't stop now."

If we can heal our leaders, we can create a culture where true leaders can develop— faithful leaders who understand the necessity of good stewardship, of maintaining the health and welfare of living systems.

Understanding The Apologists of Empire

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"?

In Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher cites Frederic Jameson and Slavoj Žižek as the origin of this quote. 

@adventurecapitalist_hh

The complex causal web of social interaction operates continually. Events don't start when I punch you in the nose. There are many reasons I punched you in the nose, even if we both can't think of any at the time.

There are many reasons why Anglo-Saxon-financialized-fossil-fueled-unfettered-global Capitalism helped the United States, Europe, and its vassal States become incredibly wealthy.

Institutions that govern social relationships are mighty and exist to extend and maintain a particular constituency's power.

Throw a dart at a historical timeline and marvel at powerful institutions and the narratives that legitimize them in the minds of ordinary people.

He who controls the narrative controls the spice. Or, He who wields the narrative wields the essence of societal perception. Sophistry, rhetoric, jargon, media, memes, etc., are all tools of persuasion, propaganda, marketing, and public relations, and all are tied into an intimate, lucrative business ecosystem now known as communications.

All powerful institutions take advantage of stories and ordinary people's gullible nature. Most of us want to believe. We want to trust. 

From birth, we are immersed in narratives that eventually become so deeply ingrained that they often go unnoticed. We don't merely accept them; they shape our reality.

True believers don't interrogate things from various perspectives; they are confident they possess the absolute truth.

The first step in understanding different ways of viewing "reality," in this case, social relationships, is to actively seek different perspectives across social, political, and economic domains of inquiry.

Engaging with unfamiliar ideas takes more work than most of us are willing to invest. There are many psychological reasons for this that I won't go into here. 

Most of us could be more meta regarding our thinking. We don't think about why we have this or that opinion; we know our opinions are correct.

The introduction music to this lecture is truly majestic.

Yesterday, a friend shared a lecture series by Sarah C. Paine, a historian, author, and professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College on the Vietnam War. He mentioned that he thought I might find it interesting and that he learned some new things from the lecture. He's a boomer, and knowing him, my first reaction was that he hadn't learned anything new; he's been steeped in this way of thinking since he was eating Hostess Cupcakes and watching The Fred Flinstones on T.V. in his parent's living room. He may have learned an interesting factoid he wasn't hitherto aware of, but the broad strokes of U.S. historical apologetics in defense of Capital, to a large degree, constitute the crux of his worldview.

We are all biased and find it easy to discover and engage with information that confirms our beliefs. Of course, internet search algorithms help reinforce our biases and preconceptions.

As an exercise, I want to share some content most people have probably yet to engage with and invite you to compare and contrast the perspectives of these people. Then, read Noah Smith's interview with Sarah C. Paine and see if you can intuit the assumptions in her rhetoric and apologetics. If so, can you find anything of value within these other authors' narratives? Can their ideas help you imagine different approaches to social relationships and geopolitics? 

In other words, can you see what millions of critics of the U.S. Empire are on about? Do they have anything legitimate to say, or is it just that, as I like to say, the World is not yet American enough? Or, more accurately, those heterodox folks need to understand how great it is to serve Capital.

"Shut the fuck up and go shopping, or better yet, order something from Amazon and be amazed when the autonomous drone delivers it to your front porch. Buy an electric car with a premium subscription to its Autonomous Features™ software package, and get excited by all the "free" updates. Get the latest iPhone that uses GeniusAi™ that can make your own Hollywood movie for you out of images you take with your smartphone and your BioSig Voice™ prompts."

Above all, know in your heart that global heating due to the omnicidal heat engine we know as fossil capitalism, the diminishment of biodiversity, the insect apocalypse, atmospheric rivers, the slowing AMOC, the pollution of our oceans, the plastic waste catastrophe, the destruction of our soil, the crisis in our diminishing supplies of oil and gas, and water, proxy wars, the neocolonial extraction of materials from developing nations, inequality (in the sense of the wealth disparity between those who can take advantage of 'capital on capital' returns and those who can not) addiction, the mental health crisis, the education crisis, poverty, hunger, shallow materialism, and so on are not problems at all but opportunities for heroic, brilliant, individualistic entrepreneurs (those who understand monopoly power) and institutions of Capital to profit from. 

Our institutions and business leaders will save us if it's profitable. In other words, the market is the One God Cap™ with your best interests at heart, and if you go against HIM™ (His Imminent Money), you will be crushed. Following the rules-based order and enjoying the good life is better than suffering The Market's wrath. Eventually, technology will allow everyone on Earth to live like a refugee, sorry, I mean an American. So keep the faith, World.

When will people around the World ever learn? Europe still struggles with whether they are a "union" of sovereign States or whether the E.U. is simply a vassal of U.S.-managed Global Capital.

Sarah C. Paine works for the Empire, The Rules-Based Order, Western Imperialism, Neo-Colonialism, GlobeCap, the plutocrats, the oligarchs, the M.I.C., academia, neoliberals—whatever you want to call the conglomeration of institutions designed to serve business-as-usual. She is raising the alarm, hoping the shallow-minded ideologues running The Wester World™ will be able to pull out of a nose dive in the way F.D.R. saved Capitalism from itself. And remember, these days, a crisis is usually profitable to the Players. There are no longer Knights in armor ready to put their lives on the line to serve the great cause; leaders in the West these days use other people's lives as fodder for their crusades. Other people's money and lives (OPM, OPL) were the most magnificent innovations concerning the realm of social relationships of modern modernity. The leaders of The West™ won't heed the constant warnings about the fall of The West™ because narcissistic, greedy leaders can never see the forest for the trees. They are all blind drunk on the Koolaide (a Liberal education). 

During the economic crisis of the 1930s, many expected a socialist revolution. The revolution never came. Why? The man in the White House co-opted the left.

Reality always wins. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. Empires always fall.

One must learn to compare and contrast the perspectives of intelligent people who have spent a lifetime studying a domain and avoid getting caught up in the reasonableness of their arguments. Logical and reasonable ideological beliefs can still lead to destruction; they can still be immoral and wrong.

Our global order is an omnicidal heat engine that will not stop heating up. Folks like me who grew up on the Koolaide think we know what's best for the World, but consider this: the rest of the World will never be American enough, but not for lack of trying or for lack of the U.S. Empire's inability to bludgeon the World into becoming Disney Land. It will never be American enough because America is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Empires always fall due to internal threats, over-extending their territories of control, contradictions, and the destruction of trust. To understand these things, you have to widen your point of view a bit and learn about other people’s thoughts (OPT). Pick up something other than a pint of Koolaide and chug it.

American Culture influences how America wages war. How did American culture become what it is today?

One must understand why America meddles in every nation's business. America has always been primarily concerned with big business. From the founders to the Robber Barons, to the Fordists, and Silicon Valley. 

We can talk about how other nations behave, but remember one thing: America is the TOP GUN, so if there are problems in the World, America must take responsibility for its part in creating the World's problems, and it should fix what it has broken.

American corporations leverage labor arbitrage in China by agreeing to send Capital and technology to China to manufacture goods that will be sold at a relatively cheap price at Walmart to American service workers. When China takes that Capital and technology and becomes competitive, America decides to bomb them into submission because, you know, Uncle Sam can't compete.

“They’re really strong now. It’s unfair!”

The Boss never competes. The Boss can make the rules and break the rules. The Boss is a law unto himself and expects his tribute!

Maritime and Continental power structures are primarily interested in wealth and power, and both use, in some cases, different mechanisms to exploit and control resources. One is not ethically or morally better than the other. The Roman, Persian, Portuguese, Dutch, British, Belgian, Japanese, Soviet, and American empires, etc., sought to extract wealth from others primarily for the "ruling" class, the "Players," as I like to refer to them, who controlled their institutions. Whether you are happy to be able to buy a plastic lawnmower at Walmart that will work for a year before it winds up in a landfill is not the point. You may be "happy" to gamble your gig-economy wages on a UFC™ fight, but it doesn't change what the structured institutions are concerned with, and it's not Freedom and Democracy™. 

#ProfitsFirst™

We have a vast body of literature interrogating the motives and incentives of social relationships.

The Omnicidal Heat Engine (Freedom and Democracy™) is busy making garbage, war, and poison to realize financialized capital gains for the ruling class or the super-rich folks; call the Players what you will. We in the WEIRD North are so indoctrinated in the ideologies of these institutions that we can't imagine any other way of doing things. Most people never even think about how their institutions work. They are happy to throw away their plastic vacuum cleaner and buy a new one if they have enough money.

If the World has problems that are of dire concern during a Republican or Democrat (The Party™) regime in the United States, one must ask oneself, why? Each side has had many opportunities to improve things, yet, year after year, all sides have been saying that the World is a mess and that only our side can fix it. The fact is there is only one side: Global Capital™. You are a winner if you are a Player.

The plebs and proles focus on WOKE™ this and S.J.W.™ that while the Players pick their pockets. The money flows towards money; it never trickles down to ordinary people. People get the minimum to keep the system going, even if the minimum is a MacMansion in the suburbs with a three-car garage and a Starbucks coffee every morning before work. Or, perhaps, UBI™.

The apologetic rhetoric in the Sarah C. Paine interview sticks out like a pilum in a raccoon or pink hair on an old lady. I can't miss it. But for the average Koolaide-binging wan-a-be Capitalist (Pro-Player), Ms. Paine’s expert analysis sounds entirely correct and obvious.

"Gosh, I really learned something from her understanding of how things work. W.O.W.!"

Congratulations, you have "learned" what you already know.

If the United States (Capital) "lost" the Vietnam War, it's not the United States' fault. It's the people the United States put in power, their very own corrupt savage's fault. Uncle Sam will never contemplate what might have corrupted the savages. One sees this repeatedly from Iraq and Iran to Central America and South America to Lybia and Syria, to Indonesia and The Philippines, across the globe. But in the end, Capital always wins, and people get crushed. We call the pitfalls of the process of bringing progress and Freedom and Democracy™ to “The Third World,” a.k.a, BRICS, things like collateral damage or externalities.

ALL THE BEST, ARGENTINA! We’ll never have to cry for you again.

Capital does not care about "the people." People are a means to acquire wealth and power. In general, you won't be able to understand this if you are too weak or too comfortable, but if circumstances get bad enough, these things might dawn on you. "Goodness gracious, I had an epiphany!" Until then, we’ll simply think of these unfortunate setbacks or circumstances as The Wrath of HIM™.

U.S. leaders are not interested in Freedom and Democracy™. Liberty and democracy are marketing memes. (Most people don't know the difference between license, liberty, and freedom.) U.S. leaders are concerned with their careers with wealth and power, fitting in, and status.

A vast amount of literature from various domains of inquiry discusses our tendency to indulge in the seven deadly sins. Christian Zionists and people who want a White, Christian Etho-State and not Bible advocates, scholars, or much interested in the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ; instead, they are super-fans of The USA™.

Our socioeconomic system is unsustainable and will end badly. Most of us will keep drinking the Koolaide while the ship sinks. We will feel better about ourselves if we believe. 

It's not our fault; it's their fault. Just keep saying that to yourself and let the chips fall where they may. The kids will pick them up and do whatever they can with them.

But if you want to get more in tune with reality, when you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: “I am not that smart. I am not yet wise. I am a fucking idiot.” Then, learn something new.

Or not. It doesn't really matter. People in your circle probably agree with your inherited/conditioned point of view, so you are in the best of all possible worlds. Enjoy the day. Be your best self through vanity projects and keep up with business as usual.

---

The Challenge

Here is your assignment. Should you accept this challenge, you will be better informed about how our World works than ninety percent of people alive today: this is not to say that you will have an exhaustive understanding, not even close, but it might inspire you to keep growing your knowledge of these complex affairs without finding the effort too taxing, painful or annoying. 

Remember that these suggestions are off the top of my head and hardly scratch the surface of the complex topic of social relationships across time and various historical contexts or the complexities of current events.

Books:

The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham

Vulture Capitalism by Grace Blakeley

The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality by Katharina Pistor

Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher

The Great Awakening vs the Great Reset by Alexander Dugin

PDF LINK

Paper:

Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Fredric Jameson

Nor should the break in question be thought of as a purely cultural affair: indeed, theories of the postmodern—whether celebratory or couched in the language of moral revulsion and denunciation—bear a strong family resemblance to all those more ambitious sociological generalizations which, at much the same time, bring us the news of the arrival and inauguration of a whole new type of society, most famously baptized ‘post-industrial society’ (Daniel Bell), but often also designated consumer society, media society, information society, electronic society or ‘high tech’, and the like. Such theories have the obvious ideological mission of demonstrating, to their own relief, that the new social formation in question no longer obeys the laws of classical capitalism, namely the primacy of industrial production and the omnipresence of class struggle. The Marxist tradition has therefore resisted them with vehemence, with the signal exception of the economist Ernest Mandel, whose book Late Capitalism sets out not merely to anatomize the historic originality of this new society (which he sees as a third stage or moment in the evolution of capital), but also to demonstrate that it is, if anything, a purer stage of capitalism than any of the moments that preceded it. I will return to this argument later; suffice it for the moment to emphasize a point I have defended in greater detail elsewhere*, namely that every position on postmodernism in culture— whether apologia or stigmatization—is also at one and the same time, and necessarily, an implicitly or explicitly political stance on the nature of multinational capitalism today.

“The Japanese Empire” Book Review

Chapter 4, on the transition from a maritime to a continental security paradigm, is the most important in the book and does an excellent job isolating factors such as the external environment and the loss of strategic cohesion caused by the death of the Meiji oligarchs. Yet this pivotal chapter also tosses in state Shintoism as an ideological driver without connecting it to the core theme of the demise of maritime strategy (Imperial Navy ships were also blessed by Shinto priests, for example). The Japanese Empire is on very strong footing when unpacking the structural and material drivers of Japanese grand strategy, but somewhat less so when trying to account for ideational factors.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Humanitarian Empire: The Red Cross in Japan, 1877-1945

Read Caitlin Johnstone

Read Indrajit (Indi) Samarajiva

Read Fictitious Capital — Explainers on energy, finance, and geopolitics to understand the base layer of our World.

Geopolitical Economy Report — The Geopolitical Economy Report is an independent news outlet dedicated to producing investigative journalism and original analysis to understand the changing world.

I had a business in Shanghai in 1999, near the U.S. consulate. I witnessed political action from TGI Fridays and near the consulate protesting the bombing. At the time, I told my Chinese colleagues that it was an accident because there were no good reasons for the United States to do such a thing.
_______________________

While visiting Serbia, China's President Xi Jinping condemned the US and NATO for bombing Beijing's embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1999. Ben Norton discusses why Washington launched the attack and lied about it. Then, Ben analyzes China-Serbia relations and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Book:

"The American Empire Should Be Destroyed": Alexander Dugin and the Perils of Immanentized Eschatology by James D. Heiser

Don’t be afraid of ideas you are not familiar with. You need to know how the other side thinks.

Aleksandr Dugin is the most famous political philosopher in Russia. His ideas are considered so dangerous the Ukrainian government murdered his daughter, and Amazon won’t sell his books. We talked to him in Moscow.

Žižek argues that you have to know Kant to understand Hegel. Žižek often refers to Kant as the "vanishing mediator" for Hegel.

And now! The Interview You’ve All Been Waiting For…

Interview: Sarah C. Paine with Noah Smith

S.P.: A maritime power can, if necessary, defend itself primarily by sea, while a continental power cannot. This relates to geography: an island power like Britain can be invaded only by crossing the sea, whereas France, which also has a long coast facing the open ocean, has an equally long border facing Germany and the Low Countries. Both France and Germany have repeatedly invaded across that border and so require armies to defend it. Regardless of whether they buy large navies, their geographic positions are continental because of this landward vulnerability. 

Historically, the great civilizations of Eurasia were all continental empires. Maritime empires came later. The former focused on expansion into contiguous territories, while the latter focused on the expansion of trade. For the latter the territory was secondary to the trade—they took territories that produced the products traded or that served as bases en route to the trade. Maritime empires, such as the Dutch Republic, were interested in maintaining a system of universal international laws so that all could trade in safety. Hugo Grotius, the founding father of international law, was a citizen of the Dutch Republic. Continental empires focused on carving the world up into spheres of influence, each a legal world unto itself, and often fighting to expand at each other’s expense. 

The Industrial Revolution upended empires of both types by producing compounded growth. Maritime empires, already focused on trade, were far better positioned to adapt to this change than were continental empires bent on dominating territory. Moreover the advent of nationalism that gradually spread globally, starting in revolutionary France and the Napoleonic Wars, made the costs of empire unsustainable as dominated peoples resisted. Maritime empires eventually figured out that negotiating common rules for interaction was far more wealth producing than hanging on to hostile territories. 

The rules-based international order took off after World War II. After the conspicuous failure of World War I to stabilize Europe, the conscripts of that war, whose adulthood had been spent navigating the Great Depression, rose to strategic leadership positions in the Second World War. Their solution to world war and global depression was institution building on a global scale including the UN, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, and the predecessor institutions of the European Union (the European Economic Community) and the World Trade Organization (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). They built strong institutions to create forums to hash out problems verbally rather than to fight them out militarily.

This emerging global order is fundamentally maritime because the oceans are the world’s original global network potentially connecting everyone to everything. In 2020, an article from the Center for International Maritime Security suggested a 66-70-80-90-99 rule highlighting that 66 percent of global wealth comes from or not far from the sea, 70 percent of the globe is oceanic, 80 percent of its population is coastal, 90 percent of goods arrive by sea, and 99 percent of digital traffic goes by submarine cable.1 This reflects the change in the currency of power from land to commerce. The incoming global maritime order focuses on compounding wealth by minimizing transaction costs, while the outgoing order of competing, wealth-destroying, continental empires focused on undermining each other. The old system destroyed wealth, the new one creates it. Read On…

We might as well have a socialist perspective on dreaded cultural Marxism.

These resources, here, here, and here, might help you challenge your perspectives and the algorithms that track you.

Red, White and Blue Blood

The United States needs dozens more brave people like Hala Rharrit—she is an American hero.

"All murder'd: for within the hollow crown That rounds the mortal temples of a king Keeps death his court." — Shakespeare King Richard III

America's institutional structures, laws, and social system serve Capital. Capital is its primary interest—its deadly tools are marketing, public relations, and propaganda.

The arbitrary control of socioeconomic and cultural conditions by an elite accounts for the magnitude and intensity of genocide and mass murder. The best assurance against democide is democratic transparency and openness, political competition, regularly scheduled elections, and an honest, accountable government of a free people.

Power kills; this is uncontroversial. Domestic democide is immoral: This is true when we consider how regimes differ in their underlying ethnic, religious, and racial diversity; it is true regardless of region, religion, or cultural differences; it is true when considering a country's various levels of education or economic development; it is true regardless of a community's size; it is true historically and will remain valid for all time.

Pinker apologetics aside, the USA's involvement with geopolitics is soaked with blood and death, and Americans, by and large, don't care. (Bread and circuses have never been more compelling to its people.) Tally the body count since its founding, the USA is as efficient a killer as any regime has been throughout world history. Think of the individuals who have been targets of assassination by the United States. American authorities usually define these killings as 'targeted killings'. It is utterly shocking and incomparable, yet the United States constantly condemns other countries that can hardly compete with the brazen, self-righteous rationalizations and justifications for these murders. Look it up; the data is not hard to find.

Since the 19th Century, the United States government has participated and interfered, both overtly and covertly, in replacing many foreign governments. In the latter half of the 19th Century, the U.S. government initiated actions for regime change mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, including the Spanish–American and Philippine–American wars. At the onset of the 20th Century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries worldwide, including neighbors Hawaii, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. — References on Wikipedia

"At least 940,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. The number of people who have been wounded or have fallen ill as a result of the conflicts is far higher, as is the number of civilians who have died indirectly as a result of the destruction of hospitals and infrastructure and environmental contamination, among other war-related problems." "The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. As of May 2023, an estimated 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones. The total death toll in these war zones could be at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting, though the precise mortality figure remains unknown. Civilian deaths have also resulted from U.S. post-9/11 military operations in Somalia and other countries." — Watson Institute For International & Public Affairs, Brown University "Cost of War"

Ninety Percent of War-Time Casualties Are Civilians — United Nations Study

"The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws." — American protest to Japan about its bombing of China in 1938

"The American Government and the American people have for some time pursued a policy of wholeheartedly condemning the unprovoked bombing and machine-gunning of civilian populations from the air." — President Roosevelt on the Soviet bombing of Helsinki in 1939

Why is Julian Assange in prison?

The hypocrisy and double standards are grotesque.

Read: International Court of Justice Order of 28 March 2024 Document Number 192-20240328-ORD-01-00-EN

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children from one group to another group. — Welch, M. (2014). The Genocide Test. Winnipeg Free Press, A.6., Spans 'Lesotho - penal code

The United States shamelessly supports Israel's efforts with money and military equipment; it is a partner in terrible war crimes and genocide.

Politicide: the deliberate physical destruction or elimination of a group whose members share the main characteristic of belonging to a political movement.

Democide: "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command." The term was first coined by Holocaust historian and statistics expert, R.J. Rummel in his book Death by Government

What Israel is doing is, at the very least, mass murder. The U.S. has a long history of domestic democide. The data is not hard to find, and libraries are full of books about the KKK, for example.

"The more Indians we can kill...the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." — William Tecumseh Sherman

Look at U.S. actions in the Philippines, the bombing of civilians in WWII. American forces also clearly committed war crimes during the Vietnam War: illegally bombing Cambodia and Laos. The bombing of Cambodia likely created the preconditions for the emergence of the Pol Pot regime. The list of American war crimes is long.

Numerous studies have shown that indiscriminate bombing of civilians does not affect the outcomes of wars. The United States has long been involved in hostilities in Ukraine. How many people have died to date in that conflict? We won't know for sure for decades.

I am appalled at the rate of violence in the United States when I compare it with the seven countries I have lived in.

One can go on chapter after chapter listing atrocities committed by U.S.-led forces daily around the world from the 19th Century to today. Any country that gets in the way of American Capital gets crushed. And yet, America has the temerity to point its finger at other States and declare them worse. It's absurd. Study history. This violence has to end!

"War is a racket. It always has been. A few profit and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war." — Smedley Butler

"We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only truth." — Voltaire. Oeuvres Vol. I, p. 15n 

The Moon At The Top Of The List

I am a big fan of The Gurometer. I actually appreciate some of the people on the list above—Nassim Taleb, and of course, Carl Sagan.

In the below we discuss a few themes and characteristics that we have identified as being common among the secular guru set. We distinguish secular gurus from gurus that promote ideologies or worldviews that are primarily spiritual or religious in nature. By guru we refer to the standard definition of “an influential teacher or popular expert” but our specific focus tends to be the subset of gurus who make liberal use of ‘pseudo profound bullshit’ referring to speech that is persuasive and creates the appearance of profundity with little regard for truth or reference to relevant expertise. The recurring characteristics identified collectively trend towards negative traits, so a high score on the gurometer could be regarded as identifying ‘bad’, potentially exploitative gurus who produce ersatz wisdom: a corrupt epistemics that creates the appearance of useful knowledge, but has none of the substance. The characteristics identified have not been empirically validated but are based on our personal assessments. Taken together, they help us in the task of spotting gurus in the wild. 

---

I have nothing against people of faith, but I am not a Reverend Moon fan—such vanity gives me the creeps. At any rate, even if you disagree with Reverend Moon’s placement on that list, The Gurometer is still an excellent addition to your Baloney Detection Kit. It might help you navigate the idiotic lies and shallow ideas that greedy, narcissistic goofballs force-feed us daily.

“Ah, man, the bull shit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it.” — Captain Willard

(Publicity, Public Relations, Advertising, Punditry, Preaching, Propaganda)

The only way to get away with not continually developing decent critical thinking skills is to be an ascetic and renounce the world as far as possible or surrender to whatever floats your boat. Let’s hope the “company store” will hold for a while longer; eventually, we will all have to face the circumstances of our addictions (broadly speaking.)

Some of us have had a good run and can be thankful for having experienced the best possible worlds.

Utopia will never come into the possession of Homo Sapiens. Utopianism is a fashion and dream deployed by despots and con artists. Whether "protopianism" can become a fashion needs defining. The age-old philosophies and arguments will remain—people will continue to fight over what, why, and how questions. The tools for "mind control" are more sophisticated and powerful than ever, and we are still the same people we always were, so old wine in new wineskins or visa-versa, whatever is new is old again, or whatever is old is new again.

Qui Bono?

Who will be the next King? What new church will arise from the ashes of stochastic circumstances? Our illusion of agency will be as strong as ever as we stumble into the future with our beliefs propping us up. There will always be those who profess to know the absolute truth, and still, people crush children with bombs with reasons and justifications for all.

Aftermath Studies

America and its allies have to go to war with China because China is getting too powerful despite having a different political system from the hegemon, the United States. NATO has to go to war with Russia because Russia is worried about its border security, invaded Ukraine, and you can't trust Russians. Israel wants the USA to go to war with Iran so it can complete its Greater Israel Project and ensure security for the Middle East because there are too many Muslims there and too much oil. Iran is weak because it's a theocratic State, but it's also perilous and is terrible for the world because its theocracy is Islamic. America is at war with itself because its political system is inherently divisive, as in, us versus them, as opposed to finding ways for a plurality of groups with differing opinions to come together for common causes.

The world, it seems, can't do business without traditional enemies.

It's a nanosecond to midnight on the Doomsday Clock. States with nuclear weapons are frantically updating their warheads and weapons delivery systems to gain offensive advantages because the truth is that the only defense for nuclear strikes is an undetectable first strike.

So, you "win" a nuclear war, what's next? I never hear people talk about the geopolitics of the aftermath of nuclear war. People never talk about living on a much hotter planet where the ecosystems we depend on have radically changed.

Should they occur, billions of people will die due to these calamities. Our world will be unrecognizable.

What's next?

Will we reboot and start all over, making the same mistakes? What makes us think the world will be better off after such destruction? What in our nature will have changed? Will Ukraine be a much better country 20 years after its destruction? Who will run Ukraine when too many Ukrainians are gone? Will climate refugees go to Ukraine to grow wheat? Once NATO defeats Russia and Western corporations control Russia, will Russian IT talent create tech startups for Western corporations in Kyiv? Will the Middle East be peaceful and have more oil after Israel has annexed Jordan, parts of Lebanon and Syria and expelled Palestinians from Greater Israel? Will God then be happy with his chosen people? After "The Administrative State" in America is destroyed, will the United States finally be great again because it’s a White, Christian ethnostate full of dutiful handmaids and manly men, isolated behind walls and oceans? Will Chinese prosperity be tolerated when China is owned by America-led Western corporations? What happened to the concept of sovereign nations? Will Western corporations make more money after a nuclear war?

After WWI, we stumbled into WWII. Over the past 80 years, we've had many undeclared wars and proxy wars. Global warming is accelerating, unleashing catastrophic cascading feedbacks worldwide, affecting our climate and the habitats we depend on.

We are not planning for the consequences of our way of life. Is it because most of us believe we can do nothing about these issues and the ideas, structures, and systems driving them? Is it cognitive dissonance, ignorance, laziness, or are we too spoiled to care?

Doomerism is the apathy one feels with a terminal diagnosis; it's the helplessness, hopelessness, and powerlessness one feels when one believes they have no agency; it's the lack of imagination inherent in willfully ignorant people manipulated by anachronistic ideologies.

Sometimes, it seems like too many people have given up, and yet so many good people are working hard to find solutions and create new ways of life rooted in peacemaking and more equitable and sustainable ways of stewarding ecosystems and managing precious resources. People are starting to understand material constraints and the energy systems we depend on for prosperity.

The status quo ends in disaster. People who love life will work together to invent a new way of life and prevent these disasters from happening. We confront and manage risk all the time.

We don't have to destroy our planet and the good things we have created. Communities working together to invent what's next is purposeful, meaningful, positive, and healthy. Let's empower people to innovate. There are many ways we can do this. Think of some and get busy with your neighbors. Today, tomorrow, and the far-flung future could be beautiful.

Frankly, The Gurometer and The End Times

"Greed is an addiction. It's a machine that must constantly be fed." — DJ MacHale

We laid the tracks for the machine, superorganism, modern civilization, call it what you will, a bullet train with its super energy system that has evolved with technology for thousands of years. The tracks lead to a Himalayan-sized granite wall, and the train's speed increases at a higher rate year on year. The kinetic energy released when the train hits the wall will produce an unprecedented extinction event. Maybe via nuclear war, pandemics, or rapid climate change, or perhaps, the elites will find it necessary to "mow the grass" using the tools of science, engineering, and technology.

So They’re Experimenting With Military Robots In Gaza Now

Global neoliberal fossil capitalism is busy testing autonomous robot weapons systems on battlefields. It neglects careful diplomacy and has a morbid penchant for game-theoretic rivalries dependent on financialized transactions that primarily benefit large investors. 

The propaganda machine tells us who to fear when we really should fear the owners of the propaganda machine. 

Frankly, I don't see any way we will avoid a rapid reduction in Homo Sapiens population as this century continues. Nate Hagens has some ideas about how we might mitigate the severity of the anthropogenic population crash and the sixth extinction.

Nate Hagens produces "The Great Simplification" podcast. Here is a description of his work from his website.

The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens is a podcast that explores the systems science underpinning the human predicament. Conversation topics will span human behavior, monetary/economic systems, energy, ecology, geopolitics, and the environment. The show aims to inform more humans about the path ahead and inspire people to play a role in our collective future. Guests will be from a wide range of scientists, leaders, activists, thinkers, and doers.

We have spent the last century harnessing enormous amounts of fossil energy to build a world of complexity like nothing seen before. In the coming century, humanity will experience A Great Simplification, beginning with the onset of financial and economic turbulence, followed by contraction. The ensuing simplification will be among the most significant events ever experienced by our species. 

Those who look through a systems lens can serve as early visionaries of a simpler life with new ways of relating to technology, consumption, each other, and Earth's ecosystems. 

Our system and its components, processes, and interactions are incredibly complex. On this podcast, we will try to 'simplify' the 'great' issues of our time to expand the number of people making sense of our reality.

Nate is honest, gentle, earnest, and straightforward. I appreciate his work and am learning a lot from his thoughtful guest experts.

He has a series he calls "Frankly," where he shares his ideas, thoughts, and feelings regarding his work. On Frankly #55, he talks about seven critical interventions for the future. They are all solid tasks that would help us improve our situation immensely if implemented by enough people worldwide. Please take a moment and listen to his thoughts.

If only enough people would implement these approaches. 

In my opinion, Nate is one of the good guys. He's not so full of himself; he's an educator.

Currently, there are plenty of intellectual influencers with great ideas on the internet. Some are annoying, egotistical narcissists with savior complexes. Decoding The Gurus podcast takes these types to task in an entertaining, if not, at times, somewhat obnoxious way.

Below is a description of The Gurometer from the Decoding The Gurus website:

The Gurometer comprises ten key characteristics of "guruosity," which the decoders will use to score the Gurus in future episodes.]

1. Galaxy-brainness

2. Cultishness

3. Anti-establishment(arianism)

4. Grievance-mongering

5. Self-aggrandisement and narcissism

6. Cassandra complex

7. Revolutionary theories

8. Pseudo-profound bullshit

9. Conspiracy mongering

10. Profiteering

If you are familiar with Bret and Jordon, what do you think about their "Gurometer" rating after viewing that episode?

In my ever so humble opinion, Christopher and Matthew are at their best when discussing Bret Weinstein and Jordon Peterson. Few online WEIRD geniuses have escaped their witty and sharp-witted criticisms.

I'm a bog-standard citizen interested in learning how things work—nowhere near Guru status, and as I said, Nate is an educator. He studies across domains so he can educate, hoping to empower us so that we can be part of solutions and not problems.

I hope you follow The Great Simplification podcast.

As you know, I'm a reader and have a book recommendations page on my website. I read these books over the last ten years, many during the pandemic. I also read a lot of articles and papers. I'm insatiably curious and obsessed with what makes people the way they are and civilizational collapse. These obsessions drew me to the online collective known as Sense Makers. Sensemakers include people like Jim Rutt, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie wheel, Eric Weinstein, David Fuller, Alexander Beiner, Nora Bateson, among many others. Over the years, various cliques of intellectual influencers have had many monikers. "The Four Horsemen” and “intellectual dark web” are some other examples.

The Perils of Audience Capture

Audience capture is the bane of any decent intellectual influencer or online expert. Many decent minds have acquired Gurometer traits as their fame and fortune grew. It's a hazard of the trade.

Audience capture is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that involves telling one's audience what they want to hear and getting rewarded for it.

I sincerely hope that Nate and his friends can stay focused on the many good reasons they do their work and not get distracted by the attention they are getting. Their project is a very complex and difficult one. Sadly, I don't think it will meet with much success. The bullet train has a mind of its own that emerged from our nature and seems destined to self-destruct.

Here's why:

Homo sapiens living in large communities are venal, status-seeking animals concerned with social dominance hierarchies. 

Much has been written over the millennia; open any Holy book or a good book and think about all those authors and storytellers. Try to imagine the times they live in and the challenges they have faced. Think of all the violence, pain, suffering, and death they've described. Think of all the species and ecosystems that homo sapiens have impacted throughout our existence. Think of the impact we have on each other. Think of the seven deadly sins we can't seem to overcome despite sages, prophets, priests, priestesses, teachers, wise men and women, shamans, poets, playwrights, etc. 

And what about leadership? Our leaders are motivated by greed, status, and pecking orders. 

Of course, it's not all bad; one can feel love and perceive beauty, joy, flow, connection, harmony, peace, and wisdom from these stories and within communities and relationships. We know beauty when we see it and need it as much as we need to breathe. 

"I think of beauty as an absolute necessity. I don't think it's a privilege or an indulgence, it's not even a quest. I think it's almost like knowledge, which is to say, it's what we were born for. I think finding, incorporating and then representing beauty is what humans do. With or without authorities telling us what it is, I think it would exist in any case.

The startle and the wonder of being in this place. This overwhelming beauty—some of it is natural, some of it is man-made, some of it is casual, some of it is a mere glance—is an absolute necessity. I don't think we can do without it any more than we can do without dreams or oxygen." — Toni Morrison

We must have been doing some things right over the past four hundred years, or we wouldn't live in a world with eight billion people. Read Steven Pinker to gain perspectives on why things aren't so bad.

On academic freedom and civil discourse.

However, as I have said many times, we are all "accelerationists" now. 

Accelerationism is a range of revolutionary and reactionary ideas in left-wing and right-wing ideologies that call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth, technological change, infrastructure sabotage, and other processes of social change to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformations, otherwise referred to as "acceleration."

We can't control the genies we've liberated or understand the techno black boxes we've invented, and we sure don't know how these things will change our environment and impact our psychology, health, and ecosystems. We are running dozens of uncontrolled experiments affecting life with little concern for future generations.

Nate mentioned "The Fifteen Hundred," an allusion to the elite that "run" the world and how we must help them understand where we are headed. 

Inequality is the difference in social status, wealth, or opportunity between people or groups. People are concerned about corruption and social inequality. 

We hope that if the rich and powerful embrace a more sustainable and gentler culture, invest in it, and provide leadership, it will help us solve some of the problems Nate and his guests are concerned with. But what do you give a man who has everything? More control, and they'll never have enough. They are not wise men; they are rich men, and their wealth is all about having more control over more resources that will make them more money. Status, power, and the pecking order are what concern them. It's a feedback loop, an ouroboros. 

To the degree that peasants are necessary to sustain the Empire, they will be afforded certain protections. However, this isn't out of altruism; it's to maintain the elite's power and control.

All the data and information training AIs and LLMs is an ouroboros feeding on itself—what comes of it is more of it. Investing in these things exists to get a return on investment and create more control mechanisms.

The Ouroboros Of Machine Learning

Missed Out on Nvidia? 2 Soaring Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stocks to Buy Instead

Our culture creates people with addictions, and the powerful feed our addictions to maintain control. 

Powerful technology emerged from fossil capitalism, and ordinary people do not control it; we have the illusion of control. We feed the beast.

People in less wealthy communities are helpful and compassionate because they experience the difficulty, pain, love, and beauty of abject survival. They need each other because they are in a more precarious position than wealthier people. Their community has value. None of this is to say that poverty doesn't lead to stressful circumstances that can cause many pathological behaviors, violence, crime, and disease—poverty is a terrible thing, and we must eliminate it.

Wealthy people can buy or rent whatever they want or need and just as quickly dispose of them. Think of private equity, flash trading, and colonial exploitation of other people's resources. The pinnacle of control is to be a rentier. Own everything and rent things to the plebs and proles, so they are absolutely dependent on you. Code capital so you can do this legally and convince everyone it's in their best interest. Create scarcity and war to increase capital on capital returns while exploiting people's fears. 

Think about what your leaders do. Who do they work for? What do they want?

As people get wealthier in a material sense, the deadly sins become more pernicious. Call it "The Lucifer Principle," if you will. 

Unfortunately, even as I listen to good people working hard on solutions, I don't see a way out of our predicament. Every year, we invent more ways to accelerate the bullet train—the inner self-destructive urge.

Knowing this doesn't depress me. I see people doing their work and living their lives. Whatever circumstances one finds oneself in, it's a miracle we are here, and we are only here for a short while. Life will continue on Earth until it ends.

Nate experienced a profound sense of community in India. I lived in Colaba near the military security gate in Mumbai for a year. I have lived and worked in seven countries and grew up in two. I have never been banged up abroad. Am I simply lucky? I love and respect all cultures. I can't help it. Call it a weakness or label me a cosmopolitan. I love world history and the varieties of social and cultural expression. Anthropology, psychology, and sociology are all interests of mine.

Some people believe their sect has all the correct, God-given answers. I think we come up with answers that make sense and fit our circumstances.

All Holy books are eschatological and apocalyptic, except belief systems in cultures that didn't have to be too concerned with scarcity. Myths postulate what might exist in a higher realm where the challenges of physical existence are transcended. You have Samsara or an apocalypse, the judgment day, or you finally transcend the cycle of birth and death. Or, maybe you are the son of Zeus, one of many Gods, or The Son of the One God. Or, if you live in places like the Amazon, where scarcity and the need to defend precious resources are less intensely felt, you feel part and parcel of all life and a kinship with Mother Earth. You have an animistic sense that the world has a soul.

Our civilization commodifies everything; it's relatively soulless. Many people hunger for a deeper connection with things in the world, life, and each other. People think of creating new religions, but we already have many religious traditions. We need new structures, new philosophies of economics, greater respect for our limitations, and patience—we need time for inner growth. 

What experiences will transform us when we all aspire to have more, consume more, and covet a mastery of the tools that feed our will to power and longing to win battles within The Great Game to gain great fame?

When this civilization ends, and the scale of our communities is greatly diminished, we may return to a gentler, pantheistic time where all is sacred. We may once again live in harmony with nature and our nature. We may become the protectors and not the destroyers of life.

We may have never lived in peace; perhaps our destiny is the violent end of our species—no more birth and death. 

Some say the Universe is conscious. Some think we live in a computer simulation. Many believe all would be well if we had the same religion or ideology.

Let it be.

If you take it all in, you must take in the good and the bad. Is that being realistic or pessimistic? Think about all we have produced since fossil capitalism fully blossomed in the mid-nineteenth century and became unregulated under neoliberalism in the late twentieth century. Are these ideologies and things good for us, life on Earth, and the general health of our planet's ecosystems? 

For many of us, a good and healthy life would be much simpler, with better relationships and less stuff. If the train wreck doesn't kill us, it may make us wiser. One thing is certain: some of us will find out soon enough. 

Jamie Wheal of the Infinite Game Upside Down

Amerika in the Upside Down

Hamilton, Jefferson, NATO and the Border

True Karma

Comment:

"Think Globally Act Hillbilly" depends on how one thinks and acts, which affects both spheres. Oh, "The Varieties of Thinking and Acting Experience." Fossil Capitalism has made memetic warfare all the more destructive while creating wealth, lots of people, and cool stuff. Humpty Dumpty (the teetering idea man, always on the cusp of disaster) is constantly evolving, never broken, and can't be put back together because of the push-pull of creative/destructive aspects of the interplay between the laws of the Universe, consciousness, culture, and mind. (And we hardly know what we are talking about.) As we think of America's mythological/historical narratives in the context of a global scale on a longer timeline, I hear echoes of "The Lucifer Principle." Circumstances will dictate the manner of seemingly controlled panic we get on with day after day while we all play our parts in various superorganisms we know as culture. There never was an ideal to rebuild or revisit, only a particular set of ideas we've been pondering reasonably mindlessly for thousands of years with their slightly evolving narratives that shed light on the positive and negative attributes of our experience. A tiny fraction of people ride the infinite game train of thought. We transcend nothing. The Universe holds fast. Our species was always falling—fallen—and it all feels quite profound while we live. 

"Not forever does the bulbul sing

In balmy shades of bowers,

Not forever lasts the spring

Nor ever blossom the flowers.

Not forever reigneth joy,

Sets the sun on days of bliss,

Friendships not forever last,

They know not life, who know not this."

― Khushwant Singh, Train to Pakistan

The Putin Lecture

I saw the Tucker Carlson Vladimir Putin interview yesterday. I hope people watch it, not that they'll learn anything, but at least they will have taken the opportunity to do so.

Professor President Vladimir Putin Pontificates

It wasn't much of an interview; Tucker may have asked six questions in over two hours and responded to Putin for ten minutes. Tucker didn't ask any hardball questions (do entertainers ever ask hardball questions?), and it was clear he was out of his depth during Putin's history lecture that took up over a quarter of the conversation. Had he done broader and in-depth research into the geopolitics of the region and President Putin, he could have abandoned his painful, concentrated gaze, punctuated giggles, and pretentious smirks and gotten into the weeds with his interlocutor.

What Putin had to say did not disappoint. His lecture allows the world to understand that however evil one may think their adversary is, it doesn't mean they are insane or that their behavior is irrational.

It was clear that Tucker was a bit lost during the history lesson—understanding deep context is hard work, takes time, and requires a rare nuanced understanding of human nature. Towards the end, we seemed to get to the few questions Tucker prepared for.

Unfortunately, few people in the West have bothered to follow the mountains of data, articles, documents, lines of evidence, etc., surrounding problems the West, America in particular, has had with Russia over the past thirty years. People, in general, are not interested. They learn what they know about color revolutions, coups, regime change efforts, and "revolutions" from mainstream media, and MSM is discouraged from sharing most information about events. Those who control propaganda in the West, particularly in America, are masters of the subtle, fine art of deception and manipulation. Anyone who reads books and papers from various organizations worldwide knows this.

Americans primarily want to feel good, even if it's feeling good about being outraged or feeling bad, even if feeling good with recreational substances ultimately kills them. As the saying goes, "Don't look up." The critical mood to maintain is superiority, exceptionalism, and righteousness. Most people are unconcerned about other cultures and foreign ways of thinking about and doing things. To say they are narrow-minded is an understatement; most folks only want to know what they have been trained to want to know. Friends I spoke with at the outbreak of war in Ukraine had not read about events leading up to the war and had no knowledge of the region's history. What motivated their reaction to Putin's "special military action" was the feeling that Putin is bad and the West is good.

What will the reaction of the average American viewer be to President Putin's history lecture? I think I already know. "How dare Putler lecture us! That was his way of distracting us from the truth. (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, FOX) Tucker gave Putler a propaganda platform—the traitor. Make Tucker Julian's cellmate. Historical and situational awareness doesn't matter. Putler invaded for no reason other than to concure Europe. It's his fault. Putler is an existential threat to freedom and democracy and all the Western values we hold dear and The Greatest Generation fought for when they defeated the Nazis single-handedly in World War Two. The West must utterly destroy Russia."

Never mind that America has always wanted to destroy any country that didn't like to play ball. War is their racket.

I'm not saying that legitimate threats aren't there or that the West should be weak; I'm saying the West is weak in more ways than a few.

It's a truism by now that the US government believes that using force and sanctions are their only forms of diplomacy. I suspect this has something to do with big business, campaign finance, and culture. It doesn't have anything to do with American security. There are more effective ways to compete geopolitically in the twenty-first century. Mentioning the military-industrial complex is a tired old trope dating back to before the Second World War. If ordinary folks worry about overspending on military contracts, they don't care about doing anything about it. Americans love having a "strong," high-tech military even if they lose wars and accomplish nothing by having them. We like to think of ourselves as the toughest badasses on the planet, so we would rather let our nation's infrastructure grow ragged, our healthcare and education costs skyrocket, and pay higher and higher rents than give up that facade.

Our politicians are careerists, shallow thinkers, more interested in the revolving door with the private sector and financing their campaigns than a geopolitical strategy that has a long-term view with a desired outcome. The only aim for the DNC, the RNC, and politicians is to stay in "power." They don't have any ideas anymore.

Western media's response to this will be painful to audit. I will read a book instead.

It's mind-boggling to me that our leaders don't want to understand the thought processes of their opponents. Contrast Putin's language, logic, and thought processes with the leaders the RNC and DNC are putting up for the presidency: a narcissistic conman (love him or hate him) versus a worn-out, venal politician suffering from cognitive decline, possibly dementia and looking rather frail who will be 83 years old in 2025. You may hate Russia and Putin, but you can't say that Vladimir isn't an intelligent statesman who understands power, history, and geopolitics. He's not shallow, and his mind is as sharp as a steel trap.

What do American leaders want to achieve by wrecking Russia? There are always many actions leading up to the initiation of hostilities between countries. Wars begin before they become kinetic. All Nations have interests. I am still waiting for a clear statement of the US strategy in the region and what they are trying to achieve. We have yet to see an overarching objective because there is none. The whole chaotic business is simply about specific industries that benefit from chaos.

Is American leadership competitive now? Our competitors run circles around Uncle Sam, his Western allies, and the global north. Does Ukraine have enough soldiers to continue fighting for five more years? Is NATO willing to send troops to fight Russian soldiers in Ukraine? Why would they risk a world war? What will that accomplish?

Call me whatever you like, but I am as confused as Putin. Like the President of Russia, I want to see some Western leadership. Wealthy Western states throw money and bombs at conflicts and accomplish nothing but bloodshed. We are facing a global civilization-ending poly crisis that will take herculean coordination efforts around the globe to solve. We need to get our priorities straight.

Tucker Carlson's interview with President Putin was a huge and historic event that many bright and well-meaning people will analyze. I hope world leaders will learn something, and I hope something positive comes of it. I have my doubts.

Have Faith In Replicators

When I read an article, I think of all kinds of interconnections. This morning, I read an article about China’s current economic predicament and immediately thought of a Star Trek Replicator.

Galaxy Class Replicator

China's domestic economic troubles shined through as businesses across parts of Asia began shutting down on Friday for the week-long Lunar New Year holiday. Typically, during one of the quietest periods in the region, Chinese government officials announced they would take steps to ensure factories continued "maintaining stable production" amid the celebrations. Consumers are also spending less on pork and expensive foods associated with the Lunar New Year, while barbers are charging less than usual for the haircuts people get during the run-up. (Many people in China believe it's bad luck to get a haircut during the first month of the lunar calendar.)

The Universe is a mess of interacting matter that occupies space and has mass. Matter comprises elements that can't be broken down chemically into other substances. Atoms, the smallest component of an element, consisting of subatomic particles, protons, photons, quarks, neutrinos, gluons, and such, are attracted by forces and energy into various molecules (two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds.)

But look here, I'm not a chemist or a physicist, so let me continue my spiel by quoting a short piece describing how the Sun works.

Meet the Sun

The Sun is a yellow dwarf star at the center of our solar system. Earth and all other objects in our solar system orbit around the Sun due to gravity – the Sun contains over 98% of all mass in the solar system, and so exerts a strong gravitational pull. Like other stars, the Sun is a dense ball of gas that creates energy through nuclear fusion reactions in the core, producing helium atoms from hydrogen atoms. The Sun radiates different forms of energy, including ultraviolet, infrared, and light energy, out into space. Light and heat energy from the Sun warm our planet and make life possible.

God's most extraordinary creature is the Sun.

It is responsible for photosynthesis in plants, vision in animals, and many other natural processes, such as the movements of air and water that create weather. Most plants need at least some sunlight to grow, so without light, there would be no plants, and without plants, there would not be oxygen for us to breathe.

Egyptian, Indo-European, and Meso-American cultures had religions that worshipped the Sun. Almost all mythologies have Sun motifs.

The Sun and how it works, folks, is vital whether or not you know the scientific reasons why.

If I may be so bold, life emerged from the energy of the Sun. Like Carl Sagan said, "We are all made of star stuff."

3.7 to 4.0 billion years ago, the Earth was in a hypothetical condition known as the primordial soup consisting primarily of an oxygen-free gaseous mixture containing chiefly water, hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide.

From this primordial goo emerged Organic Compounds:

The organic compound consists of any of a large class of chemical compounds in which one or more atoms of carbon are covalently linked to atoms of other elements, most commonly hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen. The few carbon-containing compounds not classified as organic include carbides, carbonates, and cyanides.

In general, organic compounds are substances that contain carbon (C), and carbon atoms provide the key structural framework that generates the vast diversity of organic compounds. All things on Earth (and most likely elsewhere in the Universe) that can be described as living have a crucial dependence on organic compounds. Foodstuffs—namely, fats, proteins, and carboh drates—are organic compounds, as are such vital substances as hemoglobin, chlorophyll, enzymes, hormones, and vitamins. Other materials that add to the comfort, health, or convenience of humans are composed of organic compounds, including clothing made of cotton, wool, silk, and synthetic fibres; common fuels, such as wood, coal, petroleum, and natural gas; components of protective coatings, such as varnishes, paints, lacquers, and enamels; antibiotics and synthetic drugs; natural and synthetic rubber; dyes; plastics; and pesticides.

From these organic compounds, life emerged.

Oh, the mystery of life. We could avoid all of this science stuff, all these things our God-given brains have figured out through various contemplative, intellectual, and technical tools we've discovered and invented over the centuries, and quote an ancient text and be done with our labored inquiries.

THE BOOK OF GENISIS

Or we could continue learning about our scientific theories and how we arrived at them and wade into the still controversial (in some circles) theory of evolution as a way to explain all the many forms of life that have graced our Earth over hundreds of millions of years. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that shrew-like mammals first appeared about 225 million years ago and were only a few centimeters long.

It's hard to believe that in 2024, science illiteracy is still so prevalent or that some people think science is just another religion. I believe one can talk to God and still be a rigorous scientist uncovering the secrets of the Universe. I can hold a conversation with Jesus, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Einstein at the same time while fussing about in my garden. Albert gets bored with my discourse but is still humorous and friendly. I often talk with Thomas Edward Lawrence, Lieutenant Colonel Sir Francis Edward Younghusband, and Miyamoto Musashi—I love adventurers. I talk with Miyamoto mainly in English because my Japanese is limited, and for some reason, Miyamoto-san speaks fluent English these days. I have a good imagination that feels very real to me. Can one really imagine things? I think, therefore, cheeseburger.

(Oh no, I was tempted to say something about the brain's workings, and I don't know much about that domain. What gives me the right?)

GOD

Define God as you will within the confines of your inherited culture. God must be familiar. I don't anthropomorphize God. I can't imagine a God as a Marvel Comic version of a homo sapien. Am I more pious because I can't make a craven image of the creative force or ultimate origins? Or am I a blasphemer because I imagine, however clumsily, a creative force not grounded in ancient literature? Anyway, I'll admit it: I lean towards Spinoza's God. Try as I will to educate myself in domains of science; I'm still a mystic. And I don't crave power enough to make people believe what I believe. "I command you to imagine thusly!"

Regardless of your belief systems, there are ways to explain creative forces that use the broader language and processes the practice of science has revealed.

The Theory of Evolution

One of our greatest scientific theories is the theory of evolution.

Biology, the study of life, is a fascinating domain.

A Side Note:

We all have to eat, and we all eat organic matter, even if it's a genetically modified organism. (Organism: an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.) Proteins, amino acids, peptides, fats, carbohydrates, cellulose, starch, hemoglobin, weak organic acids, etc., are all considered "organic." We modify organic compounds every time we cook.

At any rate, for curiosity's sake, allow me to quote an article at length on how we view the theory of evolution today:

Paul Lucas, Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Research Scientist from 1974 through the present, Studied at the University of Minnesota.

Technically, the current theory of evolution is the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism. It was formulated in the 1930s and 1940s. The Modern Synthesis reconciled Mendelian genetics and Darwin's evolution. Natural selection did not work under the theory of genetics — blended characteristics — known in Darwin's time. Mendelian genetics will explain natural selection.

Modern Synthesis; Theodosius Dobzhansky; The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

However, the Modern Synthesis kept the five fundamental theories that constitute evolution as outlined by Darwin:

1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)

2. The descent of all organisms from a common ancestor (branching evolution).

3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations or discontinuities)

4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)

5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is. pg 86

Since the 1940s, there have been periodic calls to modify the Modern Synthesis for one reason or another. Many of those calls have been based on a very narrow interpretation of the Modern Synthesis. One attempt to modify the Modern Synthesis is based on the discovery of developmental genes and that small changes in developmental genes can have large changes in morphology and physiology. The field is known as "evolutionary development biology" or "evo-devo" for short. An example of this call for a new "synthesis" is here: A New Evolutionary Synthesis.

However, there has yet to be any scientific consensus that the Modern Synthesis needs to be replaced or even seriously modified. Stay tuned — it may happen, or maybe not.

Now, evolution is an extensive theory. It has dozens (hundreds) of subsidiary (auxiliary) theories and hypotheses. These can be changed without altering the five major theories stated above or the basics of the Modern Synthesis. An example is how new species subsidiary to #1, 2, and 4 arise. The primary mode of speciation was thought to be phyletic gradualism: a large population of a species transforms over generations into another species. However, evolutionists have noticed that speciation could occur by allopatric speciation: a small geographically isolated population of a species transformed over generations into a new species.

Eldredge and Gould proposed that most speciation in the history of life was by allopatric speciation and not phyletic gradualism. This theory was called "Punctuated Equilibrium. " Today, this is accepted: allopatric speciation is by far the most common mode for forming new species.

But notice that PE is not a "latest theory of evolution." Instead, it is a theory within evolution. And that is what most theories about evolution are: new theories within evolution.

The possible role of epigenetics in evolution is the latest theory within evolution.

Recently, an "integrated synthesis" has been proposed. It is being considered (and advocated by a few ), but so far has not gained much traction:

What this diagram does is show the relationship of the theories involving evolution. "Darwinism," or Darwin's original five theories, is always kept. The core of the Modern Synthesis is also kept. The three areas on the far left can be viewed as extreme interpretations of the Modern Synthesis. The Integrated Synthesis mostly wants to add new modes of variation, particularly epigenetics. They also want to add genomic evolution (selection within the genome) and "multilevel selection," or selection of groups instead of individuals. This multilevel selection has met the most opposition. "Replicator theory" is more within abiogenesis than evolution, so it has opposition.

Science (as in the collective thought of scientists) sometimes takes quite a long time. It took 250 years for heliocentrism to become the dominant theory in astronomy. This discussion on the Integrated Synthesis has been going on for 20+ years. Only some of the components have been there that long. For instance, epigenetic inheritance has only been discussed within the last 5–10 years.

So be patient. However, you can be sure that whatever new "synthesis" results, the original theories of Darwin and those five areas of Modern Synthesis will always be there.

China is a Replicater—it replicates Western economics, science, and technological production with Chinese characteristics, of course.

Beijing Skyline

China doesn't necessarily need Western-style economic growth. Well, it does if it wants to be competitive with the West, secure, and immune to the humiliations the West visited upon it throughout its relatively recent history. (China has been a thing for a long time.) We are all too human, and humans are violently competitive and passionately covet power and control over resources. An emperor maintains his power first and foremost and, if the ruler is wise and adept, the security of his subjects.

Xi Jinping stays in power as long as China does well, but if China does too well, it risks war with the ideologues in power in the West, which could upset the geopolitical balance of power and prosperity for billions of people for generations.

Thucydides's Trap refers to the natural, inevitable discombobulation that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power... [and] when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, the resulting structural stress makes a violent clash the rule, not the exception.

Modern Economics

The modern "religion" of economics could be responsible for the death of all life on Earth. Nations have much greater destructive power than ever before. Fossil Capitalism is destroying habitats, polluting ecosystems, heating the Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere, and disrupting the climate in ways that could end civilization. We are facing a poly crisis resulting from our success as inventive, creative, competitive animals with super-brains.

We use cheap petrochemical energy to extract minerals from the Earth and build amazing machines. We edit genes. We use electronic media to manufacture mighty memes that influence the way people think and what they believe.

We want fusion energy and the power to mine other worlds so we can have the materials to make more and more machines. Greater, better, more powerful machines that may help us compete with different forms of intelligent life in the Universe. And so we have stories like Star Wars and Star Trek that imagine a future where our particular genius and violence can spread around the Universe.

Nature is both creative and destructive. People are profoundly beautiful and violent. Our species will not be eternal, although we'd like to think so.

All hail the material world!

The Star Trek Replicator

Biowaste and other recycled materials are broken down into essential parts: water, carbon, and other molecules fed into a replicator that uses lasers to reassemble the atomic bits into something we could consume. Superfast lasers convert incoming matter into energy and back into matter, which requires a lot of energy. 

OMG, do we have to talk about thermo dynamics now?

Of course, there are simpler ways to get a meal and build what we need for a flourishing life. But not if everyone wants to signal their status by possessing material memes. 

A decent culture, essential for a flourishing life, requires matter and imagination. A great culture is magical. We have replicators for that already; we know them as memes and stories—brain-based communications technology, A.K.A. ideas, thoughts, and feelings expressed through language and emotion.

How much energy do we need to produce how many things before we feel like we are living the good life? 

We need spirit, imagination, consideration, understanding, shared values, and enough material things to nurture and support benevolent communities that can create the conditions for competitive, productive societies able to live sustainably and peacefully on our small Earth, the home in which all life as we know it evolved.

Modern economics is an extreme expression of the seven deadly sins energized by fossil capital and ideologies turbocharged by science and technology. 

We could have a culture where science, engineering, and technology can harness energy less damaging to life systems, where wisdom, humility, and reverence could lead to everlasting peace and hundreds of thousands of years of spiritual and intellectual growth and exploration.

We could invent a cultural replicator that would allow us to maintain values in line with life. All we need is time. 

I imagine it's possible, but not probable. Time and imagination are indeed mysterious. 

Shall we muse about time? Just kidding. That's all for now.

What We Can Live With and What Kills Us

Too many addictions to superstimuli can kill us, especially when we feel powerless because all the stimulation distracts us so well from our predicament that we feel an illusion of control. (Eat your tasty fast and processed delights and take your pills.)

Much of what we believe gives us the illusion of having power when the only thing that really gives us hope is fitting into whatever random culture we were born into or fell into after having been buffeted about by circumstances beyond our control—nature, nurture, and insult. Learning the necessity of self-interrogation is a rarely sought-after art. That's okay; this is normal. We are all part of a superorganism of one kind or another that provides ready-made answers to complex and complicated problems we’d rather not confront.

Our way of life is righteous, reflects reality, and makes sense, while those of others are barbaric, ridiculous, unhealthy, and unclean.

For those of you with faith in a higher power, earthly matters don't matter much anyway because you will reap your rewards after you die. For the powerless, faith is a lifesaving habit. A relationship with an invisible power is an ounce of prevention that trumps a pound of cure.

But we must beware: our faith can also be a license to kill.

Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean we turn away when a bad guy treats another bad guy in horrifically violent and cruel ways.

Keep on consuming, and things will right themselves—that’s what we know, and we all think we are consuming the right recipes proscribed by one kind of God or another or bequeathed by a King or Ubermensch.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping will reportedly meet with top stock market regulators this week as the country contends with a rapidly worsening economy. Stocks listed in Hong Kong and mainland China have lost $7 trillion of value since 2021, and Chinese shares briefly sunk to five-year lows this week. It’s unclear if a potential stimulus measure may result from the talks. Still, government officials need to ensure the market stabilizes before China enters the Lunar New Year holiday period next week to “avoid further hurting consumer confidence,” Bloomberg reported. China has repeatedly introduced measures over the last year designed to reassure investors, but the relatively modest policies have not been enough to combat troubling economic indicators, such as high levels of youth unemployment and mammoth amounts of debt.

Let Jesus Take The Cruise

Say goodbye bye to rabid consumerism and cheap shyte dot com. We are entering a new era whether you are a techno-optimist or not. Our world has material constraints.

True value is something we thrive on; we know what it feels like, just like we know porn when we see it—addictions to commercial memes that force us to consume amount to cultural cancer.

One day, circumstances will force faithful meme-eating humans to believe it.