Dunbar’s Number, American Capitalism, and What’s Left of Libertarians.

So… Dunbar’s Number… For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, I recommend reading this article for a primer


In short, it’s the number of people you can “know”… about 150. If you have 250 Facebook friends, then you have virtually no clue what’s going on in 100 of their lives. This is an estimate, of course, but there is strong evidence to support that this is a good estimate, meaning it’s very unlikely that anyone really knows 250 people.

What does this have to do with American Capitalism, and Libertarians? Everything… If it is impossible to really know 250 people, then running a corporation, government, or non profit, with more than 250 managers, is a completely impossible task…. Think about that for a second. It is actually impossible, for a large corporation, or government to have a coherent informed mind, or group of minds at its helm.

When I say American capitalism, I do mean the naïve theoretical vision of Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson, not the current practice, or the way they practiced it… I don’t want to pretend the past was better than the present. The theory however, that all unjust authority, should be abolished. That a centrally planned economy is impossible. That no organization should be too big to fail… That we don’t need a central authority, and more importantly, even if we did, or wanted one, it’s inefficient to have one. Power corrupts. Simple lessons, we seem to be forgetting in the modern age… Except, of course, for that small number of “crazy” libertarians, out there.

Dunbar’s Number, should become a core argument, in a return to localization of economics… and the empowerment of the blue collar, because, after all, for millennia working people have labored under the illusion that they, the peasantry, were incapable of making the difficult decisions of government. When in reality, human minds are incapable of maintaining organization, and a coherent mind, in any group larger than a thousand or so people… not just peasant minds.

Peace and love friends,
David Hamilton


That Fool Dave Saves the Planet Earth Through Xenophobia

So… I’ve basically given up on our international institutions to solve any of our problems… I mean, look at them… seriously… So, what are we, as individuals, able to do about it? Declare war! War is always a good way to unify people around a common enemy… but, what do we declare war on?

On institutions?… I thought about that for awhile… but ultimately, as with all wars, there end up being civilians involved. Just because most of our institutions, are corrupt, and broken, doesn’t mean they aren’t also filled with regular people trying to make a living… I’ve never been a fan of wars that kill innocent people, that’s why I don’t like the drug war, or the war on terror.

So who do we declare war on? Kepler 22-b. A theoretically habitable planet, approximately 600 light years from earth. Why? Because the alien race of Kepler 22-b, has sent a war party, towards the planet earth. It wants our resources, and it will stop at nothing to destroy us all.

Due to their advanced cloaking technology, we can’t see them yet… but we have good intelligence to suspect that they could arrive at any minute, and humanity must be ready to defend itself.

All of our governments, parties, and religious squabbles are all just meaningless distractions, from the real threat… Kepler 22b. We must abandon them all, and create an enormous international space exploration, colonization, and defense fund, everything else the government is doing… is pretty much a waste of time, and should be ignored whenever possible.

We need to spend money on pure research, or the Keplonians will eradicate us all. Think I’m lying, think the Keplonian threat isn’t real? Well prove me wrong… Prove there are not invisible aliens on their way to destroy us… And, until you can… Shut up… We all might be about to die : p

This invisible extra terrestrial threat can attack at any moment, and we are ill prepared. Everything else should be of secondary concern. What do you think? Also, it needs a name. Ooohhh… Xenons… So we can be worldwide xenophobes. It’s perfect.

So yes. I’m certain… God told me, or the invisible aliens… I saw them in my minds eye, through the quantum, quantumness, in the quantum infinite quantum, quantum… You get it… Magic told me. I’m absolutely 100% sure, and I’ve never told a lie, The Xenons, from Kepler 22b, are going to destroy us all, if humanity doesn’t unite to defend itself.

Join The Xenophobes!

Proof That Quantum Consciousness Controlling the Material World, or Quantum Physics Going Macro, is Nonsense.

In very short order, I would like to repudiate two very popular theories infecting modern consciousness.

1. That your thoughts control reality at the macro level, and you can will yourself to health, for example, or a new house. This theory is usually proposed by pseudo scientists, spiritualists, healers or as I like to call them, bat shit crazy people.

2. That quantum physics proves that there was just a % chance that our universe was going to come into existence, so it did. The idea that quantum physics applies at the macro level. This is usually proposed by much more accredited, doctors, physicists, and engineers… Or, as I like to call them, bat shit crazy people.

First… Your thoughts controlling reality. I can prove this isn’t true, at the macro level, and I can explain the placebo effect. If you could control reality, using only your consciousness, then… eventually someone watching national geographic, is going to get bit by a poison bug, from the Amazon. One of the listeners to the recent Joe Rogan pod casts, would have had a mushroom grow out of his head, explode, and infect everyone around them with the same condition, thousands of us envisioned it vividly.

Millions of people imagine horrible, but fantastical, insane, ridiculous things all the time… and none of them manifest at the macroscopic level… Why then does the placebo effect work? For the same reason meditation does, and yes, I imagine it’s a skill you can improve on, like meditation. “They’re giving me the cure… I need to eat healthy and stay strong to prove it works”… Instead of “Hmmm… fem months left… any drugs or food I wanted to try?”. Thinking you will be cured, reduces blood pressure, stress, and high risk behavior… I’m sure you could do a study proving that as well, but it’s simply common sense. The same is true of the thought “God is going to save me”, of course it improves your chances of feeling better, that doesn‘t mean that if you say Candyman 3 times in front of a mirror, he‘ll kill you .

Which brings me to the second theory I would like to thoroughly repudiate, for the exact same reason. “Quantum theory proves there was a chance the big bang could happen, so it did. Something can emerge from nothing.”… What the fuck are you talking about? There’s a much smaller chance of the big bang emerging from quantum theory, than there is a bus emerging from quantum theory 6 feet above my head, just for saying this. To suggest the unquantifiable amounts of energy in the big bang emerged from quantum properties, is absolutely ludicrous, and I’m a pretty vehement atheist. I would love to believe it, but it’s crap, and even if it were true, why does that property exist, and is there a purpose to it? It’s almost as if scientists don’t even understand the question.

You might as well tell me there’s a chance god is going to smite me down at random, or cure the world of disease… You have as much luck explaining either rationally.

Consciousness manifests reality, by doing work, and having experiences in the material world only. Quantum physics currently explains best, the realm in which it operates, no more.

Peace and love.

The Transitive Theory of Cognition

Given that the cognition of every human being has at least some logical component (some more than others, of course). I am finding it increasingly easy to believe, that the concept of negative… should be removed from the verbal lexicon. I’ll explain.

If… I = a human being… and Person X = a human being… and I hate, dislike, or have negative feelings towards Person X… I must inevitably, have hatred, dislike or negative feelings towards myself. In fact…

If… I = a thing that exists… and Something Else = a thing that exists… and I hate, dislike, or have negative feelings towards Something Else… I inevitably must feel the same way about my self… Or. At the very least, the logical part of my cognition, will experience twangs of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance… Is not healthy for the human mind. Cognitive dissonance is often at the root of most psychological disorders… but… Am I then saying that everything that exists is wonderful?

No… but, nothing is horrible either. Negatives exist only on balance sheets. In the real world, something exists, or it does not… It is not good, or evil… It simply works… or it does not. Refusing to accept these truths, can bring you only cognitive dissonance and self hatred. This is the great burden of human cognition… of free will, being combined with logic. You choose what values to assign to things…

I ask you to choose values, that are greater than zero…

Peace and love.

That Fool Dave Saves the Northeast, Europe, and Everywhere Else No One Should Live

Just poking fun. Another simple invention I have, for green energy. This one, in the winter… Really… just in the rain… but it’s still a good idea when implemented on a massive scale. Rain gutter, water wheels. Like sun concentration, but for rain, and if they aren’t doing this already, sewer power.

Rain hits roof, goes in rain gutters, which channel it to a focal point, where it drops onto an old fashioned water wheel, connected to an alternator, which connects to the grid, or just a battery you can use to charge an extra heater, when it’s raining. I know this sounds expensive, but the truth is… for a do it yourselfer, it could be really simple and cheap. Old car alternator, and car battery. Charge one, bring it in to power your space heater, while the other charges. It’s a rural minded solution, but one that could help quite a few poor people save money on power in the cold, and reduce emissions.

On a larger scale you could do this in rainforest/marsh land, provided that after channeling the water, you then created a channel through which it would flow to it’s natural resting place.

I don’t understand why there aren’t already water wheels generating power in our sewers… but I don’t understand our sewage system very well anyway. I don’t know what to do with these ideas personally because it never rains in southern California, but if you use them to become a millionaire, maybe give me some credit or a cushy job. I’m going to try to create my own with that whole boiling stone thing.

Peace and love friends.


That Fool Dave Saves the Green Economy… Then, Likely Destroys it.

So I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of the economy, at first, the American one, but also, in general, the world… The same problem comes up over and over… It’s just too easy. Concentrated Solar Power. We have the desert land, it’s made of plentiful materials… satisfies a majority of industrial applications… What’s stopping us?

This fantastic presentation, explains in depth how powerful the technology is, and also reminds us of the 1878 Worlds Fair which debuted a solar steam printing press… If only we had paid the extra part of a penny to use it, rather than coal to print in bulk.

If you have the time, it’s worth all 45 minutes http://vimeo.com/49885434

”The human race must finally utilize direct sun power or revert to barbarism,” Frank Shuman Scientific American 1913… Shortly before… well… an eruption of barbarism.

If you have less time check out Bang Goes the Theory. http://youtu.be/z0_nuvPKIi8

What’s the big problem with employing a large scale concentration project? Well… Oil companies want to destroy green energy and a cabal of bankers… blah blah blah… no thanks… I think it’s much simpler. This is not just a big engineering problem… this is an entire world wide multi million human being shift in the way human beings have to live, problem. Aside from barely being able to pass oil prices assuming small advances in technology, and economies of scale… Millions of engineers need to move into the desert or at least go work there regularly to create this new power grid, and it’s going to be expensive to convince Americans to do this. This is the one thing this video ignores, the concept that normal people might want to do this in their backyard.

I think there is lack of interest and work ethic mostly on behalf of Americans. A lack of blue collar laborers interested in moving to the desert to make renewable energy a reality, and more importantly a lack of well paid engineers interested in leading them. Also a lack of blue collar, or white collar high school grads, who have confidence in their ability to do things like this, without an engineering degree. Playing with sunlight can be very dangerous… but, if you make a decent living, or have a nice savings account, you’re allowed to experiment with these things, and they will cut your energy bills quite a bit if you do it yourself. Check out simple designs at solarfire.co

So… Why do I say “Then, Likely Destroys It”… well… It’s just too cheap. If people move to the desert and buy cheap land, concentrate the sun, and then, just to be a plug whore, buy themselves something from litmotors.com Hollywoodelectrics.com or zeromotors.com … What else do you need? 50k houses slowly sprout up an acre a pop in the desert and form communities… Sounds nice to me, too cheap for who?

Banks, and government. I don’t mean that it’s a conspiracy… but the two biggest financers of projects like this, have put us way too far into debt, for us to pay it back by living nice lives in small communities. This is the only reason I can think of for liberals not trying to support concentrated solar power… They’re supposed to be for green energy… but this is just too cheap, so there is no incentive. I think it’s willful ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

As people choose to utilize this technology despite lack of government or banking incentives, we’ll have to take a serious look at our debt burden. Why Saves the Green Economy… Here, I unveil in crude paint designs, how I think we need to save the world, with portable, large scale green energy. Instead of a molten salt, my theory, is that we should simply focus the energy of the sun on a cement block, or clay block. Substances with a high specific heat, that won’t melt at 1000 degrees. In this insanely simple paint diagram, the only thing that needs explaining is the “trap door”, which is basically a heat shield which deploys at sunset and theoretically blocks heat loss on 5 sides of the cement cube. Thus, the heat energy is lost only to the side with the boiler.

I need to test how long this will continue to boil water… and just in case there isn’t a good boiler on the market… I have another crude paint drawing for what one might look like in your back yard. I’ll post that as well. Though it’s even more embarrassing as far as artistic ability.

I use artistic tools like a 5 year old. That said, the basic principles are sound, I believe… so I’m going to run some tests slowly and carefully over time. Starting likely with the entry level open source design from solarfire.co hopefully it’s a sound theory, and the Cement doesn’t just lose all the heat 30 min after sunset, making my extra addition useless… If it does though… I’ll still just buy a system for boiling water and doing it the normal way. Feel free to laugh at my artwork or my flawed concepts. I am a fool after all, peace and love friends.

solar oven

Edit… Less physically impossible, quite possibly feasible.

water boiling turbine

“Go Forth and Multiply”, the Declaration of War on Reason

This is going to be a long ride… but I hope anyone who chooses to read it, will find it worth the trip… “The night is dark, and full of terrors”, as they oft say in Game of Thrones. Tonight, I would like to argue, that the violent conflicts surrounding religious fundamentalism world wide, are not the result of economic, political, or military conflict, but actually result from the sexual behavior, of members of all of the worlds major religions. “If god wills it”, and “Go forth and multiply” are outright declarations of war against reasonable, honest, hard working people.

If you don’t use condoms, and are still a human being with only limited control of their sexual impulses… A very convenient phenomenon will emerge, god will “will” you, to have many children. If, on the other hand, you are a reasonable person, who considers the consequences of your actions… You will choose to have very few children, only ones you can support and feed.

Why is this a war? The worlds major religious philosophies are literally designed to starve out decent, kind hearted, reasonable people. If people of faith keep having children they can’t feed, who do they rely on? Charity, State, or Church. Thus, all the people immediately surrounding communities of faith are forced, through empathy, violence, or social structure to feed their children. Rational people previously considering one child, now can’t afford any, because they have to pay for the five “god willed”.

Through the force of their lack of sexual self control, the major religions of the world, will bleed the earth dry. “We have dominion over all the beasts… god said so”… Really? Well, science doesn’t support his claim. Science would suggest that we are one of the beasts, and if we don’t maintain our habitat, it will eventually cease to sustain our existence. Pretty big difference there. One with violent consequences that will involve millions of people starving or declaring war.

If there was a sense of community in the world… Would people who take the word of god so literally, that they produce children they can’t feed, based only in faith… be the ones this community was hoping would have 5 children? I would like to assert… Of course not.

This is why atheists have so often tried to extinguish religion… but I would argue in doing so, they made evil entity number 2, the state, their new gods. You can’t stop someone from believing in nonsense, you can only make it illegal to believe nonsense. So, when atheists chose socialism as the answer to the tyranny of religion, they made their greatest mistake in recent memory. Two fundamental flaws exist in the concept that state force, should inspire our sense of community.

One, is that as the philosophy of socialism was founded, the most sympathetic, and often poor people, were elderly. In setting up the “safety net” with primary concern for the elderly, rather than the young, however, an interesting problem emerges… Elderly people, are likely to be poor… but the people who live the longest, and thus gain the most from retirement and health care programs, are wealthy majorities. If you were poor or middle class, at a young age, you will be poor when you are elderly… but you’re also, far more likely to be dead. Thus, the “safety net” pumps money from poor to rich, and blue collar to white, not the other way around.

The second… Hiding religious philosophy doesn’t change birth rates. In forcing the state to unify, to take care of everyone… socialism literally lashes the reasonable people, to the literalists, forcing them into a life of servitude to believers in god, as they inevitably become a smaller and more dislike minority worldwide. The State, and the Church, have declared war on reason. They have declared war, on being a decent human being, who lives within their means… and it must stop.

How? What tool remains to save us? Secular Charity. In forcing the various literalists of the world to ask for charity, because of their mistaken life choices, we show the way for their children to rise above dogma, and be someone with the capacity to give, and contribute, rather than someone constantly at the mercy of the compassion of others.
Many people forget what the root of the theory of capitalism is… “Most of us are smart, and kind… We’ll figure it out, without a central authority”. This is why I am often disheartened to see fellow atheists look to the state to solve problems. It is not the answer, it will only re enforce the emerging pattern; literalists, of all faiths, are out reproducing, everyone else. In desert regions, with virtually no food, the warfare aspect of this becomes all too evident. If the various religions weren’t so good at killing one another, they’d be starving to death, because they have completely unsustainable population growth.

I am not talking about “capitalism” as currently practiced by western governments, with central banks giving 0% interest loans to whoever the government feels like sponsoring next. I’m talking about the theoretical framework capitalism provided for looking at the world. Neither the state, nor the church can force me to raise the child, you chose to have. If I do so, it should be out of my own good nature, and free choice. Capitalism insists, that people are basically good, and without a church, state, or any central authority, they will help one another, and the best among them will naturally find status, and resources.

In a polite reasonable society, if you wish to move towards theocracy, liberal democracy, socialism, or communism… You must first begin your argument, by insisting that human beings are inherently evil, and they can’t be trusted. You must then prove, that religious, or state authorities, have a better track record of non violence than civilians. If intellectuals insist on this distinction through shame, and ridicule, it will only be a matter of time, before everyone begins the argument with “What are we going to put in place of a central banking system, and democratic governance by force? How can we find peaceful solutions to these problems without a violent central authority?”

I think the answer lies in not for profit, government by voluntary contribution. Free online public education, and expensive private education, that everyone knows is a lot better. Personal public retirement accounts which naturally transfer to dependents, or a charity of choice upon early death. Local public hospitals, again funded by voluntary contribution, to avoid the moral hazard of forcing everyone to pay for drunks, smokers, and fatties by force.

Whatever decisions we make… I think it’s important to remember the framing of the argument for capitalism. If you want to argue for a central authority, Christian, Muslim, Democratic, or Authoritarian, you must start by admitting “I think civilians are inherently evil… and left to their own devices, they would destroy themselves… I think my authority will save them”. I imagine this view will be very unpopular, as it always has been among the vast majority of common, reasonable people.

Why do most communes fail, and why should all religions fail? Sexual behavior, and jealousy. No one wants to live in a world, where they contribute equally, share resources… and then only a small number of religious, charismatic, or attractive people, have all the sex and children. Except, of course, that small number of attractive, charismatic, or religions men and women.

Socialism, and religion, by forcing reasonable people to pay for the greedy, have always been forces violently opposed to reason. The concept that I am my brothers keeper, enslaves the good to the evil, the hard working, to the lazy, and the sharp to the dull. Modern “capitalism” is no better… Certainly people of inherited wealth would love to divide up control over their fellow humans as well, and when‘s the last time someone got rich inventing something?

Theoretical capitalism however; The concept of only trading with, and only letting people acquire wealth, who make peaceful contributions to society, the concept of letting people who contribute a little more, have a little more sex and children, and the concept that civilians would be more likely to do this freely, than by force… are better than their alternatives, and more popular, at least in my mind.

Of course, in my mind, this is a war, reason can win.

Peace and love friends…

That Fool Dave Saves the Guns

“The man who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security, Benjamin Franklin said that… Yeah… well… Fuck Benjamin Franklin! That fat slave owner” Jim Norton.

Great one liner, and I laughed at it, because I agreed with it. He was talking about the TSA, and people who complain about scans/pat downs… I don’t think it’s “out of control”… As he said “People are willing to blow themselves up dick first”, and no one really knows how to deal with that. A plane is an enormous weapon with a guaranteed concentrated group of people.

That said, I don’t mind the TSA… but, I also don’t think Americans will ever let someone hijack a plane again. Now that intentions are clear, we’re cowboys at heart still, and I like that about us… I like that a terrorist now has more to fear from the passengers, than the authorities. I could live without the TSA, I think we’d do fine.

I feel the same way about guns… but unlike the TSA, which I can endure. I don’t want to endure harsh national gun restrictions… Why?

In my mind, the major conflict over gun rights is a conflict between a rural way of life, versus an urban one. People often forget that rural areas have an enormous brain drain, called cities. The best and brightest move out, leaving often poor uneducated communities. What is the one thing these communities typically have to offer a wealthy or intelligent individual?

Freedom… I know it sounds tacky… but I don’t mean it that way, I mean it in a very literal technical sense. If you have a good job, and want to live outside of the city limits, you can own land… Real land, vast tracks of open space.

Aside from runways, paragliding, kayaking etc… What’s one of the coolest things you can do when there’s no one around to put in danger? Any of you liberals, not thinking about guns or explosives right now… Have you ever seen “Mythbusters”, because they make owning high powered rifles and grenades look like a lot of fun for people in the middle of nowhere.

Rather than immediately thinking “Well, that’s violence on TV”… etc… Just recognize that there are 2 incredibly under discussed advantages of living in a rural area, with weak substance laws, and strong privacy laws. You can conduct experiments, and you can blow stuff up.

Both of these rights are absolutely crucial… Why? The first is obvious… Tesla… We’d put him in jail today, in a heartbeat. This is what is stifling economic growth, worldwide. “The man who shook New York” would have been his terrorist brand before he was executed today, and it’s a tragedy.

Why blow stuff up, shoot high powered rifles, or buy an old tank? Because some people, think it’s fun. Deep in the minds of most men, and plenty of women, is a child that wants the coolest, biggest toys. Some want a kite to hang from, or parachute, or rubber band… but if you want to mess around with a rocket launcher, in the middle of nowhere, more power to you.

Does this mean there should be no gun laws? Not at all. The same rocket launcher is, and should be, illegal in any city where people gather by the tens of thousands. Gun laws should limit people to hunting weapons, 6 shooters, and shotguns in major cities, freely, by choice. That said, we shouldn’t take away a human beings right to be left alone, with awesome toys, in the middle of nowhere… until they actually get violent. Being left alone, doesn’t include protecting rapists or wife beaters of course, but that‘s another issue.

It does include letting Tesla be Tesla. It does include letting Hunter S Thompson play with awesome guns on his 60 acre ranch. Let the places in the middle of nowhere who have nothing to offer but privacy, and lax legislation, continue to offer it, provided they never encourage actual violence. Let the middle of nowhere be a refuge for experimentation and madness.

Why else is this important? Well… I’ve never killed a child with a flying killer robot… Have you? I reckon 99% of Americans have never killed a child with a robot. I bet there are people on 30 acre ranches right now playing with flying killer robots, and almost none of them killed any children with their toys… You know who has killed a lot of children with flying killer robots? Employees of the United States Government.

The reason you should never trade the slightest bit of liberty for security… Is that civilians are always less dangerous than members of government. We almost only call on government when a situation escalates to violence, because they are the best at it. In almost all Western societies save America, the government has a monopoly on the tools of violence. Our backwards approach to regulated militias, has allowed normal civilians of means, to choose to purchase tools of self defense of almost military grade. This is not a threat to our security, it is a display of our security.

If you live 100 miles outside of town, and a group of rapists, murderers, or thieves, sneak on your property, it is perfectly legal to kill them, and then call the police here. Why? Almost all of European civilization thinks this is crazy… but isn’t that how people who would organize themselves into gangs and bandits want it?

Imagine you’re desperate, poor, angry, and on the run from police… Wouldn’t it be great if everywhere in the country there wasn’t a patrol car, you were the best armed person? Wouldn’t it be great if your stolen or black market assault rifle, was always pitted against a kitchen knife as soon as you got 10 miles away from a sheriff?

In a city, letting someone “defend property” with weapons that could win against 5 intruders with pistols… sounds crazy…. Because it is… the second you get a hundred miles away from a major city… It’s not crazy… It’s risky… You could shoot yourself accidentally. If you store guns improperly someone could steal them, they could blow up, or be used by a member of the family… but if you ever get assaulted, or invaded… and the police are 20 min away, that’s risky too. If people choose one risk over the other, that’s up to them.

Finally… Mental health. There has been a lot of talk about mental health threats, and what we can do to limit gun ownership among crazy people. This is very dangerous. If doctor patient confidentiality is to be violated to enforce gun laws, gun owners will immediately begin to justifiably fear seeking help for mental illness. This is an enormous moral hazard, that I virtually guarantee would have a negative impact on gun violence. Just the discussion of making mental health gun laws, is making a gun owner thinking about getting help, reconsider, right now.

Please don’t discourage young hunters who get depressed from seeking help they might desperately need.

So… That’s how I would save guns. Strict local and aerial laws… virtually no control in small communities. Leave people who want to be left alone, alone. Don’t bring your high powered weapons to a baseball game, buy them in the desert/forest, shoot them in the desert/forest, or visit someone doing the same. If you do that… no one should ever have a problem with you.

Just to be clear. I am not, nor really intend, to be a gun owner. If I was, I’d buy a shotgun or six shooter… but I occasionally like the idea of moving into the middle of nowhere… and if I did that… I could totally see myself playing with some crazy toys. Making an electric helicopter, designing solar concentrators, even setting up a real life Borderlands 2 style obstacle course and shooting range… Why not take advantage of the fact there’s no one around?

That Fool Dave Saves the Empire

Before we start… Of course, I mean the American empire, not because it’s the most important empire necessarily, or because it is the worst… or best… but simply because I live here, and I know the most about this particular empire.

While I do admit, that we are an empire, I would always try to insist that we add the qualifier, economic empire…  and over this issue I have had much disagreement with progressive friends.  I often, for example, remind some of my progressive friends who insist that this is the “evil American empire trying to control the world”…  Well… Not really.  For the most powerful military nation in the world, we have probably taken less territory, than any other.  At no time in human history, that I can think of, has the most powerful nation in the world, taken so little territory.  We have also never fought the “We’re the best in the world and everyone else should die” war, as most nations have.

The response is often…  “Well, that’s not how it’s done anymore, you don’t take territory, you finance puppets, and back people it’s all economic”.  To my progressive friends who agree with this sentiment… Yes, you are right… Thanks to America, pure warfare, and the theft of territory, directly by force, is now slowly going the way of the buffalo.  We are a brutal economic empire… but, simply by virtue of choosing this path, after inventing the bomb…  The United States of America, permanently changed the game among first world nations.

That being said… In our wars of aggression, or revenge, or profit, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, we took an enormous step backwards, and have begun to resemble the empires that all of humanity once feared.  I like to believe, that this will go down as the worst decade in American history, that we will return to our shores and once again leave the people of the world alone, save to occasionally sell them the few products we actually make well.  If we continue the path of old school imperialism into Iran… We will regret it.  Not because America will lose… Simply because human life will be lost needlessly, and everyone loses in that case.

The people of the United States of America, want to compete with our neighbors…  economically.  We don’t want to compete with any of you militarily…  You’re not competition in that venue…  If people choose the path of territorial old school warfare again, the United States of America, will be the nation that turns the surface of the earth to glass, and shatters it on the crust.  The ancient ways of humanity are over, whether the rest of the world likes in or not… because of mutually assured destruction.  If you think the United States is trying to take over Afghanistan or invade China, you’re mad.  That’s not how it works anymore… but for what it is worth, that is one thing that you can thank America for, as well as our brutal competitors, the Russians and Chinese.

There are no terrorists in the world like us.  We’re the crazy ones.  We built the mechanism for the destruction of humanity, in the hopes that it would bring world peace and prosperity… Islamic fundamentalists have nothing on that logic.  So…  Spaghetti monster in the sky please save the American empire… by disassembling it, and returning it to the free democratic republic it once was.  Get the Army corps of engineers to teach the Army how to rebuild Detroit, and get the hell back to home soil.  Fix the NDAA, end the Patriot Act, Free Bradley Manning, and impose a human rights tariff…  Wait, that’s our job as active citizens.  Fuck You Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!…  Sometimes I’m not even sure if I believe in you at all.

In short, economic imperialism, was an enormous upgrade from it’s predecessor… but it’s not good enough, and stop going backwards America.

That Fool Dave Saves the Religion – Capitalism

So… Why is capitalism a religion? Just like all major religions, it is, at its core, obsessed with sex. Capitalism, makes wealth, an alternative form of plumage, based on contributions one makes to society. Before merit based pay, and merit based rewards, men and women used two major tools to make sexual choices… Genetics, and “breeding”… Symmetry, fertility, hips, skin, all of these things, both sexes are built to be attracted to, and whether we admit it or not, we can’t help but fall for our genetic programming some times. “Breeding”, represented, inherited wealth, which was one of the only forms of power (save in small pockets of society, for example the Mongols for a time actually had their best warrior lead).

Capitalism… Turned that idea on it’s head, especially in America, at the beginning. “Breeding” didn’t mean anything. You could lose a fortune, or gain one here, much more easily than in any other place in the world. Very few wealthy people moved here, to jump in wagons and head out west. We were mostly farmers, laborers, and puritans. As rich, cutthroat, and powerful as these men would become… Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt… These men were born poor, laboring class at best. One was sold into indentured servitude to a rich man… and he probably had it the easiest.

When Andrew Carnegie, is at the peak of his powers… It doesn’t matter if he’s symmetric, or fertile, or tall, or strong… He can meet any man or woman of his choice. Just like a blue blooded Englishman. No one can make anyone fall in love, but certainly being rich and powerful in society, not because of your birth, but because of your wisdom and insight, because you made more steel for this country than anyone has ever seen… it doesn’t hurt in the pursuit of “high value sexual targets”. Capitalism, rooted in Darwinism, survival of the fittest… is all about, providing men who contribute greatly to society, with high value sexual targets.

This is an incredibly patriarchal and oppressive form of sexual control before the sexual revolution, and I am not defending it, merely explaining it. I would also argue, that it is less patriarchal, and more society focused than aristocracy and “breeding”. People who do incredible things for society, are objectively more valuable than people who notoriously inbreed, and inherit their money. However, there is no meaningful role for women in this society… and men, after competing over social stature by merit, are still allowed to look at women, solely through the naturalistic lens, of symmetry, hips, fertility, etc.

This needed to change, and the feminist movement took great steps to do so… but, during the conflict, capitalism, seems to have lost its roots. We no longer talk about how it is tied directly to ideas of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and sexual options of high perceived value. So the motor of the world, is gumming up.

In my mind, the new revolution, is about forcing men to see women as much for who they are, and how much they contribute, as how they look, much as capitalism, and at times religions, forced this on women generations ago. Many would turn the other way. Many would encourage orgies and sexual liberation… but that just created airborne gonorrhea, and left an generation of children without adult parents… So, I don’t think that’s working out so well.

I would suggest that during the feminist movement, and civil rights movement, corporations used the glut in the labor market, to stagnate and reduce pay of labor in the community. Thus, relegating mediocre producing men and women both, to a slightly lower standard of living than previously enjoyed. Do you realize, that at numerous times in human history, a single man has been able to work 40-60 hours a week, and provide for a family of 4? How come no man or woman laborer, regardless of color could afford to do that in today’s society? Per person, with automation, we produce far more goods than our ancestors… Shouldn’t we be paid as well as they were if not way more?

I would like to suggest that the future of capitalism, is a labor rights movement, centered around gender neutral single parent incomes. Where a man and a woman can compete on equal ground for the provider role, and can gain self esteem from knowing that they feed their family. Whichever contributor society values more on the free market, can work and provide, while the other can provide the absolutely necessary role of parent, and community builder… which society has come to neglect over the last four decades.

Women have been less unemployed than men, for almost a generation. They have also been better educated than men for almost a generation (both of these things in America)… Why are women not able to labor, and provide for a family of four yet? We have lost the labor rights movement, and we have lost the struggle for maintaining a tight family structure, but we can build those things again, in my mind, through gender neutral single parent incomes.

What does the role of parent entail? Museums, art galleries, reading, cooking, keeping the place clean, engaging with the community, finding weekend trips, projects and events, civil activism, and possibly starting a small family business. The parent, is also the person who should know what local politicians and issues are on the ballot. The role of active parent is as important as any economic contribution to society has ever been. It creates people who will continue to contribute to society. Without an active parent at home, we have been relying heavily on the public school system, and I’ve got news for you… It’s not their job to raise your kid, and teach them right from wrong… If you don’t want to do that… Stop fucking : p

Are any of these roles set in stone, or should they be forced on anyone? No… Of course not… That would be insane… but, if we, as human beings, don’t realize, that for our labor, we deserve enough money to provide for a family of four… This will be an enormous mistake, because we have already earned it through our evolving skill sets and interactions with technology. Once we have this economic power, I see the return to gender neutral single parent incomes, as the natural norm, which requires no force to implement.

Why? Because it’s easy to start a small at home craft business now. Instead of getting a job to kill time while your child is at school, you can buy a 3d printer, or silk screener, and be your own boss… Why would you want to work for someone else?

What’s in it for women? This is where it gets tricky, because history, and cultural conditioning, might, at first lead to them being more likely to return to the parent role, in some ways unfairly… but, what’s in it for women? The same exact thing, that has always been in it for men… Perceived high value sexual targets.

Women who don’t fall into the role of parent, because they contribute enough to society, to provide for a family of four, will now have the plumage men once did. Young attractive, not particularly useful or productive men, will faun all over them… That’s all men ever got with patriarchy… That’s equality.

That’s our carrot… Does it work for women? I think so, though I know few who would admit it. In order for this to work though, men and women need to stop arguing over unequal pay, and band together to fight for the fact that we all produce 5 times as many goods as we used to, and we get paid less… There needs to be a visceral and angry labor movement that is unified around gender neutral single parent incomes, and merit based pay above that. There needs to be a ladder to climb, money needs to be distributed by merit, and needs to act as social and sexual plumage… but we all need to be able to provide for a family of four, if we labor our asses off for 40 hours a week, because we’ve earned that, we have the skills for it.

Capitalism may die. Automation, may prove Marx right, and lead to the end of working labor… but, even if that ends up being true, for thousands of years, men have used money as plumage… and it worked better than hitting women over the head with rocks. Capitalism, is the most functional religion, which ever existed, and it brought us to this phase in human evolution. Personally, I think if we don’t fight to get it back, men and women alike… Will miss it.

We can’t all be born great looking, and not everyone will grow up to be hard working, or nice. Creating an objective system of evaluating our contribution to human society, is a great way of helping some of the people who aren’t both, find each other, and provide each other value. Or, maybe I’m just crazy and Freudian : p

Did Coursera Steal My Webcam Idea? That Fool Dave Saves Public Education

So, a few months ago I posted a conversation on Ted Conversations, talking about my strategy for public education.  http://t.co/4Z3MRDrh  Basically.  We need one international online public school.  One of the highlights, in my mind, was the idea that testing should require students to have webcams, and someone should be paid a living wage to watch a few test takers, and make sure they are staying on the website, and not looking at books or other source material while testing.

Then recently I read… Hey that’s what Coursera is doing… and their speaker, uses a ted photo… Did they jack me, or do great minds think alike?


That frustration aside however, there were other elements of this idea which were innovative.   We already have a public university system, write it into teachers contracts that they have to record their classes, and post them.  As incentive enter a small pay increase, and rewards, for the most popular teachers online.  Ask each teacher to label each question they are asked with a tag, so any student with that question, can find the answer.

This could create teaching celebrities, and we could offer million dollar prizes to the “Best Physics/Algebra/Literature Teacher of 2013” because they have millions of students.

If you’re in politics, and you want a world changing education system… You want one international online public school.



It’s just a frustration
Spreading all over this desperate nation
It’s the inhalation

Leads to desperation
We yearn for penetration
Just to rise our station
So what’s my motivation?

Instantaneous levitation
Removal of complications
For more peaceful meditations
And beautiful illustrations

But it requires preparation
It’s a crooked administration
That’s neglecting education
By faking gratification

The government gives misinformation
And the truth needs representation
It’s an intellectual molestation
Of a people obsessed with recreation

It’s just an irritation
Infecting people looking for stimulation
It’s the new vacation

False justification
We strive for deviation
Lacking clarification
Our lives are quite a glorious exploration

We’re shooting for perfection
We’re hoping for redemption
We have a funny way of showing affection
What’s the connection?

It’s just another function
Of self destruction
In a world full of corruption
And mass consumption

Another relaxation
A little flirtation
For the propagation

Getting lost in translation
And misrepresentation
We’re giving in to temptation
And over consuming elation

These social permutations
Are feeding mass litigation
There’s so much incarceration
With little investigation

You’re feeling the vibrations
Ignoring the palpitations
But there’s no time for captivation
You’re feeling the dehydration

You’re always in confrontation
And taking some medication
Just to stop the rotation
Get control of navigation

What we need is a transformation
To stop watching the TV Stations
I’m sick of the presentations
It’s time for some preservation

There’s less precipitation
Environmental devastation
It’s just our situation
As one of the population

Six billion different shuns, with seemingly no relation

Good does not defeat evil, evil defeats evil. Sanity does not defeat insanity, insanity defeats insanity… On World War 2

I’ve been listening to Hardcore History a lot lately, a fascinating podcast, from, in my mind, a brilliant historian Dan Carlin dancarlin.com I highly recommend it for anyone who loves history, philosophy, and politics. In a particular series “Ghosts of the Osfront”, the preface includes the explanation “This is a story that is not a good guy versus bad guy story, this is a bad guy versus bad guy story, and those are always the most difficult to tell”

As an American High School student, I knew that America won World War 2, and freedom triumphed over fascism. When I became interested in history, as an adult, I of course realized that this was a bit of an exaggeration. I am confident that in today’s society, even a modern American military strategist could share a beer and a laugh with any military historian, over how naïve I had been to think such nonsense. Stalin won World War 2.

They probably wouldn’t phrase it that way, but in essence, that would now be the consensus opinion. What did the Soviet Union have, that other allies lacked? Well, vast land of course, but I’m going to actually propose something a bit darker, they had “unity”… They didn’t really have to bother with elections. Days after war broke out, everyone who worked in a factory in the west, had a new job… moving every piece of equipment in the factory, to the east, and adjusting production. You can’t do that in a “real democracy”, or “republic”. You can’t just move millions of families in days, with no debate. All production not essential for the war effort, instantly ceased. In the words of Louis CK “It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you have no regard for human life”.

For years I’ve known, that we played an important role in the war, mostly through technology, but our role was overstated. It never really sunk in until recently, that the entire “moral” of the war, had been lost on me, because my focus, was on my home nation, America… and, to be fair… If anyone came out of WW2 stronger than they went in, and thus “won”, it was America. Our financial empire was born exporting to reconstructing regions.

The “moral” of the actual war however, is the title of this blog. Good does not defeat evil, evil defeats evil. Sanity does not defeat insanity, insanity defeats insanity. This gets back to my last piece on Dunbar’s number, if you’ll remember, I made the point that no one really knows 250 people, thus no one should claim to have the mental acuity to intuit how to control more than that. I suggested that this virtually proves libertarianism, and I would like to submit this, as exhibit b… Throughout history, whenever any person, or group, has claimed the right to shape the world in their image on an epic scale… Whenever an evil psychopath goes on a violent rampage… another evil psycho defeats them.

If you allow there to be great power. If your group or society, submits to the idea, that one person, or a majority of people, can control the lives of others… You have created a monster… That monster, will either eat itself, or be destroyed by another monster. The short story of World War 2, is that Fascism fought Communism, and Communism won… Immediately after which, it committed suicide. If America, insists on becoming the next central authority, if we must continue the exponential growth of the military industrial complex… another madman will eventually rise up, and destroy us, because we will have become the thing, that always gets destroyed. To quote a cheesy movie “Things will work out in the end, so if they have not worked out, then it is not yet the end”.

The meek inherit the earth, because if you believe power should exist, its corruption will destroy you, or you will be destroyed by another person of power. Because, if being a corrupt madman is tolerable “Well hey, I could be a better corrupt madman than him… Why don’t I have that power?”.

Power creates psychopaths. Society and unity create power. If, as a human race, we can stop looking for leadership, control, and power… We do not have to suffer the fate of the past. If we cannot, we will not be defeated by truth and justice, another violent psychopath will come along… and then destroy itself.

Peace and Love Friends,
David Hamilton

Icona Pop “I Love It”… The Downfall of Western Civilization?

I was recently infected with this song during a shoe advertisement… and couldn’t get it out of my head for two reasons. One, it reminds me of something I talk a lot about… the other, I’ll admit it… It’s catchy simple pop. Who doesn’t occasionally get a goofy pop song stuck in their head?

I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone.
I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn.
I threw your sh*t into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.
I crashed my car into the bridge.

I don’t care, I love it. I don’t care.

You’re on a different road, I’m in the milky way
You want me down on earth, but I am up in space
You’re so damn hard to please, we gotta kill this switch
You’re from the 70’s, but I’m a 90’s b*tch

I love it!
I love it!

Repeat 3 times… Yes, those are all the lyrics to this 3 minute song, which got more than 20 million views on you tube, then topped Dance charts in Germany, Sweden, Australia, and America. Featured in an episode of HBO’s hit “Girls”, this one song Icona Pop album “I love it”, sold over 1 million copies. So what? Well, when I heard this song, the first thing I thought was… So… Am I allowed to say this is sexist?

I don’t even mean sexist against men. I mean… Two women from Sweden, who I don’t think have major label support, made this song. The main customer, for the song, and the shoe store is women… As a man, if women like this song, and the ad works on them, am I allowed to say it‘s still insanely self destructive to pass this off as culture? Is it patriarchal for me to think I know better, or is this song an example of a patriarchal culture abusing women? If it’s an example of patriarchal culture, then, why don’t I see any men involved in it? Where are the oppressors?

For a moment, imagine this song from the perspective of a man, with traditional values, in love with this girl. As a culture… how do we teach men to react to this now? Just deal with it? Welcome to the new world? One day you’re in love, the next, she throws your stuff out, wrecks her car and says “I don’t care, I love it”. There’s no message to this song, it’s just a pure glorification of chaos.

This song reflects something I talk about a lot, but… the only competent critique of the 1960’s is that they shattered traditional values, for the better, but then replaced them with… nothing. The 70-90’s on into today, are culturally wrought with self destructive, substance abusing, lazy, whiny, shit, passing itself off as artwork. There are no instruments in this song… These two women can’t sing, or play music. It’s just autotune, and the default pop dance beat 1, 2, 3, 4, over and over, no creative drumming… How is this art? How is this getting 20 million views?

I love the advancements society made in the 1960’s. I believe empowering women, is the key to ending poverty… but, if this is the culture we create in the vacuum… there’s nothing empowering to anyone about it. This is a culture of self destruction, and if there is no adult in the room to say it anymore… We’re in serious trouble. I don’t want a bitch who‘s always in space, whatever decade she’s born in. No one should. It’s not a good look. Am I just being a crotchety old man?

Yes… I realize I’m culturally analyzing a dance song… but dance music is incredibly popular among young people. It’s a big part of our modern culture… What messages does it impart? There are a hundred pop songs I could write the same rant about, this one just happened to be so obviously self destructive, and used to sell shoes, so it stood out. No offense to Icona Pop personally, I actually listened to this while hitting the heavy bag, 1, 2, 3, 4 is great for working out, and dancing, and it’s a catchy song… but is there a reason that all the best modern music for dancing and exercise seems to have the message “let it burn”?

I think we need a more nuanced cultural approach.

Peace and love.

How I Lost a Hundred Pounds, in an “Incredibly Unhealthy” Way

So, I was the fat kid growing up. At age 22 or 23 I topped out at roughly 280 lbs… This was particularly high, and in reality only lasted a few days, but I floated around 250 for quite some time. For most of those 22 years, I was on a diet. Atkins, or weight watchers, or some weird new fad… all leading me further and further down the rabbit hole. I’d lose ten pounds in ten days, then crave everything I hadn’t eaten for days, and gain it all back in 2.

What changed at 23ish? Diet and Exercise? No, of course not… Cigarettes? Well, that started at about 20, but it probably helped… What really helped however, was a new philosophy. One which, everything I have read, suggests, is incredibly unhealthy, but one which worked for me… So why wouldn’t I share it?

Basically, the That Fool Dave Diet, is very simple. You only allow yourself to eat delicious food, and you only eat once per day. Fruit, veggies, and drink calories, that’s it, all the way until dinner. Then, eat whatever you want, but go to, or pick it up from a restaurant, not a fast food place, or cook it yourself.

Mostly I have an energy drink or smoothie in the morning, a couple light snacks during the day… but then, for dinner… Thai, Pizza, Chinese, big meals, appetizers, desserts… go for it. By not buying the first two meals of the day, I tend to afford a nice 10-15 dollar feast for dinner.

Why do “experts” say this is “unhealthy”. It makes your body enter what has been called “starvation mode” and actually begins to naturally shrink the size of your stomach… Why do I put experts and unhealthy in quotes… because it’s basically a natural version of the lap band, which, if you are 100 pounds overweight, any of them would happily recommend.

Now… Do I occasionally have some energy loss and indigestion? Yes… but, I had that when I ate junk food all day too. So… If you, like me at a younger age, are simply out of control in your eating habits, you might want to try this diet.

Once I got under 200 pounds again, exercise became much easier, but I still never got into a great pattern of behavior regarding fitness. A couple years ago I took up boxing for about 6 months and got down to 160, now I’m a little lazy and back to 170… But the diet still basically works for me. I’d like to add breakfast and regular exercise to the routine, and hopefully I will again this year… but if you’re really unhealthy already, because of your weight, and you can’t get into a steady fitness routine… Try it out “From now on, I’m only going to eat delicious food, and once per day”.

I am not an expert on fitness… so take this advice with a grain of salt, but it worked for me.

On My First, and So Far, Only… Psychedelic Experience, and My Faith

In the spirit of Graham Hancock… Today I’m going to open up about my one, and so far, only psychedelic experience. No, I’m not necessarily opposed to having another, but it is illegal, and while the experience changed my life, I didn’t feel like it was one I would benefit from engaging in regularly.

At about 24 years old, fascinated by numerous accounts of revelation, I took a relatively large dose of mushrooms, and began a short, but beautiful hallucinogenic journey. The stars moved, and shot across the sky, plants and even simple street lights and man made paths had a beauty they otherwise could not have… and I felt a supreme sense of oneness with the universe. All of this was interesting, but if it were all that happened, I wouldn’t find this worth talking about, because it sounds like exactly the sort of thing which could become addictive, and it’s also a poison, not something I should suggest or talk about lightly. There is of course one other aspect of this story, which did make it worth discussing…

About halfway through the experience, having walked a few feet down a path, we came to a small botany preserve, with wonderful plant life. While the others wandered through the preserve, I stopped for several minutes, fixated, on a single plant… Not just a single plant, but the leaf of a single plant, and had a revelation, that would inform my faith, and change my personality, for the rest of my life.

That leaf, was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen in my life. Not just the leaf though, as the hallucination brought me deeper in, I could see the channels through which water molecules rushed, living cells reproducing and expanding in this, almost perfect symmetry… and the almost, was the best part, the imperfection, the struggle this leaf went through to survive, how easily any animal could have cast its life aside. The structure of the atom is the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen…

Everything in the world, is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen, and that is our struggle… That is the experience of infancy, learning to establish relative values, and titles, labels in order to describe things to one another, but it always devalues them. Almost every one of our thoughts, place things into categories, and relative values, but things are not relative… they are objective, and the only key to living a happy life, is to realize that objectively, everything which exists, is good, it is lucky to do so. It doesn’t matter, and we can’t understand if there is a creator, we must simply learn to teach one another, that since things exist, rather than not… As something which exists, we must be on the side of the argument, which suggests that existence is good.

It is better to exist than not, that is all that I think anyone need have faith in. Everything you have ever seen is the most beautiful thing in the world, you’ve just trained yourself to ignore it. That is what my one and only psychedelic experience taught me. I think it may be the only thing the experience has of value. It gives you a sense of the revelatory nature with which you should embrace life… but you can’t just sit around on nice carpets and drop acid, you’ll starve to death. I wouldn’t recommend doing drugs, but I had an interesting experience on one, it influenced my life… and thus I believe it was worth discussing. I constantly come back to this basic assumption whenever I experience worry or distress, as something which exists, it is important for me to believe that existence is better than not. Hopefully, some of you find this insight interesting as well.

Peace and love friends.