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

Advertisements

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2012/07/18/oxford-scholar-facebook-wont-widen-your-social-circle/

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

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.

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.

That Fool Dave Explores the Concept of Racism, in Geologic Time

To preface, racism exists, it is horrible, and it is ruining lives worldwide, with particularly harsh effects in the United States. There is no defense for racism, and if I suggest anything in this, which may sound racist, or encouraging of it… Please, correct, refute, or yell at me on Twitter, I will try to edit the piece as well as explore my own shortcomings if this is the case.

In this piece I would like to look at racism from a perspective of geological time, and explore ways we may view it in the future. Christopher Hitchens once said of monotheism, that from his atheist perspective, in comparison to polytheism which suggested many gods, at least Monotheists were getting closer to the truth. This is what I would like to discuss in regards to American racism… Before America began immigrating people like crazy, the concept of racism, didn’t really make any sense. It existed, slavery is a perfect example, but vicious nationalism pitted virtually every nation against all of its neighbors. So in that sense, in geologic time, I would like to suggest that what can now almost be described as 3 or 4 races of people with great tension, and mild violence, is actually a huge upgrade, from the 100’s of tribes who used to hate one another… because the goal, is of course to get down to 1 tribe with individual liberties.

Why is this important?… Well one reason is… White people. One of the problems with looking at white people as an oppressive majority in America… is that more than half of us came through Ellis Island, fleeing crazy European wars, against other Europeans. Until about 1930 ish, if you were to suggest that white people were an oppressive majority in America, they would have looked at you like you were crazy “We still hate each other, the Irish are shiftless, the Italians are criminals, the British and French are poofs”… there is no unified group “white people” in America at that time, despite harsh racism.

In the rest of the world of course, the concept of white people makes perfect sense. As they say in Catch 22 “Whoever wants to get you killed is the enemy, no matter which side they’re on”. As white people invaded and took over, of course the native Americans, didn’t really care about our cultural differences amongst one another, we were stealing their land. Every European nation was a colonizer, occupier, or a trader taking advantage of wage imbalances… From the perspective of a “white person” now though, seeing pre 1900 Europe as “white people” still doesn’t make much sense. Every tribe of white people, was constantly at war with every other tribe of white people, at the same time they fought other races. The same was true of African or Latin people… There is no universal sense of community at this time in world history, or to this day.

I alternate between atheist, antitheist, and agnostic, but what has never changed since my birth in 1982, is that I think most major religions are inherently sexist, encourage unsustainable behavior, and make people obedient, something I’m not a fan of. I’m second generation American, a white mutt, and come from a family of laborers, who never retired with money. I don’t have much connection to my Scottish, German, or Polish roots… In fact, Barcelona, Spain, and Everywhere Italy, resonated with me far more on my trip through Europe. So, while I am obviously a white male, I don’t’ feel much of a sense of privilege or entitlement. In fact, as an out atheist, according to most studies, I am still far more distrusted, and assumed to be engaged in evil behavior, than any other minority in America. I’m sure Jewish Americans feel the same way “Entitled, half the country still hates me too you know”.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

It’s a very odd sentiment… but it’s also one that’s cross racial. If you live in China or Japan… the concept of Asian people is a bit crazy . If you live in Rwanda, black people, or African people, is still a very questionable ephemeral theory. There are legitimate parties throughout Europe right now, running on a platform of ending legal immigration, from anywhere. There are legitimate nationalist movements holding noticeable percentages of the vote in Europe in 2013. In the Islamic world a recent study suggest that more than 50% of the population of Egypt believes that people who ridicule god should be stoned, and people who leave the faith should die. Maybe America isn‘t very racist, maybe we‘ve made enormous progress.

Most of the world is still going through the intense violent nationalism and racism, that America has long risen past. This doesn’t make us the best nation in the world. Canada, and Australia have similar racial tension, but peace. China and India make up incredibly diverse populations of different cultures which have, for the most part avoided direct violence. As we move towards a future in which there is no more direct violence over state and religious tensions however, I think it’s important to realize the progress we’ve made, or risk throwing it away. I think it’s important for the nations which are tolerant, multicultural, and open to immigration, to remember that this is an objective thing about our way of life, which is good, and an enormous improvement over other barbaric one dimensional states which humanity must work to evolve. Instead I see many, including Americans reverting back to nationalist tendencies and turning this into a war between cultures. The only advantage we have over theocracy and dictatorship, is that it is a discussion amongst cultures, not a war between.

White people learning not to hate one another in America, was a huge step forward. Black people learning to love one another in America is a huge step forward… This is only one step, it’s nowhere near good enough, but it’s moving us towards beige and secular harmony. This constant talk however, on both sides of the discussion of race, is not helping. White men, are not any more uniform a block than black men, and the fact that both sides of the discussion tend to want to discount our diverse and often conflicting make up, doesn’t do either of us justice. I think we will one day view our current racial struggles as a huge step forward in the path from tribalism, to community, and space colonization. If we don’t, I worry it will be because we let nationalism, and moral relativism (well if it works for Greece, it works for Greece, who are we to say?), tear apart the small amount of progress we have made.

This is not a call to take over, or fix Greece by the way. Or to impose multiculturalism by force, anywhere. It is simply a suggestion that the countries which actually embrace multiculturalism own it, and allow themselves to present it as an objectively advantageous way of living. Shame the growing nationalist movements for the childish nonsense they represent (this includes several in America). Lead by example, not force. Peace and love friends.

“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 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

That Fool Dave Saves Religion

God is love. Love, is a rational attempt to control the sex drive. Religious myths are meant to encourage a rational family structure.

If you found out something created the world, and it didn’t care about you, or the world it created, in fact, it disliked you both… How would you feel about it?

If you found out something created the world, and it had infinite love and compassion for you, and enjoyed every moment of life… How would you feel about it?

More importantly, would it effect the way you feel about life?

Alright… Well, are you having sex with anyone? If not, are you trying? Well, that’s perfectly natural. You’re going to want to do that a lot… but, do you enjoy life? Are you ready to have infinite love and compassion for someone other than yourself? Are you with one of them? If not.. Stop it! Birth control is not 100% effective…

This was the lesson religion was designed to bring to the masses. You want to create life, all the time, so much so, that your desire, is destructive. Without self control, and society, you would create way more life than you could feed…

You are god. You are the author of your story, and the creator of your life, and others if you choose it. The choice as to whether or not to continue in the cycle of life, is the most important choice you will ever make.

Love… A magic force that makes life worth living? No. A rational approach to controlling your desire to create life. Without a concept of monogamous love, between a man and a woman, society would fall apart. It doesn’t need to be forced, and there is no reason to discriminate against difference… but, homosexuals can’t produce offspring. Sharing partners, means sharing diseases, and expecting men who didn’t create children, to then raise them… a very difficult proposition.  The foundation of the traditional family unit, just makes rational sense.

The basic design of the family structure, laid out in religious texts, was meant to convey rational messages about controlling your sex drive, respecting your parents, and taking the choice as to whether or not to create life very seriously, in a time of mysticism, and nonsense.

What is the best evidence of this?  Adoption.  Until modern times, the church was where almost all children without parents were sent, to have a chance at life.   If your charity organization, was responsible for raising children without parents, wouldn’t god be an insanely useful tool for convincing them that life is worth living, and that they are loved?   Without physical creators, parents, to teach these children, someone needed to come up with a mythical creator, so that they felt loved.

Religion, is actually an outcrop of the public service, or charity work, that is adoption.  Adoption centers continue to believe in an all knowing creator, because the children they care for, often have drug addict, or drunk asshole creators, that make their lives miserable.  So the adoption center tells them… “Don’t worry, that’s not your real creator, god is, and he loves you”.

God is a rationally created myth, designed to give children without parents, a sense that they were created for a reason…  and to encourage parents, to take their decision to create life very seriously.  Are you god yet?  Are you happy?  Are you ready to love things unconditionally?  Are you ready to forgo your own desires, for those of your creation?  If not… Stop fucking.  Of course, this is all just my opinion… I could be wrong.