THE Great Deception June 2022, issue 2 v.1

In the issue I am going to talk about the rise of civilization from the earliest kings to the problems inherent in democracy that arose out of kingships. In both articles I rely upon the most current research I have encountered by both astrophysicists and archaeological-biologists. What I will attempt to do is correlate both researches into a theory that appears to me to connect the development of the universe and the evolution of earthly, kind of a string theory with no strings but based on logical assumptions of the discoveries in both fields. I admit I don’t come close to knowing everything about my assumptions of the relationships are mere theoretical attempts based on what I do know and that experts in one field or the other might refute might knowledge in either but hopefully the pattern of connectedness I perceive an be able to investigate the merits of my suggestions. In the middle section of each I outline the historical developments of kingship and early democracy. Of course, in both, I conclude with my typical polemical approach questioning the wisdom of the belief systems that are commonly assumed about both. My style and words may appear to be irrational nonsense but my purpose is to elicit reactions, both positive and negatives and a dialogue upon the subjects that might lead to solutions of compromise between the common beliefs and my polemic attacks.

In between these two articles I have decided to insert an article on nuclear fusion. It is inserted between the articles for two one, One is a sensible break between the two articles that could easily be one very long article but are separated because while the themes interweave the perception most common is that kings or autocratic ruler is different from democratic rule. I agree with that perception but my approach is to show the connection between the two types of ruler are not totally severed from each other. The other reason for inserting my article on fusion between the two is that the concept of fusion energy created my man on earth is a prime illustration of the connection of how there is still much autocratic pretense built into democratic society. You might consider my fusion article totally polemic. I assure you it has rational possible and any personal expertise I have on any subject in any professional sense is on the subject of energy use, energy delivery, and energy cost—both economically and environmentally. And quite frankly there is just no available scientific information that any of the promises of fusion energy are not the exact opposite of the promises. In fact all responsibly collected data contradicts every single suggested value of fusion and I do hope anyone with even the slightest interest in fusion as an alternative will examine my article. In this case the polemics is all in the promises being made about fusion and so I don’t believe it is necessary to be polemical. Emphatic negation of the promises yes, but there just is no alternative possibilities that fusion reactors will not cause an extremely violent distortion in the environment without being able to deliver one of its promises. Well it might deliver fusion energy itself but other than the promises of safe, clean, cheap, efficient, and endlessly renewable energy cannot be established other than by creating an atmosphere of rhetorical nonsense to convince people it is the greatest, most unblemished and utopic solution to our future survival.

Finally I conclude with my own conspiracy theory. It is a short little piece and the only evidence I am able to illustrate is to look to history, to the first three articles themselves and see if perhaps it may not be a conspiracy theory at all but an extension of our own civilized history. At least I hope some may see a warning from our history and question the premises of AI against

the rationale, once again, of its promises. I have included it because I, at least, see how it is related to the other articles in this issue. I have moved all of my sources to the end to be less distracting during the reading of the article, hopefully arranged appropriately for anyone interested in discovering more on any topic. I want to reiterate the sources are not to present my erudition or to prove my superior intellectualness. They are to present you my own readings which formulated my ideas and to challenge you to examine the sources for yourself. As always I try to include those who totally disagree with my perceptions. At the same time I very seldom agree in toto with any one source but there are sources which have been more influential and these become evident with the numerical volumes of some authors who have impressed me more deeply. Once again the purpose for writing these articles are due to personal concerns on certain subjects and to create a free forum for intelligent discussion upon anything I write that anyone feels strongly enough to input whether it is in partial agreement or refutation. I want no dittos because while I would like to stir intelligent controversy, which can come from dialogue and from people who are seeking answers or feel they can find solutions to problems facing mankind. I am merely the socratic questioner but not the socratic trickster who uses the dialogue to prove my own inerrancy. None os can have the wisdom Socrates (Plato) assumes he has but we can all utilize the socratic skepticism to question the norm but it will take much more than me to move us to answers and an understanding of potential species preservation

To Contact, Correspond, or Summit Or To Advertise Your Own Publications At No Cost lastchancebrain@protonmail.com

CONTENTS Introduction P. 1-2 From Evolution To Civilization P. 3-14 Fusion Energy–The Future or the End P. 15-26 Why Desire Cannot Deliver the Promise of Freedom P.27-55 Why Are We FascinatedWith A,I? P. 56-62 Sources for Your Examination See Issue 2, Sources (separately published)

From Evolution to Civilization The last two years have put the nail in the stringent Darwinist’s coffin. I say this not because evolution has been discovered to be false but because gradual evolution and survival of the fittest and one species developing characteristics better adapted to survival eventually over time becoming new species is just not what has been or is being proven. The problem with Darwin’s evolutionary theory has always been his concept that evolution moves towards a higher species and that “traits' ' develop because they are more “advanced”. Spencer did not even need to change the Darwinian model in order to propagate Social Darwinism. Obviously if evolution developes trait by trait and into a higher level of adaptability bad traits over time don’t succeed and only the better traits”” the Europeans were more advanced than other societies and higher classes were more advanced intellectually and individuals within certain societies were more advanced than individuals of others of that society, therefor kings and rulers are evolutionary superior to peasants and laborers. The error I always found in Darwin’s evolutionary theory is

that it supported the concept of some being superior—some individuals over others, some cultures over others, some species over others. And I cannot remember when I did not feel a repugnancy to that concept or a feeling that evolution had to develop in a more harmonious manner and that there had to be more need for systems of interdependence in evolutionary development with no march towards better but a necessary march towards balance. I don’t know why I felt that way, I was a kid,and I had little knowledge to support my feelings.But I simply did not accept the idea that people were more advanced than, say, ants. We want to think we are more advanced than ants but ants evolved to be superior to survive as ants and people were a separate species unsuperior to ants and our survivability was not because we were a superior species that were smarter than ants People can only be smarter (perhaps) than other people but are different than ants and ants intelligence as a species was just as intellectually advanced as humans intellectual ability as humans. In other words I rejected upon my first encounter with Darwin—way back in elementary school—that the concept of anything better than something else was not acceptable. And I was informed I was just not yet informed enough to understand. In the 70’s I encountered Gould’s punctuated equilibrium and I have followed developmental thoughts that have followed that line of thought, although it still didn’t seem to be enough. Now let’s forget any concept of design—then any “design” by humans must also be rejected. So humans who try to believe that humans can be designers of anything–cultural superiority, racial superiority, national superiority, or technological superiority– are not at all “atheists”, they have simply replaced theism with humanism and believe we are superior and therefore more advanced. Evolution did not originate with Darwin but goes far back to the middle ages in western society at least. I imagine it goes back to the first kings who probably claimed they had developed greater capacities of leadership. But certainly Darwin’s outline of evolutionary development was simply copying the great chain of being of the medievalist thought and read parallel to each other you will see few differences in how they describe evolution if you replace the word “creation” with “evolution”. That theory was no more theistic than Darwin’s was atheistic—both were aimed at proving the superiority of man over nature. But in the 18th and 19th centuries, pre-Darwin, we have evolutionary thought in the concepts of the french enlightenment–even though it was primarily concerned with man’s evolution of becoming more “superior” or evolving intellectually with Rosseau saying he rejected the concept and then proceeding to support it by mixing “primitivism” within the concept of advancement. But we encounter Leibniz, Herder, Diderot, Hutton, Malthus, William Smith, Paley, Lamarck, Cuvier, Etienne Saint-Hilaire, Wiliam Buckland and Richard Owen and Darwin’s own father Erasmus. I am leaving out Lyell, oft-cited as Darwin’s strongest influence because Lyell doesn’t concern himself with the development of lifeforms (I have only read about Lyell but I have never read The Principles). So Darwin began with these notions of advancement and nature ((especially Malthus, it seems to me) and with the principles of human advancement and of humans being the most highly developed species. But as I mentioned that concept really goes backs to the first religious development by ancient autocrats who exploited the environment (because man was closer to the gods) and certain men (the kings) were more advanced than other men (the slaves). Darwin did absolutely nothing to alter the already 6000 year old belief that evolution by either god or man occurred only to the point of achieving its epitome in the development of man and further supported the hierarchy of man.with the most developed societies being an advanced evolutionary trait over undeveloped societies.

So let’s actually look at Origins. Strictly speaking, it could prove everything I just wrote to be in error. Darwin hardly mentions humans at all, and he never said we evolved from apes. He described a process of evolutionary development however that I feel my interpretation supports.

What Darwin is generally credited with, his great contribution to evolutionary thought and to biology itself is by entering the concept of “adaptive evolution”. No one can dispute that that concept is incorrect or that all further research has proven any inaccuracies that adaptiveness occurs. In fact it always occurs and continues to occur in every generation. Darwin more or less tried to recuse himself from the hotly debated topic in England at the time of his writing of class division and superiority. He didn’t venture too heavily into even in Descent. So what am I talking about? I probably would think Darwin quite a great thinker minus any reactive interpretations. And there were many. We don’t even need to get into the counter-reaction.

Let’s go with supportive interpreters. On the scientific side, and probably due to his vilification as anti-god, he achieved a status of near godhood himself that actually slowed down further investigation of many of his thoughts because any criticism would be seen as an attack on science even if it was to advance Darwin’s concept of adaptive development. But his allies in fighting against his detractors put a lot of words into Darwin’s mouth, so to speak. He was implied to have written a lot he never wrote. And so Darwin became a symbol more than a theorist, and what he actually wrote resembled nothing I was taught. As I mentioned Darwin wanted to steer away from political controversy and became one by his interpreters. Not just the spenserians that propagated social evolution but by scientists themselves who used Darwin’s concept of adaptive evolution to prove their own “scientific” superiority over the detractors “religious” ignorance. So long before I read Darwin I had developed an anathema for Darwinian thought, and it is Darwinian thought that I still believe to be in error. And that is mostly what I was familiar with, never bothering to read for myself the original writings until I was nearing sixty. I spent my life despising and despaging Darwin. But I think Darwin was an opening, he led the way to understanding, or attempted to, and the became widely misunderstood by those who expounded upon his own thoughts on both sides of the aisle. His books were proof-texted in the same way religious writings are to promote certain religious ideas without understanding the completeness, origins, or purposes of the texts plunged from Darwin’s ideas. So my apology to Darwin himself, but not to darwinian thinkers. Still there are those who will wish to cling to the darwinian model. And no one is yet saying Darwin was, horrible word-wrong-about the nature of evolution, yet every new discovery is pointing out he was. Of course research since the 70’s has been heading in that direction, but long before then even, Gregor Mendel’s work gave the first inkling into how Darwinian thought failed to comprehend the nature of evolution. Mendel illustrated that evolution occurs by blending characteristics rather than by different characteristics evolving uniquely that were somehow better than prior characteristics thus making survival more likely. In the 70’s, Eldridge And Gould began to recognize evolution took place in a manner they termed punctuated equilibrium in that there were times of multiple species developing nearly simultaneously and then eras of fewer species development. Later work then showed us that in times of environmental upheaval there were times of greater species development and greater changes within species.

Now here becomes the problem with Darwinism, in that they failed to recognize that species evolve with the environment. Species do not develop greater survivability by evolving

characteristics that lead them to survive better. When life forms evolve into an environment there are many lifeforms that need to evolve together to create survivability within that environment. Some species do survive because they are able to adapt and survive in the new environment. We discussed in the last issue how the chimpanzee and the bonobo were able to survive by creating a different type of society. A commonly known fact is how winged dinosaurs were able to survive into bird species during the environmental upheaval that led to most of the species of dinosaurs extinction. Some species have survived through multiple environmental shifts, for instance sharks. Some develop new physical characteristics to survive in the new environment. But both the amount of species that evolve and the characteristics of the species that survive must change to adapt to the environmental change. So a species, if it is to survive, will branch into multiple species and each of the species are able to survive in the new environment because of the interdependence upon each other within the environment. Now you can study on your own, if you choose, the latest treatises on the most current research on this issue. But we are going to be dealing with our species and our evolution Now prior research has focused on one human ancestor in one place that slowly evolved into modern homo sapiens sometime between 350,000-100,000 years ago. But the latest work being brought forth by work done by Stringer, Skoglund, et. al. are showing that that is incorrect.

In fact the year 2021 has brought forth research that turns almost all prior genetic-evolutionary theories into question. It seems that around 500,000 years ago evolution spawned multiple proto-human populations and these populations began to fan out and mingle causing a blending that eventually led to the evolutionary development of humans. So humanity as we know the species did not evolve as adam and eve in one garden but as multiple species in many gardens more than likely in several locations across Africa. But they were genetically close enough to blend. It is also showing that the notion that a single individual did not evolve and then adapt to the environment but that the environmental adaptation caused an environment that required for the development of hominids in several locations. Now humanoids first began to evolve in the paleolithic environment in Africa and human culture, of necessity, began to evolve in this era.

We don’t know a lot. What we know is certain characteristics that allowed for the growth of human culture were already becoming evident in the paleolithic age. At the time of human evolution glacirizirization was increasing, and more grasslands were developing . More than likely we survived by living in a more savanna type environment with the ability to stand upright to see the horizon beyond what we would have been able to see on four legs, we evolved with our vision, our ability to sweat and therefore pursue prey. But we almost immediately needed to develop a culture that could use fire and craft tools out of animal bone. Since new evidence of fire use has been discovered to have been developed much prior than previously thought. Early humanoids more than likely were not the hairy ancestors of many depictions especially as a furrier level upon skins would have not have been conducive to the ability to sweat. (That is my conception, alone) which means fire use would have been necessary not only for protection but for warmth. By the time of the famed australopithecus man fire was used to create crude stone tools and weapons and so our early ancestors were certainly already hunting before the mesolithic age and traveling about, thus causing the blending between the different evolving branches of humanoids. But the climate change and the continental land masses that had been formulating during the paleolithic age began to settle into the environment as we more or less

know it today. Most of the large-bodied mammals began to dwindle, forests began to overtake the landscape and the human species needed to change to survive into the mesolithic age. Our ancestors survived by being able to move through forested areas and prey upon derr, ibex, sheep and other smaller game. We also began moving along coastlines and began eating marine animals. As we were not yet dorset dwellers as new evidence has shown we settled around forests in small communities. As the communities of necessity were smallish and as the lands vacated by the descending glacierization became open to more settlement of more land our ancestors spread out around the globe. At this time the concept of a community that was too large would have been unsustainable. But settlements or small clearings around or within a forest would have made hunting and gathering of fruits more sustainable and small ground crops were probably plucked and eaten as well. The first artworks of humankind had been developed with pigmentations from clays, burnt bones and minerals in the paleolithic era, now we begin to find, due to settling, sources to collect food stuffs and early potteries to cook them. Stones were also being gathered and forged with fire to make sharper tools but also into tools that could be thrown. But the largest communities probably never exceeded 100 people.

Because we were able to have more diversity in diet and because foodstuffs were more available the population began to grow, thus the constant need to settle into more communities.

Even to our mesolithic ancestors though, three was a recognition that overpopulation in any area would overtax the environment and make species survival within that environment more difficult. People didn’t just all settle in one community but spread out to live within their environment. So this was the tower of babel and the beginnings of assorted languages. The early development as far back as the paleolithic era indicates there was probably a great deal of spirituality. Spirituality was not yet religion but a recognition of life and death, a gratefulness for life, and a constant belief in balancing what was taken from the earth to what was given to the earth. As art and also the first musical instruments discovered also date to the mesolithic cultures, this sense of spirituality certainly was an important part of life. But settling also required people within each community to have more responsibility. Hunting was still necessary, food collection was necessary, more and sturdier toolmaking required more skill, and artists were necessary who were also the spiritual leaders. For the most part there is no evidence of top-down leaders arising however so the community had to be governed by a more big man type leader, one who could recognize the skills of each member and were able to utilize the skills of each to benefit the whole. This was the very argument of Moskowski and Sahlins had used to claim that allowed for real freedom. Freedom, they suggested, came from the importance of each individual within the community because their value to the community granted them their individuality and each individual within that community had value and therefore the freedom to be an individual. Freedom is not what a state says they allow me to.

That is confusing freedom with granted rights. A state may grant certain rights to individuals but when the rights do not make the individual valuable to the state for his individual importance to the state, then he is merely hoodwinked into thinking those rights allow him a freedom which can only come with the individual’s importance to the community With no individual importance there is no freedom. In the mesolithic community, limited in size, every individual maintained an importance equal to the importance of every other individual and the leader’s role was to insure the best people for each need worked to create a community that had all of its needs fulfilled.

So this is the environment that man evolved into and the environment that created the human psyche and allowed for the species to develop. It was also an environment in which humans understood that survival depended on the environment and the importance of the environment to their survival.

Roughly 12000 years ago as the environment finally settled into what we think of as the “modern” environment and the small communities that were still hunter-gatherers there began a major upheaval in human development. We call this the neolithic age. Settlements became somewhat larger enabled by the beginnings of farming. I am unsettled as to whether civilization was a necessary result of farming. We had been harvesting for a while–harvesting in the sense that when plants and fruits ripened we harvested them. Today harvesting is the same but the foodstuffs are controlled until the end by farming and then we gather what we have farmed into our harvest. Neolithic culture began to develop metallurgy which allowed the beginnings of farming. Farming allowed for larger communities and communities that were more proximal to each other. It is a somewhat difficult era to analyze because it is still prehistoric in the terms of having any written records but quite historic in the sense of leaving a lot of artifacts. In historical terms the entire neolithic age was miniscule. In this era, with larger communities domestication and breeding of cattle, sheep, goats, and birds began. But exactly how the communities were enabled is a matter of extreme controversy. But there is no evidence of kings yet, or dominant leaders over the populace who took from the community. The defining line between mesolithic and neolithic is rather spurious and the mesolithic age is generally considered to have lasted only a few thousand years. Basically both eras were caused by the adaptation of humans to the great environmental upheaval previously described. Neil Roberts and others have suggested we look to the neolithic age to learn how to survive our current environmental crisis. I am not convinced. I think we should look more to the mesolithic age. But that was followed by the neolithic age. I’m troubled however that farming and domestication of animals is not environmentally sound and that the larger communities that were unable to sustain themselves because of those advancements were the actual beginnings of top-down leadership that led to civilization. As you already know, I presume, I am not a fan of top-down leadership nor the results of top down leadership which lessens the importance of the individual to subjects of the leadership who entitle themselves to the benefits of the community. At any rate people at that time did not yet move into completely following top-down leaders. I can’t quite place my finger on how they got control. But the issue evolves somehow on learning to shuck grains and making them into foodstuffs. Every early civilization and every early top-down leader began in a community that had learned to grow and use grains. Grains are very filling if not extremely nutritious. Archaeological studies have shown humanoid remains were actually better fed before grains became widespread. More diseased bodies and more malnutritioned corpses have been discovered in the post-grain, early civilized world than in the pre-gain. So probably the biggest disservice to our species was learning to utilize grains as foodstuffs. Grains are labor intensive so communities need more people for the labor. And somehow that fact allowed for the beginning of some to “take-over” communities. Now what follows is why that was not a “willing” enterprise and has still not been fully accepted by humankind. I want to present to you the evidence that I believe shows “human nature”, or the essence of our very genetic makeup that allowed our species to thrive has never accepted top-down leaders.

The question of course is were kingdoms an advance in the evolutionary nature of man. It is generally assumed to be so. But as we have seen the great shift from a more nomadic human existence to the settling within communities had absolutely nothing with an intellectual awakening but with an environmental shift in the ecology that made settling into specific locations allowable. As this settling occurred there was the need to somewhat alter the tools we had used and also the opportunity to develop stone tools as the more settled community could now pause long enough to do so. Likewise there was a need and opportunity for baskets to collect the foodstuffs and transport meat to the settlement. Evolutionarily there was no change in human genetic nature or in our organization of our leaders. What occurred was the genetic blending of pre-homo sapiens into what became homo sapiens. The leaders still led by recognizing the importance of the individuals and recognizing the abilities of the individuals but there were different needs that required more roles for the community. So in essence tasks became more specified requiring leaders who functioned as coordinators for all of the tasks to insure the survival of the entire population. The survival allowed the population to grow, limiting sustainability of the community so that new communities of necessity needed to be formed.

Now I suppose there might have been the leader who tried to take advantage of the community for his own ability but those leaders would have failed either by the community failing to thrive, or by the people leaving to form a new community. One evidence that this is exactly what happened is the recent discoveries in Karahan Tepe circa 11,400 B.C.E. very near the dawn of the mesolithic age. At first it seemed a quite egalitarian community without a king but new excavations have shown there were those with larger chambers and more artifacts. Which could easily explain why this early “civilization” was abandoned. When a few attempted to rule by having others support them this pre-civilization fell apart because it was not the type of leadership that human genetics supported and therefore the community abandoned the leaders.It seems a quite plausible suggestion as the community was not followed by multiple examples of such communities. But we might have here support for the concept that people at first found benefit in forming early civilizations—but also support for the concept that when leaders attempted to act unnaturally by using the community to support themselves the community abandoned such leaders.

Well in a swath of communities around the globe people had discovered a method of making grains edible requiring more labor intensive food gathering methods to increase population size.

This would have also made the community less sustainable ecologically as too many resources would have been consumed for the community to survive. There are several reasons for this.

One is a larger population requires more of all foodstuffs so the depletion of the available resources would occur more rapidly. The second is it emits more waste damage into the environment, altering the environment and reducing the resources faster than it could be replenished. If more is taken from the earth than can be replenished then there is an environmental crisis. If there were too many tigers and they ate all of their prime meat sources (roughly game of 45 lbs, though they can eat smaller game or even termites and occasionally an elephant calf) then tigers could not survive. So there needs to be a balance—not a one-toone balance but there needs to be vastly more game than tigers). And thirdly, and probably more ecologically damaging was that grains could not simply be harvested at maturation but

required farming or maintenance of the crop. This of course led to farming other crops, and this required transforming or altering the environment around them which would mean degradation of the diversity of the environment. But as I have mentioned we are absent of written history at this stage, so we don’t know exactly what happened. But something did happen that apparently did not happen at Karahan Tepe. More than likely people realized the unsustainability of the situation. Probably some realized that farming and larger communities were preventing them from sustainable existence and probably a few lazy-son-of bitches got together and forced the others in the community to support them. How they got control I don’t know. Some type of trickery. Cast out societal members who join together like young male lions until they grow strong enough to take over a pride? History begins almost immediately after they become leaders. But that the humans at the time thought this was an advancement or that their cultivation was sustainable is doubtful. The reason being they had to be forced to support the new leaders. This begins the enslavement of humans and the concept that some (the leaders) were more important and the community itself could become expendable. Of course it was unsustainable. So these new leaders needed more land and more slaves and more lieutenants to keep the workers (the slaves) in bondage. Communities that might not have top-down leaders needed to select leaders for defense and if they were successful would then become the inheritors of what they had won—slaves & land. There was always a need for more for the leaders, more land, more slaves to work the land to support themselves, more lieutenants, more craftsman to create the instruments of sustasining their existence and the luxuries they felt their entitled position entitled them to. We talk a lot about entitlement programs today. Well this is where entitlement begins. Entitlement is those who think they are entitled to be supported by others and it is still what it means. Anyone read Rand? Her entire philosophy is that the few are entitled to everything and to share with others brings down the society. Do a few crumbs to the poor or left out mean they are receiving “entitlements’. Of course not, entitlements are what those at the top of the pyramid believe they are entitled to which is all of the benefits and none of the labor. Have you ever heard of a ‘lazy' rich man even if he inherited his wealth and never had a job? The leaders believe they are entitled to everything and to share anything at all with those below them is somehow criminal so any sharing with the society is labeled ‘entitlement’ to confuse the direction of what an entitlement is. Sharing can never be an entitlement, an entitlement is only when the powerful believe they are entitled to all, i.e. sharing is bad because no one else deserves any.

That this is what happened is evident. As the leaders began to arise in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in China, in South America, in the Indus Valley, in Southeast Asia, and the spreading out centered on grain production and enslavement. We see that kingdom creation was not immediate. The kings needed more and they battled to get more until they established kingdoms. At this point we begin the historical era, the civilized era. Civilization was not sustainable environmentally so more environments needed to be encroached upon. Civilization was not accepted as a proper type of leadership so communities needed to be enslaved which required lieutenants and support to keep the lieutenants in line, and cities to house the entitled and their support. And spirituality, or recognition of the importance of the environment to human survival had to become religions supporting the rights of leaders to their entitlements, and then to their own as those religions needed to develop gods who identified their community as unique and their leaders as rightfully selected leaders of those gods and thus we develop all of the

trappings of society. The class—some are better than others–; the enemy—the other king, the other country, are inferior to ours; and from that we get the notion of race and racism, of nation rather than community; of law, or what rights each class and each race has; and ultimately a perversion of intellect by installing a method of learned subservience which is supposedly more intelligent. It also started men (for the most part) feeling superior to women and more powerful men entitled to more women which lead to the entitled trying to take as much power for himself by lording over his own family and turning against his own class in order to feel he is somehow of a better class than the worker in the next village and that worker in the next village is what diminishes his own freedom and his own power—and all of this began with kings. Kingship required people to be less individually intelligent in order to be more collectively subservient. I would also like to suggest that the kings needed to become less intelligent by their belief they could alter the nature of their environment and the nature of people in order to make life for themselves more comfortable. And that is why we want to support the darwinistic concept of becoming more intelligent. The king is the most intelligent and evolved intellectual superiority to the slave. But these first kings were not intellectually superior in any natural sense and probably took over because of their inability to survive in the community so they forced others into submission by claiming superiority.

Well that has brought us today. Did it work? Well the kings are still in power, albeit by different names. Has human nature changed? Well we behave differently, but I believe we have not changed genetically and understand the innate wrongness of this society but we have been consistently intellectually dumbed over seven centuries to be confused into thinking leadership change can right that wrongness instead of leadership style. And we have progressively been given more luxuries to confuse the issue of whether we have actually benefited from those luxuries or become further enslaved by having them.

But have the leaders ever been accepted? Unequivocally no. The first revolutions against kings (not wars between kings) began almost simultaneously with the rise of the first kingdoms with the Set rebellion, the Nubian rebellion, and the Sumerian revolt. There is a list of revolts and revolutions in wikipedia. I had a notion to count them all and tell you how many there have been. I quit before the common era because I was getting brainfogged by their being over a thousand without arriving at the common era (A.D.). And the 20th century alone probably has hundreds and hundreds more. Another reason ,I imagine the list is roughly only a minimal account of the attempts to overthrow the existing governments. But revolutions are not even the beginning of the story. Revolutions are a group rebelling against an existing authority. But what about the interfamily revolts, brother prince against brother prince, son attempting to take power from father, sometimes wife from husband (Cleopatra, Catherine the great, et. al) , lords from overseers, etc. Then there are revolutions for religious purposes (Cromwell, et.al), revolutions for separation (U.S, South America, Africa), and revolutions to realign the entire politicoeconomic balance (French, Russian, Cuban). These all ultimately fail even when they succeed because success maintains the power structure and system only by changing the persons who control the power. Of course the reverse course revolutions are not even on the list where deposed powers revolt to regain their former positions. Of historical interest that more recent politicians have found difficult to understand is the ethic-identity revolts that lead world powers like the U.S. and the former Soviet Union to fight futile wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Both

of those nations' revolutionary ethic wars go centuries back and both nations' identities were forged by eventual blending of contrasting identities But those are not modern day aberrations.

There were several centuries long revolutions like the Cham Revolution, the Kharijite Revolution, and the revolution by the Lipka tatars. Then there is the revolution started by Bardas Skleros to form an ethnicity that his heirs and followers fought for two centuries. We might include the long fights for identity in both Scotland and Ireland. Or about the nearly fourcentury long conquest of the Prussians? I am not speaking of modern Germans who eventually obliterated the Prussians. What we today think of as German Prussians are the descendants of Germanic tribes who moved against the Prussians and progressively took their lands. There were so few actual Prussian survivors there is little DNA evidence common to the modern German that can connect them to the original Prussian ethic identity. Or how about Putin claiming Ukraine is ethnically Russian when actually it was Ukrainian kings who first captured and then settled Russia and the center of power split in a similar manner to the eastern and western Roman empires with the breakaway Eastern eventually defeating the West. So the breakaway Russians defeated their decaying parent and power shifted from Kiev to Moscow.

So if Putin wanted to be historically accurate he would have given Russia to Ukraine and returned it to its parent. The point is obvious. People have never accepted domination and have, from its inception, fought against being dominated. And someone else always wants more power for himself.

However this is all about leadership change between power seekers. What about the enslaved and the lowest classes of serfs and laborers. Well there was the Wat Tyler revolution in England and it was inspired by and followed by a few other smaller European uprisings but ultimately crushed. At the height of the power of the Catholic Church, and centuries before Luther, peasants and lower-ranking priests would attempt to openly revolt against the church but the kings and church united to crush them. After a prince stood up to Rome to free himself from subjugation to the church by protecting Luther, the peasants in his municipality got inspired to attempt a revolt against him that he crushed.. In China one of the most serious peasant revolts was attempted inspired by a disenchanted civil service candidate named Hong Xiuquan who had become a Christian became deluded (I suppose) and thought he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ gathered a group of peasants around himself and attempted to lead them in revolt.

Here is a list of a few attempts at peasant revolts: ● ●

● ● ●

●

The uprising of Ivaylo of 1277–1280 in Bulgaria.

The Peasant revolt in Flanders 1323–1328. Beginning as a series of scattered rural riots in late 1323, peasant insurrection escalated into a full-scale rebellion that dominated public affairs in Flanders for nearly five years.

The St. George's Night Uprising of 1343-1345 in Estonia.

The Jacquerie was a peasant revolt that took place in northern France in 1356-1358, during the Hundred Years' War. The English Peasants' Revolt of 1381 or Great Rising of 1381 is a major event in the history of England. It is the best documented and best known of all the revolts of this period.

The Irmandiño Revolts in Galicia in 1431 and 1467.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The Engelbrekt rebellion of 1434-1436 in Sweden.

The Budai Nagy Antal Revolt broke out in Transylvania in 1437. The military tactics of the rebels were inspired by the Hussite Wars (for example, the use of battle wagons).

The Kent rebellion of 1450 led by Jack Cade.

The War of the Remences in Old Catalonia in 1462-1486.

The Cornish Rebellion of 1497.

The Friulian revolt of 1511.

The Peasants' Revolt of György Dózsa broke out in Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary in 1514.

The Slovene Peasant Revolt in 1515.

The Arumer Zwarte Hoop revolt of 1515-1523 against Habsburg rule in Friesland.

(from wikipedia).

In the Americas there were numerous slave revolts. Gaspar Yagna is called the “first American liberator” but there was no real “revolt”. A group of escaped slaves from sugar plantations outside Vera Cruz managed to form a small colony and hide out for the proverbial 40 years.. On the Dutch island of St. John’s the slaves managed to cast out their masters but within 6 months an armada led by the French navy retook the island. In the US there were only two slave revolts that semi-succeeded, Bacon’s rebellion was a combination of poor farmers, indentured servants and slaves who managed to capture Jamestown, but once again reinforcements from Britain were able to reinstall the colonial government. After Independence a somewhat substantial amount of slaves (estimates of how many vary from 125-500) along the German coast marched towards New Orleans burning five plantations in the process. However many there were, it is considered the largest group of any slave insurrection within US territory. The result was 2 white deaths and 95 black citizens. Nat Turner’s more famous rebellion resulted in over 200 black deaths due to retaliation from Virginia planters but at most had only 75 insurrectionists.

In what is considered to be history’s only long-term successful uprising by slaves, serfs or peasants is of course the Haitian victory over the French. The Haitian revolution began as George Washington was becoming our first president. The US reaction was somewhat ambivalent. After the French had helped us secure independence there was some rumblings they might try to take over the US. Napoleon had plans for a great American colony to our west. Some Americans were somewhat fearful of that. The result was we aided both the French & sent some aid to L'ouverture's incipient revolution. But the roots of the revolution go back to the French revolution itself. The French revolution caused a split between the plantation owners who supported the revolution and those that didn’t. There was a large creole population in St. Dominique and they began agitating for their own recognition. It was at this time that L'ouverture seized the opportunity and his success was enabled by this division so the front against him was in disarray. The fighting led to America’s first “refugee” crisis as the French navy deposited the survivors of the devastation of St. Dominique in Norfolk, Virginia. These white refugees with black slaves moved into many of the larger northern cities and began attempting to agitate for an American policy to

help them restore their dominions.The election of the staunchly anti-slavery John Adams led to the decision to not give any aid to the French emigres or aid them in returning to Haiti.

Controversy over this led to the alien & sedition acts. Instead Adams decided to establish trade with L'ouverture but four years later Jefferson reversed course, cut off all aid to Haiti and embargoed trade with Haiti. He made a deal with Napoleon to buy the French holdings in the western U.S. Jefferson also worked to shut down any diplomatic relationships between other countries and Haiti and to force their economy into bankruptcy much as Kennedy attempted with Cuba three centuries later. Of course the new nation was failing.

And then in 1825, with the monarchy restored Charles X, with tacit approval of the U.S. , sent an armada and completely surrounded the Haitian part of Santo Domingo and at gunpoint demanded Haiti pay reparations to France that were 10 times greater than what the U.S. paid for the Louisiana Purchase. With the U.S. leverage over the Haitian economy the Haitians for the next 122 years were forced to pay France almost their entire gdp surplus upon which a strongman was able to take over the country (Duvalier) and continue to deprive the Haitians of any personal income for the next forty years. So ask yourself this, are blacks too inferior and too corrupt and that is the reason Haiti failed or are whites too inferior because of greed and fear and Haiti’s success would have exposed the presumed inferiority of black people to have been the libel that it really is.

Now let’s end with one more example. In the first half of the nineteenth century there began a movement supported by both abolitionists and slaveowners to remove the growing free slave population in America, A commission went to Africa to discuss buying land but couldn’t acheive success.. Nevertheless a group of freedmen were put onto a ship and sent back to Africa armed with a prepared constitution for forming an African nation. Liberia was established as one of the earliest post-U.S. democracies and the second black “nation”.

(Nation in the sense that any kingdoms in Africa that had existed prior to western colonization were not deemed worthy of being labeled as such). For 140 years Liberia existed as one of the most modal democracies in the world and had both economic and political stability. So whites patted themselves on the back for this accomplishment. Or was the accomplishment achieved by blacks, former slaves, low-class human beings, actually capable of becoming successful in their own right and once again refuting the importance of the supposed superiority of those who magnanimous allowed them the opportunity?

Come on, how much nonsense about the superiority of some over others are we supposed to digest until it spews out in vomit?

Fusion Energy– The Future Or the End? Daily reports are telling us how we are closing in on creating fusion energy as a viable source of energy creation here upon this earth. We are told this is the ultimate solution with no detrimental environmental effects. Every “new” technological breakthrough is always hailed as the solution and as being cleaner and as being the ‘solution”. Let’s dismiss out of hand that anything is a perfect panacea and let’s examine what detrimental effects might occur.

I’m not going to explain fusion as I presume any reader knows what fusion is. But the first thing I do wish to mention is that while fusion is the “energy” that powers the universe via stars it is in no way natural energy outside of stars. I have queried a thousand ways to seek information on external uses of fusion.. The search is circular, and frustrating. I am told fusion exists “mostly” in stars, so I ask “where does fusion exist in the universe outside of stars and I am told fusion exists mostly in stars. I query where does it lessly exist if it mostly exists only in stars and I am told it exists mostly in stars. So I am going to make an unfounded assumption that where it does not exist is upon the earth and that it is our belief we can recreate fusion energy upon the earth is fallacious (not in the sense of technologically impossible but that is by nature impossible. We might create fusion energy but it will not be the same fusion that creates and empowers stars) So in making that presumption it would follow that no matter how natural fusion is within stars it is totally unnatural outside of stars. Thus if we succeed in harnessing and utilization of fusion energy upon the earth it will be totally unnatural, it will be the equivalent of an otherworldly invasion by taking extraterrestrial sources and attempting to import them upon earth. We have some methods to determine already that bringing alien species from one topography to another upon the earth always forces an alteration in the new topography to allow the species to thrive, it will unbalance the existing species and inevitably some older species die and some older species will be overthrown. Nature designed a delicate system of species to thrive in every habitat and unbalancing the system by a new species will alter that balance. If you want to argue nature has no design you are free to do so but the design of nature is one of a very delicate balancing act that may not be pre-planned but is planned in a way that the result is an interrelationship between species and environment. Man, on the other hand, often sets about designing his environment and mostly failing to realize his plans are not up to the same natural designs of nature. Because something is technologically possible, does not make it intellectually superior nor does technological development mean intellectual advancement if

that technology unbalances the natural design of nature. And the intellectual disaster of technology it assumes a superiority of what can be done without regard to natural development and in my worthless opinion that is intellectual ignorance. From the earliest days of man’s attempt to redesign the earth there have been those who pointed this out, and those making a personal benefit deluding the many of man’s superiority to nature . Today many are looking for sustaining alternatives that are going to be “cleaner” and that will somehow miraculously alter the effects of man’s actions and at the same time allow us to continue to survive in an unnatural method. This is the promise of fusion. All the energy we want with no negative effects.

So before discussing possible drawbacks to fusion energy itself, let’s look at the drawback to having all the energy we want. If we do have all the energy we want will our wants ever cease?

So that we will always continue to want more energy than we have if we continue to supply energy for our wants rather than only the energy for our needs. And the more energy that is supplied the more that energy is used to destroy the environment that we live in and the more it leads to living in an unsustainable environment. So I wish to propose a moral question to you.

Say it is immoral to have an abortion, or immoral to take drugs, or immoral to kill your neighbor.

And suppose it is immoral to steal from your neighbor, why then is it not immoral to want what your neighbor has. Why then is it not immoral to fight a war? Why is it then not immoral to develop stimulants (including pain pills, antibiotics, etc)? And why is it not immoral to impregnate a woman who doesn’t want to be impregnated? There is a method to this reverse order here in that I wish you to continue to reflect backwards on what is considered immoral and forward to the causes of the immorality. The nature is to have what we want no matter the cost and then to condemn those who try to obtain it. Well let’s reflect on what morality is. Is morality not trying to get what you want from an abortion to srealing and then being condemned because of proprietary rights superceding wants. And yet are we not daily bombarded with the message to want more and more. Well our consumption of energy is a moral issue in that we are bombarded daily with the concept to use more energy and so the question becomes how to obtain more. In our refusal to see energy consumption from the moral perspective we never seem to reflect on whether we should have the amount of energy we want. If i am allowed to have the energy I want why can’t I have the abortion i want, or the drugs I want, or kill whom I want, or take whatever I want. Especially since I am taught to want more So morality must be rephrased to needs. Does a woman who has been impregnated against her will need an abortion? If my neighbor is offensive and I am high do I need to be high and do I need to kill him and if I don’t need that, do I need to fight for a country based on their needs? For instance Putin wants to conquer Ukraine but no need to do so while the Ukranians need to defend themselves and didn’t want to be invaded. Finally I hate stealing to the degree anyone does. I seldom have more than I need but if you need what I do have then I will give it to you, but if you steal from me then you are trying to take what I need because you want what I need. And someone who wants a bigger house but doesn’t need a bigger house but will not share that bigger house with those who need a house, does he need to complain of stealing what he wants by someone who needs what his wants prevents them from having. If morality is not a question of wants but a question of wants then the consumption of energy by our species takes away the needs of other species to survive then is not our want of such energy an act of immorality? And if that is the case then shouldn’t we not want to create an endless source of energy to supply

energy for all of our wants instead of only seeking enough energy to supply our needs? As long as the presumption of energy consumption is based upon supplying more energy than we need to satisfy our wants does it matter its environmental impact when we know a “cleaner” energy will create more wants and therefore more consumption and thus negligible or greater impact upon the environment which ultimately leads to our demise because even a small fire by the hunter-gatherers impacted the environment. When they burned wood the wood was transformed. When a tiger brings down a prey he alters the environment but the environment allows for this and absorbs the impact into a natural phenomenon that allows the next prey to grow and the next predator to succeed. But massive impacts cause massive alterations and the massive amount of energy humankind wants makes for a far greater alteration. And no matter how we provide more energy it will continue to imbalance nature to a greater degree depending on the greater the generation of the energy. Now think for one minute—technology itself is only something we think grants us power over nature but in actuality it only alters the environment forcing nature to adjust and the adjustment will lead to an environment that was not the one we evolved within. So suppose fusion is the energy source that will provide a limitless amount of energy for all of our wants. That is not a good thing. We don’t have any experience beyond stars with fusion energy. That experience teaches us that stars burn out, that the process of fusion is not limitless but limited to the amount of energy that each star has the resources to use. But our sun has, compared to earth, an infinite quantity of fusible resources and can burn for another five and half billion years. But it is limited. And those who tell you fusion energy will be unlimited are telling you nonsense. A fusion reactor will continually need to be refueled and a very limited amount will actually be capable of being reused. So right there is a myth greater than Noah's ark if you believe that to be mythical nonsense, it is a story of no less nonsense than proposing unlimited energy via fusion.. The available resources upon earth to sustain fusion are limited—probably to a maximum of 100 years, and the amount of resources that are upon the earth that will be necessary to be consumed to maintain fusion generation in the quantity to supply all of our needs will be the most resource draining technologies that we have ever consumed and by the end of that time what will be left is dry oceans, and no living species.

We are told the beauty is there will be not only no greenhouse effect but a lessening of the effect. But to lessen the greenhouse effect will cause the temperature to drop—potentially to 0 F, or 255 Kevin. Any water would be frozen and no plants or animals could survive. We may not want too much greenhouse effect but we certainly don’t want too little.A slight increase in the greenhouse effect is survivable, a slight decrease is not.

Okay here is the utopic picture (Source unknown, from google search): “Since

nuclear fusion is such a powerful way to generate energy, and since a fusion reactor can potentially be so compact, it could eventually replace all other forms of energy production anywhere in the world. That would mean that generating energy from fossil fuels would no longer be necessary. In fact, just one kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. So the planet's electricity production could be entirely carbon neutral.

Clean and safe Unlike the nuclear fission in modern day reactors, fusion is much safer. Since no radioactive waste is produced, the dangers of a meltdown are non-existent.

There is also no danger of fusion going into a runaway reaction.

More expansive space flight Engines fueled by fusion will radically transform our ability to explore space.

For instance, fusion could make it possible to travel to Mars in a month, instead of the six months currently projected for flight to the red planet.

Limitless fuel Fusion also provides a virtually limitless supply of fuel. It can be produced using seawater as an input, which means we can get all the fuel we need from the ocean, rather than having to drill for more limited sources, as we do with oil. Fusion could end most of the world's strife that revolves around limited resource extraction. Because the fuel supply is nearly limitless, this also means that fusion power could potentially be dirt cheap.

Basically, fusion energy is powerful, plentiful, cheap and clean. There is no end to the ways such an energy source could radically transform the world.

But, of course, this all depends on the viability of Lockheed Martin's claims.

We shall have to await more details about the company's design before we can know for sure.

Yes, fusion power plants will look from afar just like other power plants. Many people connect the view of the cooling towers with the danger of radiation and nuclear power plants. Truth be told, any thermal power plant uses some kind of cooling tower. Many power plants, be it gas, coal or nuclear use this type of tower to reduce the temperature of water/steam that has been run through a turbine to produce electricity.”

I have no idea who wrote that gobbledy gook. It lacks even one sentence of scientific reality. In other words, every single line is lying , probably to convince those to believe so the developers can become wealthy and/or obtain power for themselves. Not one sentence of scientific truth.

Not one sentence. Repeat until you get this into your head—it is all a lie.

That’s the promise.

Point 1–clean and safe.

Daniel Jassby who worked in the Princeton Plasma Laboratory conducting fusion experiments for over 20 years says it is anything but clean or safe. Since fusion on the sun is possible due to an intense gravitational confinement the result is a harmless helium isotope. But on earth we are restricted to much less particle density and confinement that lacks the singular gravitational confinement of the sun. The result is we have to use heavier hydrogen isotopes—deuterium and tritium. And these have 24 times more radioactivity than the singular hydrogen isotope.

And our water on earth is over 99.98% protium. So we have a singular problem in that extracting deuterium would upset the natural balance of the ocean which could potentially eliminate all marine species. On the other hand if too much deuterium increased in the oceans it would have a massive change on the climate and could increase the greenhouse effect to a potentially higher level than carbon fuels. Now we have known this, as we already use deuterium for cooling fission power plants and the water is highly radioactive and needs to be contained and is one of the major issues of containment in spent nuclear power plants.

Unlimited amounts of deuterium escaping in the atmosphere would be too heavy to collect in clouds and so would all gather in the greenhouse gas belt and the volume of deuterium also being more than protium would increase the greenhouse effect to double the amount of normal water vapor. Deuterium is 0.156 of our ocean water volume but 0.312 of our ocean water mass.

So as we mentioned in our article on use of water power, the increase in greenhouse is not simply co2 from burning fossils but from increased release of methane into the atmosphere and the increased water vapor that doesn’t return to earth caused by the lessening of water volume due to damming and irrigation that causes increased evaporation and ultimately less rainfall. So if deuterium escapes it would increase the mass of water vapor. So if we attempt to contain it, we have a problem with heavy water that cannot be easily disposed of. But in fusion we also use tritium. That is because to fuse the hydrogen on earth if we only use deuterium the heat required is nearly double the temperature of the sun. So we need to use a mix of deuteriumtritium and still require a temperature hotter than the temperature of the sun. Another problem is tritium is nearly non-existent in the earthly environment and would need to be primarily collected from fission because tritium is largely only collectable as a by-product from fission. So to fuel our fusion plants we would need to extract tritium from fission reactors. But if tritium escapes into the atmosphere is it safe? Well we are told it is because tritium’s radioactive halflife is only 12.6 years. But of what point is that if you plan to continue using tritium to supply most of our energy needs then that half-line of 12.6 years would have no end date as it would be continually re-entered into our environment We are also told there could be no possibility of a fusion reactor “melting down”. Well we were told that about fission reactors too, weren’t we? If you want to believe that about fusion, consider that there is no known insulation that tritium does not eventually burn through. Yes

the nuclear companies—the fission companies—tell us it doesn’t—but all research done by nonpower plant and non-governmental studies show it does and leakages in the vicinities of all nuclear fission power plants have detected tritium in the water. Now power companies tell us the tritium detected was not from leakage from the reactors but already present in the environment. Mighty strange sense that would mean fission reactors were only built on sites that already contained tritium in the environment, mighty strange in itself since it almost does not exist anywhere within the earth’s environment. Also mighty strange since physicists tell us they haven’t found any type of insulation that tritium doesn’t eventually corrode and leak through.

So that is proof positive of fusion reactors cleanliness and harmlessness to the environment, right? So let's look at the economics—first of all let's state the obvious. Fusion won’t work without intense pressure and a vacuum is needed to contain the pressure and since tritium will corrode the insulation necessary to maintain that vacuum and since the heat necessary to maintain the fusion will be so intense the life of a fusion plant will more than likely have no more than five years tops. Add that to the fact that construction of the containment facilities and the mining of the materials necessary for that containment, though currently plentiful (primarily lithium and nickel) would increase environmental degradation by mining. The need to frequently build new containment facilities and to continually need a supply of tritium means we will need to continue to use fission to capture the tritium as a by-product. Of course it would be an economic boon for those profiting and people in want of more and more electricity for more and more gadgets they are told they need will continue to impoverish themselves as their utility bills will have to triple. As far as being cheaper for the consumer that would be true only if you don’t think tripling the cost of your utility bills isn’t more expensive.

There is also the suggestion we can mine asteroids for tritium. I don’t think it has been established for certain that tritium exists even on asteroids or to what extent if it does. Of course it’s also been proposed that we mine asteroids for water if the earth begins to run short.

I’m not sure why we would do such a thing since it has been established that asteroids have deuterium water and would not be usable within the earth’s environment for the sustenance required for earth’s life forms. I am also unclear why we concern ourselves overly in searching for water in extra-earth systems at all as if it is only water that indicates that earth-like lifeforms might exist. For earthly-type life it has to be protium water. When we talk about water on Mars being available if we could warm the atmosphere, once again we are talking nonsense because the polar ice on mars has been analyzed to be deuterium so even if it were to flow in valleys as some propose could be done it would neither sustain us or any of our foodstuffs. If we actually did attempt to ‘colonize’ Mars we would have to import all the necessary water from earth. Of course we can reduce the deuterium through a platinum catalyst that can reduce deuterium from 145 parts per million to 125 parts per million. That is the upper limit acceptable for water facilities on earth. However the norm in water upon earth is one deuterium water molecule per 20 million and a continued diet would destroy the cellular structure by doubling the water volume within our bodies and our cells would “explode”. So while we might have to attempt mining on asteroids to get deuterium for fusion power plants it is ridiculous to listen to nonsense about importing water from asteroids or creating water on mars. Maybe Elon Musk is smart but he’s pretty stupid in he thinks he can survive on Mars simply by melting polar ice and producing

water. And maybe scientists are pretty smart to develop fusion energy on earth but it’s pretty stupid to tell people it is an endless form of energy or even that it is a renewable form of energy.

But supposing we could mine for tritium on extraterrestrial surfaces what would the cost of that be and now you’re probably no longer talking about tripling your utility bill but increasing potentially 3000 times. And what resources would need to be consumed on earth to get to asteroids to mine them And why we would think mining on an asteroid with an already unstable orbit not just completely destabilize the orbit or have any effect on other orbital bodies. Well that’s really smart technological thinking but absolutely and completely moronic scientific thinking. Technology says create what you can and that will be better than what was prior.

Scientific thinking should be before we do anything let’s determine what the consequences are going to be.

Before we finish we must talk about something else. The efficiency of fusion is so low that it will consume nearly three times the energy it produces. This is the problem when we try to convert any energy form into a controlled energy to provide electricity. Most of the natural energy of the source, whatever the source we use to extract the energy rom. is consumed in the process of extraction. So the talk of “natural” or “clean” or “alternative” energy are fairy tales, dreams that will always lead to nightmares. To be natural or clean or even environmentally neutral we have to use it naturally without attempting to control it. Once we try to convert it into a controlled source we increase the need because most is wasted. All the energy expended to extract the energy needed for the energy use under controlled circumstances is wasted energy and all wasted energy adversely affects the natural environment. Since the creation of fusion energy on earth presents us with a conundrum of negative efficiency that means all of the massive amounts of promised energy will require nearly double the amount of energy consumption to create than the massive amount created which means more overall negative effect upon the earth’s environment than any other energy source we could use. The promise of cleanliness at the site of generation even if it is 100% true and there is never a leakage or meltdown and it seems wonderful physically after the creation of the energy the environmental degradation to creating it is always going to be greater than the “green” energy it provides. Now it just so happens that the “greenest”, most efficient energy of any energy source man has attempted is natural gas. Now everyone is screaming. I am not speaking of coal, or oil, or any refined natural gas products. The efficiency of natural gas simply piped into a stove is around 90% (depending on the efficiency and system designed to supply it. That means less than ten percent would escape into the atmosphere which would be on par with a wood fire. If there was not a lot of need it would be the least environmentally offensive source of energy and used sparingly by a much smaller population probably not do much to increase greenhouse gasses.

Now something happens when we convert it at power plants—the efficiency at the most efficient plants at times of less than optimal use drops to around 60% but can drop even lower to 48 or 49% . Still doing less environmental damage than any other energy source. My point being not that if seven and a half billion people use only natural gasses that will be the solution. What the people do not tell you about any energy source is the degradation caused first, by extracting the source, secondly by processing into a controllable supplier of electrical energy, thirdly by the necessity of constructing the system to supply the power, fourthly by the amount used, and fifthly by the amount of energy lost in the process. All of that energy in each of the steps that is

used to create the energy affects the environment in a negative manner or at least in a manner that compounds and leads to environmental change. To only look at the end by-product’s polluting effects is misleading and allows us to delude ourselves into thinking some energies are better, or less degrading to the environment. It must be compounded by the entire process and the amount of use. So to promise endless electricity will never be environmentally sound. What we need from our energy sources is vastly decreased use and vastly increased efficiency.

So to sum i am going to plagiarize Daniel Jassby’s summation:

To sum up, fusion reactors face some unique problems: a lack of a natural fuel supply (tritium), and large and irreducible electrical energy drains to offset. Because 80 percent of the energy in any reactor fueled by deuterium and tritium appears in the form of neutron streams, it is inescapable that such reactors share many of the drawbacks of fission reactors—including the production of large masses of radioactive waste and serious radiation damage to reactor components. These problems are endemic to any type of fusion reactor fueled with deuterium-tritium, so abandoning tokamaks for some other confinement concept can provide no relief.

If reactors can be made to operate using only deuterium fuel, then the tritium replenishment issue vanishes and neutron radiation damage is alleviated. But the other drawbacks remain—and reactors requiring only deuterium fueling will have greatly enhanced nuclear weapons proliferation potential.

These impediments—together with the colossal capital outlay and several additional disadvantages shared with fission reactors—will make fusion reactors more demanding to construct and operate, or reach economic practicality, than any other type of electrical energy generator.

The harsh realities of fusion belie the claims of its proponents of “unlimited, clean, safe and cheap energy.” Terrestrial fusion energy is not the ideal energy source extolled by its boosters, but to the contrary: It’s something to be shunned.

As a footnote, you might do some research on the potential of fusion weaponry. I have included some articles in the notes. Fusion weaponry was first thought of before fission weapons. There are many plans and many delivery systems designed that could potentially work to make the weapons possible. What has never been accomplished was the fusing. If fusion energy becomes possible and available fusion weapons are right behind. You might want to know that all of the countries who have invested heavily in creating fusion reactors have also invested heavily in technologies and research to make fusion weapons deliverable if the technology of fusing can itself be developed.

Redemption Song (Bob Marley lyrics taken from Marcus Garvey) [Verse 1] Old pirates, yes, they rob I Sold I to the merchant ships Minutes after they took I From the bottomless pit But my hand was made strong By the hand of the Almighty We forward in this generation Triumphantly [Chorus] Won't you help to sing These songs of freedom?

'Cause all I ever have Redemption songs Redemption songs [Verse 2] Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our minds Have no fear for atomic energy 'Cause none of them can stop the time How long shall they kill our prophets While we stand aside and look?

Ooh, some say it's just a part of it We've got to fulfill the book [Chorus] Won't you help to sing These songs of freedom?

'Cause all I ever have Redemption songs Redemption songs Redemption song [Verse 3] Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our minds Whoa! Have no fear for atomic energy 'Cause none of them-ah can-ah stop-ah the time How long shall they kill our prophets While we stand aside and look Yes, some say it's just a part of it We've got to fulfill the book [Chorus]

Won't you help to sing These songs of freedom?

'Cause all I ever have Redemption songs [Outro] All I ever have Redemption songs These songs of freedom Songs of freedom

Why Democracy Cannot Deliver the Promise Of Freedom

Democracy is the alternative to kings/autocratic leadership. Ultimately democracy promises leaders chosen by citizens of a democratic society thus taking away the power of top-down leadership and returning it to citizens, thus enabling basic human leadership where leaders are chosen by citizens to serve the citizens. If democracy were actually delivered on this promise there would be no need whatsoever for me to write anything because we would all be living in the type of society that I have argued was the type of leadership that allowed for our species to successfully evolve. We all know that there is currently a growing global tide to move towards more autocratic leadership. Many articles and books are currently being written on this subject so that even though i have been reading about this for nearly all of my life, i have probably doubled my output of reading about the subject in trying to ascertain comprehension of the issue in the last couple of years since the “stolen’ American election. This article is going to be primarily focused on current thought about why democracy appears to be failing. I am going to take a two-pronged approach. The first is to look at how democracy has succeeded in allowing more people to perceive they have more goods and a greater part in the society but the perception others of their own class are the cause preventing them from full possession of an equality in the fruits. The second prong is too look at how democracy has increased stratification rather than decreased it and the psychological consequences that those consequences lead to extremities in belief resulting in increasing chaotic behavior of individuals within those societies. No matter whether you believe everything in the universe was the result of orderly physical laws or chaotic chance, I do not think many will think that human society should be chaotic. In other words I find little cotestation of the notion that people do not assume their society should not be orderly. There may be challenges about how it should be ordered and there have been historical movements to disrupt established order chaotically, but the goal is always to reach a new design of the order in which the society should behave. Autocratic leadership from the top attempts to maintain that order to maintain their position of power by information that deludes those into believing their power is necessary, in rewards to supporters, and with violence against those who attempt to challenge that leadership. Democracy is supposed to fill the needs of society equitably and when it fails to do so, chaos within the society leads to movements towards autocracy to restore the order, again caused by the delusions of the failed promise.

The first ‘democracy'' was probably not in Athens. At least there is a lot of speculation that it was not first introduced in Athens and that it is cultural bias that only westerners could have had any democratic societies or that they initiated the concept. Research in this area is not universally accepted but the evidence from more research is beginning to mount. There is

some speculation that early Sumerian communities might have had democratic communities under the control of an autocratic state. If this is the case, then either they became dangerous to the state or the kings perceived a possibility of danger to their supremacy. At any rate if such early communities were democratically organized as Sumerian kings conquered more communities to satisfy his increased needs for more communities to be subdued, these small city democracies were consumed by the growing Sumerian autocracy. Another possibility that some far eastern scholars have suggested is that the Cham communities might have been to some extent have been participating in some type of democratic league, Others have suggested there might have been some Cham communities who practiced a form of democratic leadership and others that had autocrats much like what did occur in Greece. At any rate if there is any truth to this idea the need to unite under an autocrat when the Vietnamese wars began and ended with the subjugation of Champa and the eventual subjugation of the Chams into the Vietnamese kingdom. However there is a growing consensus that outside of Europe in many areas of the Southeast and in some of the Native American communities and parts of the South Pacific there were, if not democracies in the sense of elected leadership, at least the nonEuropean world was filled with “communities of discussion’. I have spent years studying the Native-American culture of the Plains tribes and basically this is how they organized their communities, not exactly big man but certainly not top down. In the plains societies women appeared to have no role in the discussion but every adult male was supposed to participate in discussing the direction and leaders were followed who were considered to have the best ideas. On the eastern side of the culture the Iroquois had a matrilineal hierarchy (which is not necessarily equated with female leadership; it refers to societies whose inheritance and lineage was traced through the female line and not the male). The female line were considered the cultural leaders and protectors of the culture but only sometimes seemed to have equal say in political discussions that were also led by community discussion, first within the state, then via representatives to the tribe and eventually each tribe sending representatives to the confederacy where once again there was discussion aimed towards consensus of each of the tribes. Crossing to the west coast, to the north pacific we see variations. Some matrilineal tribes, some patrilineal tribes, some autocratic and some led by group discussion. Some of the tribes that were matrilineal had autocratic female leadership who were some of the more violent against their neighbors and some matrilineal communities gave little leadership responsibilities to the females.What it boiled down to was a patternless community type and less geographically designed than we saw in our discussion of big men and kings in the south pacific. Ostensibly it boils down to community leadership and individual recognition by the community was of a diverse nature in areas of the world where resources were plentiful enough and the autocrats at least attempted to insure the community was resource responsible. There was also in these communities less grain cultivation which therefore created less environmental disruption and less need for conquest of more land to support a dying environment. Not that the americas were replete with perfect citizens who had no competition. They all fight territorial wars, some tribes were displaced and forced to relocate which caused further competition and displacement. Any species will fight incursion into their own territory if they feel it lessens the resources they need for survival.. Which is probably precisely why the mesolithic age was a time of great expansion into all areas of the globe. The mesolithic age probably had a lot of conflict to maintain population levels they felt their environment.could support. So if I am wrong

about leaders being all big men, the leaders of other kings that paralleled existence with the big men, at least existed in their leadership roles by showing more concern for individual importance of communal members and needed to show responsibility to the community by not over-taxing their environment. Wars, what there were of them were of smaller nature, not as much about conquest but survival and relocating was more about need if there were too many communities or tribes in a given area. Societies were built to fulfill the survival needs of their communities within their communities and in order to protect the environment tribes could interact or force others into displacement to protect the sustainability of the environment to fulfill the needs of the community. Now I see a lot of wisdom here and a lot of parallels within nonhuman species of all kinds from insect communities to marine communities. There is an innate sense of species to comprehend the need to preserve the environment that allows for their survival. All species have a genetic propensity to survive and to preserve the environment that allows them to do so. So kings who ravaged both people and their environment trained our species or the followers of those kings to lose all their comprehension that all species evolved comprehending. Once again I reiterate this type of leadership was evidence that genetic mutations are not always favorable to society and whatever mutation allowed for some to think they could conform nature to their will and disregard the needs of those they attempted to control was not an advance in genetic ingenuity but a devance in the intelligence of those who tried to do so and required the deception of superiority in order to maintain their own genetic perversion that had pushed them to such inferior loss of recognition of the holiness of the environment that gave them survival. They replaced that holiness with gods that anointed them to power and rewarded enough to support their perversion and punished enough to maintain their position.. As we discussed previously however, maintaining that power was precarious from all directions. They were attacked by their siblings and children, by those they rewarded and by those they attempted to subdue and by those they had subdued and by the very environment they thought they could change that would become hostile from abuse. And then the gods they created to authorize their authority would turn against them in the form of the dissatisfied caste of religious priests and sometimes from the zealous followers of those religions. Furthermore while they had no regard for those they conquered they were also in fear of being conquered. There was no safety but constant threat against their own survival all due to the fact they had no regard for others survival or the sustainability of their life within their environment. Many kings didn’t survive long enough to create their own dynasty. Those that did saw dynasty after dynasty fall across the globe. Once unleashed the demon of power hoarding became the norm of human behavior and cultures that resisted were usually ill-equipped to resist but even after sublimation people continued to resist, to fight for the recognition of their individual right to survive. The problem with resistance however was the successful resister now in power had no way to maintain that power without acting exactly like those they rebelled against.

I am going to mostly jump over the “first historical democracies” of Athens and Rome except to say they were in no way democratic for any but the minority who qualified as the autocratic class and were formed as a manner to prevent any particular autocrat from becoming overpowerful and reducing the authority of other autocrats. Both were relatively short lived.

Athens from circa 594 B.C.E. to at the latest 404 B.C. Aristotle claimed there were other city-

states in Greece practicing autocratic-democracy but they were mostly sub-states of Athens and mostly lost their own individuality when Athens needed to subdue them to support their increasing wars and deplenished resources. The Roman republic did survive for almost five centuries. It came about similarly to the nobles who forced John to sign the Magna Carta only Lucius Tarquinius Superbus wasn’t willing to grant any right to the noblemen and they simply stripped him of his power. Unwilling to let any other have too much control they formed a consulate leadership on a rotating basis from the autocrats who when not in the actual consulate could debate each other, pass laws and rule their dominions by the select few. It never worked well. The kingship had enslaved the citizens and ravaged the environment beyond sustainability and so conquest became necessary to support the autocrats who were supposedly democratic, but democratic only amongst themselves. And influence and power and consulship was earned by amassing an army, conquering another dominion and returning to the gates of Rome expecting, and receiving, consulship. If that is your idea of democracy you are welcome to it, it is not mine. We hail it today as a pillar of early democracy only because the American constitution bears some similarities to its organization and was created for somewhat similar reasons. But in practice it was an oligharghic minority led by several would-be-kings none of which had enough personal power to take over until Octavius succeeded in doing so.

But I do want to sidestep to the current discussion of democracy in ancient India. This discussion has been ongoing for 30 some years now. Actually you might say it goes back to 1903 and T.W. Rhys Davids who first began to suggest the possibility, or you might want to go back to accounts written during Alexander’s conquest of India that claim multiple democratic communities within parts of India conquered by Alexander. This evidence was almost always disregarded though, because Brahmanical literature predated Alexander and it supported a stratified and kingly society. Recent scholarship however is redating Brahmanical literature to around 200 B.C. well after Alexander’s conquest. (And in general not supported by many Indian scholars who cling to the concept that the Brahmanical literature as one of, if not the oldest philosophical system.)This has led to interest in T.W. Rhys David's scholarship on the Pali Canon, the oldest known canon of Buddhist scripture dated around 400 B.C.E. and before Alexander’s conquest. The Pali Canon is dated to 400 B.C.E. but set two centuries earlier to Buddha’s lifetime and it describes Indian communities based on a mix of oligarchic communities similar to what existed in the Iroquois and Pacific Northwest and discussion-type communities similar to the Native-American plains tribes. Of course this would contradict the western buddhist teachings that Buddhism was of kingly inheritance who saw great suffering and founded Buddhism as a means of repose from suffering and I don’t know the source or the date for those teachings. So at present the debate is ongoing. Let me throw in my 2 cents which may or may not be of any validity. The population of India at the time of Buddha is estimated to have been around 35,000 people. Considering the size and the diversified landscapes of India and the multiple ethnicities it is unlikely that it was massively overpopulated or that the environment was overstressed in support of the populations. Only in western India ,near Persia which had 50,000 people or ⅓ of the entire population of the world at that time, were there any larger communities. Alexander encountered no massive resistance and mostly small villagers in his march into India, . The encounter with Alexander probably altered the nature of those villages and we know he left behind some organizational remnants, at least the Seleucids did some administrative organization and India would have fallen under their domain. But again

they were primarily involved in Persia and only very western India which of course would have had to have been influenced by Persia. Now by the time the Europeans, primarily the British, became interested in and conquered India almost 2200 years had passed. India had multiple warring rajahs (kings) extreme stratification enabled by a caste (color) code to prevent racial mingling and hinduism had surpassed buddhism as the leading religion and it identified the caste system as valid and supported the kings as the “godly” order. The Western encounters led to what might be a mistaken belief that hinduism was the elder religion and that the Indians had always been ruled by kings, had always had a stratified caste system and had always lived in large overcrowded cities that couldn’t sustain the population that were rife with diseases due to the environment being incapable of sustaining the population. Evidence appears to be mounting in the last 30 years that this was a false pre-history of India and it was possibly similar to other areas of the world before contact with kings and stratification. I can’t say there is a definitive consensus at this time, so I speculate upon the new evidence, but once again we are basing our information on pre-history. If the Pali-Canon is dated to 400 B.C.E. then there was a written language and written languages usually indicate an involvement with kingships who needed to record inventories of their expected revenues. Writing did not begin due to increased intelligence but in order for kings to keep tax records. The earliest known writings from Sumerian, from Egypt, from China and from the Incas are all tax records or accountings of revenues. I have never seen any information of the earliest writings in Sanskrit but it was long considered to be the vedic writings which already mention the caste and the king. It is doubtful the Pali Canon and the Indian script was begun by non-kings since it is already a full blown script so that quite probably indicates that at the time of its creation there did exist some kingships who had had to create a script to track their rewards. At this point, once again there is no definitive answer but there is a great probability that it was not contiguously uniform and as in the vast North American continent there were different types of society with varying levels of leadership and varying regards for the environment as we discussed last month when we talked about the south pacific. It was probably also true in Europe because while we have evidence of mesolithic European settlements we have little historical evidence, as elsewhere, before kingdoms began to appear and before encounters with other kingdoms. We know quite a lot about the vikings and how they had severely overtaxed the northern european environment and were forced to seek to colonize elsewhere but here the kings did not develop a script as expansion itself included bounty but little taxation. But what do we know of the mesolithic settlers who were more than likely the first humans who made their way into the rapidly changing environment and allowing humans to survive in the environment of the far north?

Probably more is known and it is I who am ignorant but what I do know is humankind had moved into the area at least 1000 years before the Vikings arrived, displaced earlier inhabitants, and were themselves the product of having been displaced and pushed further north into an alien environment that could not provide enough resources or they simply mishandled the available resources.

Ultimately evidence mounts to illustrate that democratic-type government is prehistorical and ultimately the natural genetic nature of our species. That is why the refrain is so commonly reiterated. “People everywhere just want to be free”. Why do we see people clamoring for democratic governments and then seeing democratic governments fade back to autocracy. If

democracy is our true nature genetically and if that nature has led us to attempt throughout the course of history to pit people into a continuous battle against leaders to recognize our individual needs and strive for leadership who allow us have equitable power, if that is true, then why do we move always away from democracy and towards autocracy? Maybe the saying is wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe human nature is one of submissiveness to overpowering leaders. If the human evolved to be democratic then achieving democracy should be the end and there should be no backsliding or desire to backslide into autocracy. And so many assume, so our leaders assume, and don’t quite grasp how people turn to Hitler, or vote in autocratic leaders like Janos Ader. They give us democracy, why aren’t we grateful? Lyndon Johnson at the end of his life, broken and despised, purportedly asked “Why am I so despised? I did everything I could to give people more freedom, more equality, and more opportunity, why am I hated for that?” I agree he probably did try to do all of that and I also wonder why he was so despised. Personally I think there was never a democratically leader in history who tried harder to create a more equitable society, enfranchise more people, and create more opportunity. FDR didn’t come close.He did a few things but he was interested in restoring an economy and providing jobs but he didn’t give a whit for racial injustice. He never supported the growth of unionism although he did support a minimum wage. He initiated social security but didn’t think about ways to care for the rest of society. He spent a lot of government money on creating massive jobs projects but gave little interest in having the private sector invest their wealth in job equity. He was despised by the rich and delighted in it because he was loved by the poor.

Johnson expanded the vote, passed laws to eliminate segregated housing projects, enforced the desegregation of schools, restaurants and transportation. He had all the leftover segregated bathrooms and water fountains removed. Cities in Indiana where I was from had to remove their damnable “Niggers who enter may be shot on sight” signs. They weren’t removed after Brown or during Kennedy’s administration. He started early education to give the poor a Head Start, he made pell grants and scholarships available so those same poor could attend university. He expanded community college programs and he required universities to expand grants and admittance to an unprecedented amount of “minorities.” He expanded social security to include payments to disabled or for some other reasons that might prevent people from being able to work. He supported striking workers in favor of owners and mandatory arbitration. He started the food stamp program and hot school lunches.

So the rich hated him for that. Well they hated FDR, so to be expected, And the working class hated him. And the poor hated him. And the white middle class youth hated him for the war in Viet Nam and because he only did all that other stuff because it was Kennedy’s plan (which absolutely none of it was on Kennedy’s agenda) and he was really a bigoted southern white man.

Johnson as a young school teacher taught in southeastern Texas, heavily minority and hispanic and saw kids too hungry to lift up their school books. He took money from his own pocket, and school teachers in those days didn’t make much, to bring lunch to his students. And he made a vow to himself that he had to do something in his life to make America a country where no one went hungry and everyone had the same opportunity. He entered politics to do something to keep that vow. He was enabled by marrying into a family with enough to help him fulfill his singular vision of democracy. Some accuse him of stealing his election. If he did, I’m glad.

Some say he lied and cheated to get ahead. If he did I’m glad He certainly manipulated white

southerners into thinking he agreed with their principles but something needed to be done or they would all lose their power. And so they voted for the Voting Rights Act, okay,not the best, a step, the best a majority leader could do with a non supportive president and half of his majority not wanting any blacks to be enfranchised. But he knew it wasn’t enough. But he used that victory to run for president in 1960. There were not a lot of primaries in those days but the few there were in northern states had little interest in voting for a southern over a charismatic young senator from Massachusetts who made charismatic and rhetorical speeches with little substance but left the door open for many to consider promise.The convention was rather contentious that year but on the first ballot Kennedy won overwhelmingly 809-406 Since Johnson had no appeal in the north, and since the biggest state of California was the most conservative state in the union who voted for only one democratic presidential candidate til 1992 (ironically Lyndon johnson in ‘64) was sure to go to Nixon (which it did) Johnson would not be able to win carrying only the solidly democratic south.. The more liberal voices favored Johnson but the pragmatic and the delegates who had difficulty tying their own shoelaces went for Kennedy. Ideally the party liberals shunned Kennedy but the intellectuals favored him and there were no other real choices at the convention. Johnson then did something unusual. He opted to do something no other senate majority leader had ever done. He would give up his position of the most powerful member of the United States Senate to accept the most powerless position in the United States government of Vice President in the hopes that in 4 or 8 years he might get to become President. He knew there was only one way to have enough power to actually transform the American Government into being a democracy with all citizens enfranchised and all citizens having an equal opportunity. The democrats dressed up Kennedy to appeal to Americans as a pragmatist who could lead America into the glorious future, we would beat Russia to the moon, we would beat them economically and we would continue our military dominance and lead the world with the success and pragmatism of democracy. As for civil rights? It was a matter upon “which we need to consider how to make progress”. Black leaders took that as a promise. They encouraged black voters to go to the polls where they could. In one of the narrowest margins in history the blacks who could vote made Kennedy president. On inauguration day Kennedy spoke the immortal lines he is still renowned for “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Oh boy, here we go— What is the promise of democracy? The citizens will be enabled to choose leaders who will ask what the country can do for them instead of having top down leaders who will tell what they can do for the country. So what becomes the catchphrase, the defining quote that we still teach our children today. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” I am ten years old and am listening to the radio (we didn’t at that time have a TV) I started feeling agitated, my father is enthralled. I blurt out “no, that’s wrong!. “Quiet,” he says.

So we listen to the rest of the speech. I didn’t hear another line. That line is running through my head over and over . Finally Kennedy stops speaking. “Wow!”, my father says, “That’s the greatest speech in history.” “No no, it’s all wrong!” I yell at him. “What do you mean by that?” he queries. “Don’t we vote so the government does what we want? If we have to do what the government wants doesn’t that mean we’re communists?’ “You don’t understand, “ my father says. “But—”. And so he gave the final word, “Until you understand there is nothing to discuss.” So I still do not understand. I do not comprehend that if the promise of democracy is

a government selected by the people to do what they want, via a free press, and a free discussion to determine what people feel are the needs they wish that government do for them via a vote. If that is the promise, then how is the keynote catchphrase of American democracy the reverse, to cast a vote for the candidate whom we cannot ask to do anything for us?

Therein lies the confusion that leads to the delusion that democracy covers over our eyes.

Now I want to briefly return to Lyndon Johnson Tragedy and circumstance enabled him the opportunity to fulfill that youthful dream of a government that responded to the needs of the people rather than took from the people to fulfill the wants of the powerful. Johnson as far as I am aware is the only elected official who actually believed and attempted to make the promise of democracy a reality.. There have been others who have spoken of equity and who have made incremental steps in the direction. Johnson attempted a complete overhaul all at once, to force Americans into a society of equitableness and a government that was responsible to ensure the needs of all of its citizens, thus eliminating power stratification by giving every adult citizen equal empowerment via the votes and via the resources to equitable standards within the community. I’ve heard many politicians promise incremental steps towards equity but never such a complete overhaul. He did live 5 years after his departure but seldom ever appeared in public again . He was a broken, defeated, lonely man after his presidency who could never understand why he was unappreciated or despised. He had had a dream as a young man to actually eradicate poverty and inequity and to make democracy a system where no individual’s vote could be more valuable than another’s. He was smart enough to know he had to deceive southern backers and southern voters into sponsoring and electing. him. He was smart enough to gain the majority leadership and to convince the block of southern senators to give a few small steps toward equity. But he realized to accomplish his goal of a complete overhaul towards an equitable society and a complete enfranchisement to total equity could not be done incrementally but only by a complete overhaul. I totally agreed. I was idealistic in the sense I believed an overhaul was the only possible solution. I still do. But I understand now the impossibility of an overhaul. I understand the deluding principles upon which democracy was founded and why it can never succeed to satisfy the innate need of the human for both freedom and community.. Freedom cannot exist apart from community and an equitable community.

Individual freedom can only exist where the survival of the community requires the community to recognize equitable value in each member’s role in the community. So let us pause and try to determine how the human personality evolved.

The psychology of man To understand the psychology of man you don’t start with Sigmund Freund and the fruits that led to psychotic displacements. Man’s essential biological nature begins with man’s evolution and man’s evolution begins with the earth’s evolution within our solar system, and that evolution begins with the evolution of the universe. Now some speculate everything happened by chance and things could be different or have developed differently than they did develop. There is speculation of alternate universes or parallel universes or matterless universess. The last is beyond my comprehension in what would be within such a universe. Nevertheless what could

be or could have been is not what is. So it has nothing to do with how our universe began, so let us stick with our best theory (most commonly accepted by the scientific community) and that is that at some point something happened, what is commonly called a singularity. Whatever caused the singularity, whether it already contained its own blueprint to how the universe would develop we do not know. You can say it was god or it was not god and it just happened, what did happen actually occurred within a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age. Or faster than instantaneous, faster than light and in that fraction of time, the lighter elements already existed and in that hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second this universal genesis inflated in size over 90 times and grew from subatomic particles to a golf-ball sized universe. So within that time we have neutrons, protons, electrons, antielectrons, photons and neutrinos. The beginning began faster than beginnings begin by immediately doing what the universe has done since, it began to evolve. We think within three minutes the universe cooled from 100 nonillion Kelvin to 100 billion Kelvin.The cooling caused these protons and neutrons into frantic activity creating deuterium hydrogen molecules which mostly combined to form helium. But it was too hot for these elemental elements to actually produce light. The heat caused by “big band” continued to produce the expansion of these elemental particles, but they swirled in a massive soupiness. But as the cooling increased the cosmic dark age saw clumps of these soupy gasses coalesce enough to become elemental stars and during this the ultra-violet lightspan began and that caused the ionization of almost all of the remaining neutral hydrogen. As I continually attempt to point out, this non-deuterium hydrogen is extremely rare in the universe and one of the issues that will become a major obstacle in any future attempts at colonization.. That is why the report we spoke about last issue determining our water therefore means that what we have here on earth was somehow embedded into our planet before star formation. The implications that this is the case haven’t been developed yet, but that could upset some of our current universe-origin theories about how we have an abundance of natural hydrogen and an abundance of free oxygen (O2) that in truth we can’t find elsewhere in the galaxy. So we needn’t worry any longer about invasions from other planets or spacemen coming to our planet. Even if they had a planet with a species capable of space exploration the earth would have no appeal because they would not be able to recognize that life could be sustained by such elements. Governments hiding alien contact conspiracy torn to threads. Earth is unique in its duo elements of O2 and non-deuterium hydrogen.

Everyday I read reports of new discoveries our telescopes have shown us about the universe and everyday I wonder why we are trying to re-explain our theories but no one seems to be getting the two elemental principles—rapid change of evolving into relative eras of stability. And continuous birth and death and rebirth of star systems and galaxies. And there is a lot of really recent speculation that even black holes are not the end—that there are, as yet undeciphered, activities going on within those black holes, and there is speculation they could eventually “spit out” matter thousands of light year’s beyond the universe creating new stars, new galaxies and possibly new universes. The other thing I have been noting is the extreme diversity between star systems. Planets in other systems don’t follow the pattern of our solar system.. So there must be a reason that the life of even star systems requires diversity. Diversity both within and without the systems is the second element of the physical blueprint. To change something will

change something else and to change drastically, like a supernova, can cause drastic realignments within space. So this very “nature” of nature is basic even within human nature.

But before we actually get into the nature of man we have to see how our earth itself formulated.

There are a multitude of speculations of where the gaseous dust clouds that formed into our solar system, but what seems to be one of the most commonly accepted is the idea that it probably was the gaseous remains of an exploded supernova. So like our brief explanation of the origin of the universe we now have a bunch of unsettled particles swirling around within a large cloud of gaseous dust that began to swirl at faster and faster speeds and the speed of this spinning caused a move into the center of the nebula which due to the gravitational of the heavier mass of the center continually increased the speed at which the particles were spinning.The intense speed forced the hydrogen molecules into becoming helium which created massive build-up of energy in the center that would become our sun. This mass consumed 99% of the mass of the dust but the outer layers of the nebula continued to spin around the inner center until other elements began to coalesce enough to create their own gravitational fields due to mass . Now the older theory that rocky planets formed closer to the sun because it would have been too hot for the gas giants couldn’t be true because we have found other solar systems with all gas giants and others with all rocky planets and others with inner gas giants and outer rocky planets. Once again showing that before anything settles into what it is cannot occur unless it is sufficiently divergent within itself but also divergent to its neighbors. As our solar system was developing it was unstable in its era of evolution until after it reached a point of stability. Comets flew around orbits were not stable and the matter was actually developing into each planet’s system Now we get to earth and the last two years of discovery means we can’t follow the textbook.

For one thing we received less than 2% of our water from comets crashing into the earth as less than 2% is deuterium. But secondly and most important recent developments suggest that elemental life began not halfway into the planet’s formation, but possibly within 300,000 years after the earth’s formation even before more or less settled orbits and before the earth itself was completely settled—perhaps 2 billion years earlier than previous speculations. This is kind of puts to rest that RNA from comets brought us our lifetimes. What did happen was the solar disharmony affected the lifeforms but didn’t bring them.. What we know of life—biological carbon-based life seems to have had the same seedings in the elements that coalesced into the earth. So the make-up of the atmosphere is not what allows our biological life to exist but affects what types of species exist. Let’s go all the way back to the pre-permian age of which we know very little but now have discovered elemental life. Which actually makes a lot of sense because we have known life goes back to at least the cambrian age. We know that during the cambrian age there was an explosion in species development in the cambrian era. But that was the first species explosion era. But new research has shown that microbial life forms existed at least 3.48 billion years in discoveries from the geyserite in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia. And yet RNA has been analyzed from non-terrestrial rock as long ago as 4.5 billion years ago. Okay, at issue is the “non-terrestrial” definition of these specimens. Because that would mean that these specimens are older or as old as the earth so the collision occurred before there was an earth or while the earth was becoming an actual gravitational entity of any

mass so while the elements may seem non-terrestrial they were here as long as earth and here as part of earth’s formation and not delivered at a later date from meteorites. So logically and accepting the scientific timeline the RNA from which life developed was part of earth’s formation and could not have been from meteorites after the earth’s formation if they are older than the earth’s formation. So we have another puzzlement in that the origins of RNA are found in rocks older than the formation of earth but also in rocks that don’t exist on earth. So back to the archean age around a billion years later we have discovered a flourishing culture of bacterial specimens that probably primarily “fed” off the early archean rock that was forming into the earth. These rocks from the hadean age are classified as rocks from meteorites but there are no earthly rocks from this era. We do know earth was coalescing into the earth during this age and unstable and that meteorites were flying around and crashing into earth and probably everything else. The solar system wasn’t settled but there was a mass of earth but not yet a stable planet of earth. So if you look at these early rocks as extra-terrestrial due to this, which at present seems to be the preferred theory then that is distinctly a possibility. ButI tend to feel we are going to discover that the early tumultuousness of the solar system’s formation is going to lead us to discover that just as we discovered water on earth did not come from comets that the elements we now think of us as extra-terrestrial rock more than likely are RNA-coded rocks and those rocks formed as part of the earth but since they don’t otherwise exist on earth they very well may be unique earthly rocks with RNA-coding and that there uniqueness is not evidence of meteors bringing life to earth but of the very uniqueness of the RNA-coding itself requiring unique, and otherwise not found on earth type of rock. I could be wrong, that’s speculation based on other new discoveries of unique qualities upon the earth. The presence of RNA on meteorites might indicate a uniqueness to those meteorites as well. If it is discovered they do have RNA embedded in meteorite rock. As far as I know however there has been no RNA-coded meteorites that have landed upon earth since 4.5 billion years ago. So that makes RNA on meteors to have existed only long enough to crash into earth, deposit their RNA payload and float merrily back into space lacking RNA. And at that time of crashing there were both collisions and separations, or breakings, from the earth that would be unlikely after the atmosphere began to develop greatly. (Think the moon could have broken from the earth due to a cosmic collision) So however it happened, earth and the kind of life we are able to recognize as life have coexisted nearly as long as the earth became stable enough to actually be a “planet”, as far back as the archean age and just after the hadean era of formation. But the first evidence of a mass growth in species development and diversity begins with the Cambrian era. The Cambrian era begins with the break-up of Pannonita and the redevelopment into the new supercontinent of Pangaea. We know life existed, but not to what extent, before the earth reassembled its land mass. This might have in itself have been an era of extinction we don’t too much about at present but we do know that in the proterozoic era photosynthesis drastically altered the atmosphere and the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere caused by photosynthesis and the replacement to an O2 rich atmosphere began to occur. But during this time the earth’s tectonic plates were in constant flux and there was a lot of atmospheric buildup of sulfur so most of the oxygen became sulfur oxide and would not have been a suitable environment for oxygen breathing species. But the sinks of unoxidized sulfur began to be expended and formed it to

metallic beds of what became iron deposits. This helped lead to carbon sequestration so that elements in the atmosphere that would have been oxidized began to lesson and what was left was oxygen that did something that is universally rare, it combined with itself and became O2 from the photosynthesis and the atmosphere began to form into a very similar composition of oxygen that existed at, not until, the dawn of civilization.

So life is here on earth but what life had existed could have only existed with the former atmosphere but as the cambrian age began the atmosphere is radically transformed and the explosion in species development began. Species development occurs out of need because species are interdependent and need each other. But all was not utopic or happily ever after for life on earth. There were at least 5 mass extinctions, but always the survivors form new species and life continues. Of course to us the Jurassic extinction is relevant not because it was the worse but because our ancestors survived that extinction—the mammals as a family and in particular the earliest ancestors of the semian-hominidae families. All of this is to point out that our roots began with creation and the two primal driving forces that the elements and the four physical forces dictate—evolution and diversity. Everything evolves and it can evolve successfully only if it fulfills a need in the process so evolution requires diversity and that requirement goes back to the first fractions of a second of the universe’s beginnings. The very elements that exist are in flux and seek to connect and repel and this causes constant evolution but if everything evolved into only one thing stasis would occur and evolution would cease so for evolution to occur there has to be diversity.

And the discovery of the necessary diversity that exists beyond our planet, beyond our solar system and includes entire galaxies leads us to what we mentioned previously, species evolving en masse as the only method of species survival. The Jurassic extinction was not the worst in our planet’s lifetime. But what we are going to concentrate on is a particular family of species that not only survived the Jurassic extinction but used it to thrive. Now it's silly to talk about dinosaurs being a “dominant” species. What does that mean? That they consumed the most resources? Well they didn’t consume more than were available and they didn’t go extinct from overuse of the resources, it was the meteorite that caused the resources their survival depended upon to dry up and that caused their own demise. They certainly were not numerically dominant simply because if they had been they would have over-consumed their resources. But almost every other genera was numerically more dominant, more species of vegetation, more species of insect, etc. There had to be more resources than dinosaurs to allow them to flourish and survive and the abundance of the other species is what allowed them to survive without overtaxing or “dominating” the environment they lived in. They became large because there were so many other species and some creature needed to evolve to create a parity of the overabundance so that both the other species and the dinosaurs survived, not at all because the dinosaurs dominated the environment. One of these other families of species that certainly had more different species and more than likely greater overall numerically than dinosaurs were–mammals. And the Jurassic extension seems not to have eliminated mammals at all. What did happen though was a need for mammalian evolution to create or to evolve quite rapidly. So mammal species began to diverge, and once again relatively recent research has shown just how rapidly the mammals began to diverge. One of the survivors of the

environmental holocaust was what we think may have been the species that began to diverge into our early simian-primate species.

So eventually hominids arose from this divergent explosion. Mammals became larger, and then smaller again, and like always the divergence continued until nature was able to balance itself.

The evolution and divergence of species goes on until their is a relative natural balance so that all of the species survive and absolutely none are dominant but all co-equal and all are codependent which allows all to survive. But species must evolve rapidly until there is an equality of species to insure the survival of all the species and then evolution or the rapid development of multitudinous species begins to decline. And as we mentioned, as the successful species survive they survive with a culture, or behavioral traits that allow for that survival. One of those behavioral traits is intraspecies relationship that allow for that survival to take place. And these are why I believe the early traits of humanity required leadership that centered on the importance of each individual within the community because the hominoid line could only exist as a community. If this is true, then it follows that the sense of being important to the community’s society is an inherent genetic trait and why people want to be “free”. Freedom, in the genetic sense can never come from what leaders allow us to have but from leaders who recognize individual importance. Freedom simply cannot be attained without importance to the community but they have become separated and we think importance comes from fame or power or wealth, or all three, and when we seek individual importance or individual freedom we create a human environment where everyone is seeking importance over someone else and a society that cannot fulfill the needs of anyone. It is the importance and freedom of our nature coming from each individual’s fulfilling a need to the community as a whole as opposed to importance that is achieved from taking away someone else’s importance. So a man seeks to dominate his wife to be important to her while subjugating her own importance. And all the isms come from this subjugation—sexism, racism, etc. Some say you can’t be a reverse racist or sexist or that racism is only one group attempting to subjugate another, but it is any person who tries to be more important than another, which can, of course, spiral to groups.

If freedom comes from the individual’s importance to the community through the recognition of each individual that there are no indispensable members of the community, then when the individual recognizes his need for the community to survive and when the community recognizes its survival exists only by the necessity of each individual can the survival of both exist.. The lone cowboy is as isolated as the lone wolf, without community, they seek it. The myth of strong individuality and freedom of the loner “who can survive on his own” is not only a myth but rarely occurred in our wild west days. The few instances of survival alone for any significant amount of time in those days were so rare they became acclaimed, widely reported and considered feats of amazements. There were no instances of the cowboy going off totally alone and surviving, these are simply false. The legend of Jim Bridger is false, he never existed apart from a community, he traveled to the west within a community and left that community to live in a native-american community. The survival skills he learned from living within the native-american community he then took back to the white community traveling with a

white community. He then used the skills and knowledge he had learned while living in the native-american community to aid the white community in their attempts to eradicate the Indian community that had taught him those skills. (The change from native-american to Indian is intentional.) From this the legend arose that he had accomplished and gained this knowledge from living alone in the wilderness and developing his skills alone.

So within the genetic code, not necessarily an identifiable DNA marking, but that’s because we don’t really know how and/or have never attempted to develop the culture that is encoded into the DNA. We assume culture develops after a species evolves. But without a culture a species could not evolve successfully. Some species have the ability to adapt to environmental change but many do not. In the case of birds they adapted by becoming, in general, smaller than their dinosaurian ancestors as divergence from the ancestors created the bird species which allowed for the emergence of birds. Humanity, as such, appears to have arisen from a divergence into simian and the into the great and lesser apes. We now believe there was not one human divergence who progressively evolved into modern humans but several that blended into what is now humanity. Evolution is now known not to be a step by step progression of one species into another but a divergence of species in eras of great upheaval to the environment. This is because multiple species must evolve nearly simultaneously to insure survival of each. Nature demands a balance of species. There is no chance finding good mutations into new species but the organization of multiple interdependent species that fill a niche or place in the environment.

It is well established today that evolution occurs by divergence and blending and because of need. A species who feeds on another cannot survive without the other but a species also cannot survive without a species to feed on it. It might be a virus or bacteria and then other species to feed on carcasses so the earth didn't become a cesspool. Great eras of upheaval within the environment require great adjustments by the earth. And great epochs of introducing new lifeforms always require balance and interdependence so we have to enter into an era of multiple species developing and diverging to fill each niche necessary for the survival of each.

Now the first species in the new era begin to diverge wildly into multiple species until the need appears to lessen and species development slows down and blending of species that are blendable begin. Of course we can’t blend with trees, but we can’t blend with other great apes either. But the great apes known today are almost certainly the result of blendings into their current species as we recognize it. In the age of divergence the goal of nature is to fulfill itself with survivable species that can survive and they continue to diverge until nature or the earth is able to sustain the life forms because the necessary dependence of each species upon each other species is achieved. Then and only then is there a possibility of superfluous species blending and the type of evolution Darwin noted. During the age of divergence cultures for species that are going to survive develop. If a species like the snow leopard is to survive there must be a culture of how it meets to mate, of female territories not overlapping but male territories overlapping several female territories, of how long a mother must care for its young before sending it off and how frequently it needs to mate. Without that culture the species doesn’t survive. So the culture (some call it instinct but it is more, I think, an entire culture of survival from which the instinct is born. The instinctual behavior of species does not develop after the culture it has to develop with the culture or is the result of a culture. The snow leopard can’t first survive and then call a meeting to design the territorial needs it might need. It could

only have survived with the culture already established when the species survived. One of the more interesting animal cultures is the orangutan. The orangutan seems decidedly uncultured , solitary and extreme. But the orangutan youth require years of nursing and training and are well into their teens before adulthood. Because the young orangutan needs such a lengthy period of maternal care it is 8-10 years before the female can give birth again. The gibbons live in a similar environment within proximity of the orangutans. They are smaller and weaker, they propel themselves more rapidly and one parent can bring home food for the young and they live in nuclear families. The orangutan male and female display extreme dimorphism; males often double the weight of a female. Despite the male weighing up to 200 lbs they can move quite rapidly within the trees but cumbersomely upon the ground. The female diet is also more diverse and her movements more fixed to a specific location. Because of this a family isn’t possible as the female wouldn’t be able to protect herself while the male foraged. So adult males circle around the female nest always attempting to avoid each other. They need to be asocial amongst themselves. If they circled together or socialized or climbed out of the trees for a meal together the females could become vulnerable. Now this culture was the culture that allowed for orangutan survival.. It’s not an arbitrary afterthought but an essential ingredient to the success of the orangutan’s survival. So the need for species to survive are dependent on a culture that gives that species survivability. Without the culture that allows the species to survive it has no chance. That culture evolves around the physical characteristics, the reproduction cycle, the surrounding environmental resources available shelter, protection as well as food. For survival those multiple needs to be met a culture must evolve that allows for them to all be met. A giraffe could not have evolved without the environment but was necessary to evolve in that environment (or something similar to the giraffe). Put perhaps if a dolphin had evolved on land with a method of propelling himself on land he could have survived.

As it is there are some mammals that did evolve successfully in oceans but too many mammals within the ocean would not have been successful species. Which might be why it is suggested some mammals were able to come out of the ocean and be more successful on land. But however any species evolves it cannot evolve successfully until it evolves in a manner to survive in its environment and that is why after times of great environmental stress there begins great frenzies of evolutionary attempts to survive and as the species evolve the environment settles into a specific habit along with the evolution of the species that bring about the habitat.

Until oxygen was replenished by photosynthesis the amount of oxygen breathing species were limited but with the oxygen developing in the atmosphere. We don’t often think of evolution as necessary but of course it is necessary—if there were only plants the oxygen they produced would eventually overwhelm their ability to survive. There is a teleological method to earth’s life forms but mankind overlooks this in order to presume evolution marched only towards him which is just as ignorant as presuming the sun revolves around the earth. Man is not the centerpiece of evolution but merely a small piece of the earth’s need to create a balance for itself.

But this may seem like I am attributing godly attributes to earth. But if we go beyond earth and look at all of the amazing differences in the universe that are being discovered anew everyday, then it is not just earth, but the universe. Star systems vary, some of all gas giants, some all rocky planets but all vary. Stars vary in size and vary in death. Black holes exist and have

certain properties just as stars and planets, but vary in gravitational strength and mass. And all of this is necessary. I don’t know why solar systems don’t mirror each other but probably for the very same reason that earth needs diversity. And if this sounds like some divine mind it sort of is. Okay maybe not somebody setting behind it all and creating it, but if we accept that at some point something unknown happened, that singularity that began our universe, it happened with certain atoms and molecules and then they began to combine and form into the elements that became the building blocks from which our universe sprang and this is the plan, this is the god, if there is no other—the interactions that grew to create from those elements our universe, two things were necessary those atoms and molecules combined creating the need for constant change, or evolution. If they didn’t do anything after the singularity, then there were be a handful of the initial elements and nothing, but there was a teological necessity that came from that fraction of a second to combine and change and from the fraction of a fraction in which the singularity there was a need for the universe to grow into the universe because of the need of those elements to combine and change but it wasn’t just chance—if there was only one goal to combine and change then they would have just combined into one big glob of elements—-but they did not, they combined in certain ways and were guided almost by the four forces that govern the laws of physics. And these forces meant that not only was there a constant need for change, for the molecules to interact with each other but a second teological necessity—the law of diversity that formed a type of balance. And everything that occurred had to occur because when one thing occurs (change) something else must occur to create a balance (diversity). So there are no mirror planets, no mirror stars, no mirror galaxies even though there are many of the same things. So no two stars have the same mass, no two solar systems have the same amount or type of planets, etc. Man from his egocentric position assumed it should be so there should be a galaxy full of jupiters and earths and all earths would be the same and all life on these planets would be the same and they would evolve in the same manner and apex with what we think of as intelligent life, i.e., ourselves—a type of man.. But every new astrophysical revelation is showing us this is wrong. Diversity means every star spit out different elements and they combined to form different types of solar systems. Larger stars obviously had more lighter elements to form their sun and differing elements to form the planets.. So the very combination of elements were of diverse nations in the same way that the planets in our solar system are diverse. Despite this these planets themselves continually evolve to maintain the diverse nature of themselves. Just as on earth. Now all of these planets may well have life— but none of the life will mirror ours but until we can “mind meld” we will not be able to recognize.

Perhaps there are already a million species on Mars. Maybe species are types of dust but we will never recognize them because they don't meet our expectations of life. So maybe we need to move our conception of life away from what we term life to the elements of matter and the laws of physics that are the actual forces that require continuous and diverse interaction. Now if you look at this way you will see that man cannot change the genetic process of our creation that gave us a need for a certain type of culture in order to survive. Okay some speculate there could be different universes and different physical laws and different forces and they come up with grand mathematical formulas to show the possibility. At that point I have to stand back and let Stephen Hawking speak.. We can’t talk about other types of laws, we can’t talk about time before time. Ultimately we have to deal with what is. Our universe could not have been different simply because it isn’t different. The laws of physics controlling our universe could not

be different than they are. If we don’t yet have full knowledge of them, we nevertheless live within their realm.Of course there could be other types of universes that have different physical laws. I suppose there could be an antimatter universe (admittedly it exceeds my imagination exactly what an antimatter universe would conceive of) There could be a universe where time flows backwards into the singularity (once again I'm beyond being able to conceive of it). But they’ve been suggested. It’s way beyond the scope and it simply distracts us from the reality of what actually is.

So now we can return to our discussion of why democracy fails us and should not. Everyone needs the recognition of importance as an individual. Everyone needs a community to survive.

One man simply cannot survive, one of even a non-communal animal like a snow leopard could not survive even though it survives singularly. Yes some molecular animals reproduce by celldivision, some animals can, in times of need, biologically reproduce through parthenogenesis. It occurs in some plants, it occurs in some reptile species, some insect species, a few birds, sharks and a few types of fish. I won’t go into a full explanation of parthenogenesis and the variations of it but as far as I am aware the only animal species that can reproduce solely through parthenogenesis is the desert grassland whiptail lizard. Other species in which it is common need some sperm presence in order for it to occur. But once again the issue is due to how that species was able to successfully evolve and does not alter that our evolutionary success is due to evolving with survivable characteristics in our environment. The successful evolution of hominids was as a communal creature that depended upon each member within its community. And it is because the community depended on the individuals within the community equally with the individual’s dependence that we have a genetic need for the community that recognizes our importance within the community. And this gives us both our identity with group and our striving for recognition..

THE FRAUD OF DEMOCRATIC BEGINNINGS Kingship attempted to maintain the community but focus recognition upon itself, and then to the next status below the king, etc. As we discussed no one ever was satisfied with being of lower status and so the history of kingship was a history of tumultuousness and unending struggles to remove the status of the overlords. Now let’s jump ahead about four millennia to medieval England. In roughly 1215 a king agreed to grant certain rights (at this time though, only to the few in the most prominent position to depose him). Now the Magna Carta did little for anyone but a few high placed nobles but by granting these nobels certain equity it seeded what was to become modern democracy. The king abandoned total autocracy for allowing a few nobles equity to prevent his own dispatch at their hands. While it was not the complete end of all contestation to the throne of England, the continuous civil challenges and dynastic changes. It came about primarily when the Normans (basically) made the last successful conquest of England; there were far more powerful non-Normans than Normans and William and his successors needed to enlist their support. Also in any European nation at the time the Catholic

Church was a dual authority and had to be reckoned with by any king wishing to rule. (Not something new developed by the western christian church but had just as the first kings had had to enlist a class to support their kingship they had had to create a religious caste to lend support to their right to rule, even those that claimed their own divinity. The power of religion always paralleled the power of kings and created their own castes within their ranks. By attempting To control humanity they were forced to control the spirituality of men who had strived to maintain a balance. I imagine spiritual leadership had always existed but in pre-king days the role of the spiritualist was to guide the community into maintaining an environmental balance, with kings religious support was necessary to support the imbalance created by kings both within the community and with nature, so spiritualization needed to also become organized and became co-powerful to support the inequality as natural right) At any rate to maintain the success of his invasion William brought the church leaders in England, and the former powerful leaders into a Great Council with his own supporters that had helped him succeed in his conquest. In theory the Council ruled with the king as executor. It didn’t always work.. One of the well known instances of course was the muder of Thomas a Beckett by Henry II when Henry attempted to usurp some of the church’s authority. Of course that was not the only breakdown. William’s sons William Rufus and Robert Curthose split the council and fought each other for control. A few years later Henry’s only (legitimate) male heir died and he attempted to appoint his daughter to the kingship. But upon his death several competitors enlisted support from different lords and war amongst them lasted 25 years, the era known as the Anarchy. That is a kind of a misnomer since there was not no government, but several claimants fighting each other, joining each other, changing allegiances, all jockeying for power and all claiming authority. But then it might have been a period of anarchy because as soon as one army seemed to defeat another, other dukes or earls would break away and develop their own coalition. There seemed no end to the strife because no one wanted to submit to one leader being able to consolidate the nation. There is a wealth of historical records of this era and it is interesting because every side of the conflict wrote their own history. Ken Follett’s famous novel, and the movie based on it, Pillars of the Earth, is not a good place to begin for understanding as it presents only one side as correct and Follett seems to have limited his knowledge to only one source. For that reason I recommend ignoring it totally. This was not a time of good king v. bad king but of a bunch of attempts to become king with no one willing to let anyone be a good or bad king. Stephen, pilloried in the novel, was a usurper of sorts in that he overthrew Henry I’s appointed heir, but that was not why he didn’t successfully rule, his attempted coup became an opportunity for Tom, Duke & Earl to attempt to usurp power for themselves, for the Scots to the North and The Welsh in the south-east to breakaway. It was a time of anarchy in the sense that the Great Council became a great war because all the counselors took swords in hand. It was a time of horrendous devastation to the land and the people of England, a loss of many of the great forests. Funnily enough, Stephen’s lands suffered very little damage. But then everything started with Stephen leaving his lands to attack Mathilde’s and the wars never seemed to return there. War also changed in nature from one of great battles between armies to one mostly fought by attacking another lord’s lands and surrounding their castles and became more of a contest to win more territory from each other rather than to actually establish any particular side as victor. Which of course was the point and why it’s called the anarchy because no one really wanted another king. Eventually Matilde’s son Henry FitzEmpress with a small army crossed

from Normandy where his mother had fled back to England offering peace by saying he would reinstate the Great Council. Stephen was uncertain if his surviving son William coud rule and everyone just seemed tired of the war. Many of the lords took their armies and joined the second crusade, Stephen signed an armistice with Henry FitzEmpress. Upon his ascendancy Henry expelled all he deemed mercenaries who had brought armies to the conflict and finished demolishing and burning 375 castles. Out of this mess came the first trappings of democracy.

Henry FitzEmpress now became Henry II of England. He inherited England and Normandy through his mother, Anjou & Maine through his father and Aquitaine through his wife. History usually portrays him as a great king because of his many holdings and his domination and as the founder of the Plantagenet dynasty. He was actually a man who never liked to keep a promise. He broke his promise to Louis of France, to his wife, to the nobles of England and to his friend Beckett. He promised to get an advantage and broke his word to take advantage.

You might say he was the extreme caricature of the king who believes he is entitled to any and everything, that he had the absolute right to do whatever he wanted to do. Generally in taking everything he has won a lot of historical praise. Like the long ago Sargon Of Sumer who may have been the first “lawgiver”, Henry is noted for laying down the foundations of jurisprudence that became the building blocks of anglo-american jurisprudence. In reality, Henry after getting the war-weary barons to anoint him and after the treaty with Stephen, Henry retreated from England back to France. The treaty that had ended the great wars gave Stephen the kingship til his death at which time Henry would become king. Miraculously Stephen died quite suddenly a few months later. Within the next year or two all of the still potential rivals to the throne, including Stephen’s last son all died. Henry went about rebuilding the English treasury, reclaiming Scottish and Welsh territories that had broken away during the chaos and building himself a couple of huge palaces before venturing back to England. Henry ended up with not only most of England under his control but he controlled more of France than anyone since the Carolingtons. To control this empire Henry was constantly traveling from one area to another.

And as he traversed his empire he initiated “law”. The great law was basically created in codified form the firm establishment of the stratified system. With each class having more rights as they ascended in class and ultimately in he, the King, being the final arbiter and possessor of all rights. He called the great council again to take advice from all of his barons. This was essentially allowing them the “freedom to participate” in the government. The lords were enabled to discuss amongst themselves and to Henry their own ideas on how the government should be run. There were no votes. After the council Henry sent them home and did what he wanted. If conflict arose with Henry’s decision, well Beckett is only one example, albeit the most famous, of the result. So from the beginning “law” was structured to benefit the hierarchy and the freedom granted to the barons, or lords, was based on the illusion that Henry allowed their participation. By the time of Henry’s son John this illusion was shattered. He didn’t have his father’s ability to pretend to give freedom ,or he saw no reason to do so.. Led by a dissatisfied church hierarchy that helped convince the barons to threaten war Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury drafted a document that the duressed king signed guaranteeing the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.

John didn’t stand by his commitment and Pope Innocent III who was also feeling some threats of his own within the church hierarchy nullified the document as against the will of God. War

once again broke out in England and in 1217 the document was again issued as part of the peace of Lambeth and this actually when it became titled “the magna carta”. Although it was nearly the same document it was actually two years later and after another civil war that John’s son Henry III actually agreed to what was then called the Magna Carta. What you learned in history class is not exactly wrong but certainly not correct. It was still not immediately a complete liberation for the barons but they were able to withhold funds until Henry became short of funds and reissued the charter in 1225 to seek additional taxation from the barons. But it was not until his son—Edward I—in 1297, again short of funds reissued the document and this time it finally became codified into English law. So it wasn’t actually until the tail end of the 13th century. Between 1215 and 1297 there were ongoing battles both verbally and physically over the king’s refusal to grant the rights they believed were theirs. In actuality the acclaim and status that is now given to the Magna Carta was not established into English jurisprudence until the 17th century and after the end of the Glorious Revolution when English juriste began looking to the document as the cornerstone of English law that we now learn it to have been.

And for most of the 13th century it was a piece of paper that the English kings simply ignored.

In 1258 there was another revolt And Henry III agreed to give up absolutism and allow the government to be run by a 15 member (all nobles) parliament. Only again it did not happen.

Well there were six parliaments in the next four years and Henry ignored them. In 1263 Henry obtained a papal bull to relieve him from being bound. A french-born nobleman, Simon de Montfort defeated Henry at the Battle of Lewes in 1264 and took Henry captive. Montfort then called for a parliament and for the first time it was independent of any king. Montfort, of course, wanted to rule, but Montfort did something a little strange. He called for a parliament of nobles but for the first time he called for a parliament of “commoners” consisting of the emerging gentry of knights and burgesses. Of course no one at this time has any real rights, but for the first time, in at least western history, someone other than a king or the leading lords in a kingdom are being asked to participate in government. But this wasn’t actually altruism. After Montfort’s successful capture of Henry he had lost most of his support from the nobles so he was hoping to get enough support from the next class and hoping enticements of participation in the government would help him gain control. Well Henry’s son Edward escapes, he defeats Montfort in battle, Montfort dies, Henry is restored to the throne. But this was kind of a turning point. The convention that Henry had signed agreeing to a parliament had been nullified and Henry was no longer bound to call a parliament. He nevertheless called 3 parliaments in the next two years and he followed Montfort’s example of calling the gentry as a second house of the parliament. Although no one knows exactly why, it may be for a similar reason to Montfort’s. There is no record of what gentry attended or how they were selected but Henry may have seen the gentry’s participation as a balance between the constant tussle between the king and the barons. The barons would need the gentry’s participation to revolt and the gentry, feeling a greater part of the king’s government might be less inclined to follow their liege’s against a government they were apart of.

Upon Henry’s death, Edward I ascended to the throne. Edward I, like his father, grandfather and great-grandfather, believed he was entitled to absolute authority. But unlike them, Edward saw a way to use the Parliament to establish his authority. Edward made parliament into a more or less permanent institution. But Edward did something further towards democracy with the goal being to solidify his absolute authority. Edward granted to “all’ citizens (I am unclear

who is included in “all”, probably not women and probably not unpropertied, but that is my speculation) to send petitions to the parliament of “grievances” and codified into law that the concerns of “all citizens” should be addressed by parliament to create a more just nation and be a nation more responsive to it citizens. So parliament now became a citizen’s government, or a government taxed with authority to address injustices that occurred and pass corrective measures to right such injustices. So this is the first trappings of democracy in the west, not Athens or Rome which were private clubs for the already rich and powerful. So England now had two parliaments and when the king wanted to raise money he would call the commoners parliament but for advice on statecraft or war , then the barons would be consulted. He didn't necessarily have to do in that way but from 1265 on that was the general take on calling sessions of parliament. And every king did not heed to parliament. Edward’s son, Edward II didn’t and he was deposed more or less nonviolently and the Parliament legitimized his son, Edward III to the throne. So Parliament now began to exert their own authority into the kingdom. Under Edward III parliament finally came into more or less permanent existence. All laws and all taxes had to be agreed to by both parliament and the sovereign. So the king could no longer arbitrarily make laws or issue taxes but he still had the right to nullify any laws of parliament. And under his realm the two houses of the English parliament were codified and became permanent separate chambers and by 1430 franchisement, or voting for the commons began for anyone who owned property worth at least 40 shillings (which would have been a considerable amount) began.

(If we briefly fast forward to the U.S. there was a distinct similarity—franchisement in the constitution was pretty left up to the states, but being male, white and owning a certain amount of wealth was initially required in all.)

So the most glaring thing all of this points out is the two principles of democracy that derail its success. First, it is given to people reluctantly by those who have power, and second it is never meant to give everyone an equitable share in the power of the government but to confuse people into believing it gives them an equitable share so they don’t try to take the power away from those that have the power. The delusion is built upon making you believe if you share in the government then its powers of control are ok because they give you a voice against theirs.

But since the citizen in a democracy continues to feel he doesn’t have the same power because obviously he doesn’t, but to believe he does because he is led to believe he does then something is wrong. As long as he believes the power structures is not the issue the power structure can remain intact so the disillusioned are misdirected to attack each other. It’s the welfare mother forcing me into debt, it’s the immigrant causing me to have less pay, and now that person is ready for almost any other misdirected delusion. It’s not just QAnon and stolen elections, those are even later, first it’s Kennedy conspiracies and government hiding aliens that makes people ripe for the flat earth and democrats run child pornagraphy rings. And before that it’s depression from unequal feelings and taking our sense of importance that turn us to alcohol and drugs and seeking solace in the mindlessness of TV and now video games. And all the time blasting subliminal messages into your minds with non-stop blitzing advertisements suggesting don't think, buy this, don’t need, want this. And so we reach a point where the good guy in the white hat no longer wins. We don’t believe he can. The continuous movies of power struggles between the minions of hell keep winning, the zombie movies where the hero becomes a zombie, the endless new rock groups with singers who are barfing at you with the

conviction that Satan is the only power. And then the moralists appear to point out the only way to win the world back from Satan is to curtail freedoms. Freedoms of lifestyle, freedoms of literature, freedoms to vote because all that freedom is what is giving Satan the victory, everything is wrong, we're miserable and consuming more time than on any form of escape, albeit, games. movies, stimulants. Youth commit suicide because the world has no place for them.. We fight, and more more take the lives of our neighbors that we hate for whatever reason we think we hate them because we have lost our importance so kill those that make me an irrelevant human. Hate those who are different must be the problem. I’m free, I have the vote, I’m free, I get to choose where I want to be a slave, I’m free because this is America, the land of the free. I’m free and totally irrelevant. And so the election was stolen and we need a stronger leader to abolish all these people that must be the reason I feel so bad, so unfree.

And the return to autocracy There are multiple books and articles currently being written about why democracy is failing.

Inequitable distribution. True.

Media distortion leading to conspiracy theories. True.

Too many radicals on the left demanding too much. True.

Too many extremists on the right. True.

The poor don’t contribute enough. Well true, but are the poor being allowed to contribute?

Globalization. Back to inequitable distribution, so true. Social media. Can’t say if that is true.

But it is not very social and I believe it is simply a reflection of the ills being expressed in a forum and not a cause of the ills.

Poor education. What does that mean? Inequitable access? Back to first cause. Improper teaching? What is proper teaching? Is it what is taught or how it is taught? And is teaching telling people what to think with testable results or teaching people how to think by guiding them to different concepts and opening their minds to seeking knowledge with untestable results? Ie education a hierarchy of better students and worse students and do we all have the same interests and have the same abilities to learn the same things at the same age and who determines what is being taught or what should be taught. Is teaching top-down or is learning bottom-up and teachers are guides to resources. Can knowledge even be graded? And what knowledge do we need and is that knowledge necessarily true or a teacher’s or curriculum’s opinion of truth? Personally I don’t think people can be “taught” knowledge. THey can be taught skills. But gaining knowledge comes from experience, Experience comes from life’s situational stratifications. What people can do is learn how to understand and knowledge is what someone thinks you should know about something. If we learn to accept as “fact” knowledge presented to me but don’t learn to question all knowledge presented to them in order to understand that knowledge. To understand anything you must be “guided” by questions to

seek knowledge and guided to see interrelationships between disciplines. In other words, are you knowledgeable to learning dates in history with little knowledge of the events—the economic and social events and the psychological impacts and the purposes that led to the events and the relevance to the scientific validity of anything, or the verifiability of any presented knowledge and who is presenting the knowledge and what are the vested interests of the presenter of the knowledge and what are the contradictions of that knowledge and does that knowledge have value to a person of different circumstances and what does knowledge of the powerful necessarily mean to the person with lesser power. If we teach gradable knowledge then tomorrow i can read that Dr. Q says the world and Dr. Q has more gradable knowledge–he is Dr. Q after all, and Dr. Q says the world is flat so the world must be flat. During the covid thing there was a lot of contradictory “knowledge” and arguments some was false and some was true It’s not a new dichotomy but it was prominent and meanwhile a few silent voices were suggesting we have to learn to understand covid and we really don’t have a lot of knowledge and so having never been taught how to verify and question knowledge in order to understand the truth or to follow the developments as others seek to do so. Instead we jump on one side or the other as right or wrong as we do with everything, because knowledge can’t have two truths so the other truth is false. So yes I agree poor education is important and ultimately teaching knowledge presented in an autocratic way supports autocracy and legitimizes it because knowledge is either what Dr. Q says or what Dr. Z says. It is either what one opinator says or what another says. Knowledge is fact and if I am taught knowledge then there is only one truth, one fact, while understanding teaches us to see there are multiple versions of truth being presented and that learning understanding debunks almost all knowledge. So I seek to understand and debunk by questioning knowledge. Knowledge is always refutable. I suppose many will say my knowledge of this or that is wrong. And they are probably correct. But I am not trying in these articles to impress you with knowledge but to question it. . If I use my limited knowledge of multiple disciplines to get anyone to begin to question all presented knowledge and seek to understand the bits of knowledge that they may have then democracy may have a chance, But if democracy is taught as facts—it gives you more freedom because you vote and that’s a fact, and globalization and/or stratified economic is deserved and that is a fact, then are we any more capable of understanding or do we deserve to pat ourselves on the back for being more intelligent than some who believe god rewards the good and punishes the evil? Is that even slightly different than saying the smarter people who “create” ideas and wealth deserve more than the workers or users of the wealth. So is education not teaching us what a democracy is quite quite true. An informed citizenry is not a good mix for a democracy if you mean a knowledgeable citizenry with little understanding of knowledgeable discernment. I can quite well learn my knowledge from Fox News as the Guardian. If I have only been taught knowledge is one way or another way and so the knowledge from one is true and the other therefore must be false.But what if I learned to understand that Fox News is correct that the election was stolen and the Guardian is correct that there is no physical evidence that it was.

Well now I am left in the position not of which side is true or false. The Guardian is certainly correct in regards to the physical evidence. The evidence of the “trumpists” is insanely unsupportable. But millions nevertheless believe the election was stolen. So Fox News is not incorrect to say it was because the people already believed it before Fox supported that belief.

But if it was not physically stolen but it was stolen then it was not stolen because Trump said so.

Before Trump made the suggestion do you know how many losing candidates I’ve heard claim it was stolen? So it is not Trump who made this election stolen but he certainly played upon and has been supported by others to arouse people into believing this election was stolen. And that belief makes it true. So we need what factors formulate that belief. Ultimately all knowledge is interpretation. As i said in my discussion of Charles Darwin what Charles Darwin actually wrote is little understood, But how Charles Darwin has been interpreted is the knowledge we have of Darwin is the sum total of our aligning ourselves as evolutionists or in believers who don’t accept evolution and poor Mr Darwin who wanted to present a scientific doctrine as unobtrusively and controversial as possible and suggest avenues, as he himself does say in Origins “to advance further scientific exploration” has become the most controversial figure in history and not because of what he necessarily wrote himself but because his book appeared at a critical crossroads. Two critical crossroads actually. First is the obvious, the conflict that arose with religious institutions who were losing their own power but they struck out at Darwin because of the other conflict that was occurring between those who wanted to maintain the stratified society because it was superior and many who wanted to abolish it and find more equitable methods of government. Suddenly Darwin became a cause celebre that proved stratification was an inevitable consequence of evolution. And the leaders of religion saw an opening they hoped would strengthen them—not by opposing stratification which they supported, but by opposing nature itself. If nature was created by a god and not itself then the church remained the arbiter of power through their relationship as spokespersons for the gods they supported. If nature was a mere wrinkle of the awesomeness of their gods then people must continue to support the churches power over nature and over people. So we have to knowledges both ridiculing the other as wrong. Factual knowledge is knowledge of this fact or that while understanding seeks to relate the truths of both facts and recognize the falseness of both and only then does one have the ability to attempt to discern what is utter bullshit, what is middling bullshit, and what possibly is fact. But even our own experiences are never absolute fact as our brains will not always present a clear picture. That is why defense attorneys hate eye witnesses and prosecutors love them. Not because they are right in their observations because it is well established eye witness accounts can and usually are mistaken in many details and are often fabricated. But there is no evidence more persuasive to a jury than an eye witness because we all believe our own brains give us only facts and seldom realize that our brains are constantly shifting through enormous data input and presenting to us only a fraction of its observations. And especially in moments of intense mental input that might occur in the presence of a criminal altercation we will be prevented with only the data the brain thinks we need for survival so it rapidly eliminates all input unnecessary for self-preservation.

So yes they are a multitude of causes that can lead to democracies electing and or supporting autocracies. But the prime reason is citizens are taught to believe knowledge and facts are insoluble rather than to discern understanding between different interpretations of facts. But if there is a citizenry taught discernment that citizenry would see the promise of democracy is a delusion used to prompt up an aristocracy. So instead a democratic society begins to blame others within its own society and begins to follow leaders who focus their dissatisfaction with their own powerlessness as being caused solely by what I call “the enemy”. Orwell makes a great deal of the focus of autocracies against the enemy but he fails to recognize that democracies themselves need the enemy just as much as the autocrats to deflect focus upon

themselves. Eventually however democracies cascade into too much dissatisfaction and too much focus on someone else being responsible for their own sense of powerless that they seek out leaders who promise to eradicate the enemy and those leaders have a goal in mind to gather more power for himself, and usually a person who feels rather powerless and is totally narcissistic and convinces followers because he himself is extremely fear. Now let’s take Donald Trump. Wasn’t he already rich and powerful? Well he said he was. But even bothered to check out his personal history (and it was known well modus operandi before the current New York investigation) he would inflate values to banks to get seed money to attract investors whom he couldn’t pay back because he had more investors than he could pay back because he had less seed money than he told the investors he had. Before the investors could determine he was capitalizing himself more than he was profiting them he would file a lawsuit accusing them of stealing from him what he had actually stolen from them. He almost lost or was forced into some kind of settlement. He had learning difficulties and physical fears of being hurt so he didn’t like to engage in sports and in general was unpopular and lonely and unable to make friendships in school. This led to increased insecurities and a massive persecution complex.

So he was the perfect spokesperson to lend voice to others who were feeling the government had allowed other people in the society to displace them. As he had lost so many lawsuits and felt the world had persecuted him when he ran for president in 2016 he told his supporters if he lost it would be because the enemy—the illegal voters— would have been used by the democrats to steal the election. He had lawsuits ready to be filed after he lost the election but then although he did lose the vote the president in the US is not the person with the most votes from the people but from the electoral college, he became president. He attracted the people who felt disenfranchised and gave sentiments to their belief that their personal predicament was due to government support of illegal aliens and legal blacks. For forty years an increased economic disparity had placed more and more into fewer and fewer hands, prices had well succeeded their values and they had become consumed in debt and they felt their power had been stolen from them They felt the government was in the hands of an enemy who continued to steal their personal worthiness—not their monetary worth even though that was a factor—but their personal worth to the society. They felt the government was stealing both this personal worth but also that their economic discomforts were also heightened due to “entitlements” to the poor while those who actually thought they were entitled kept entitling themselves to higher profits and spending massive amounts to convince these people feeling powerless that the cause of their powerlessness was because the government was taking too much from them (those that felt entitled) to give to undocumented workers (that the entitled hired) and for programs to the poor (whom they didn’t hire). And they spent more money advertising and campaigning against even the slightest encroachment of their perceived power than the entire “welfare” program costs. They will use more money to campaign against “environmentalism” that it would cost to harm the environment less. So it is not about the money, it is about the power. Starbucks, a few weeks ago, said they would pay more to workers in a store that did not unionize. Why? A union is about taking power, about negotiating, about discussion and about making the workers have a share in the power. And so unions are fought at all costs. For a brief period unions were able to do so and people felt more human and less owned. They wrote contracts with owners giving them a share in the power and they were able to gain enough wealth to challenge the power and candidates favoring a more equitable distribution began to be

elected and to dominate governmental processes and while there were still a vast minority of “owners” the people who were not were usurping a lot of the power of the owners. This is untenable to those who feel entitled and history has shown us the consequence. Those who think they are entitled simply seize the reigns of government and appoint an autocrat or they “steal” elections” with massive “knowledge” propaganda that the reason everything has gone haywire is their unions giving the people power were taking too much power for its leaders (to some extent true) and that equity meant less for the workers but returning all the power back to them will increase the total pie (which it did) and thus giving more to the workers (which it didn’t).I have a very hard convincing people that the average wage in 1965 was more than in 2020. $15 an hour means they have poor than I did when I earned $#3 an hour in a steel mill because $15 is five times greater. But if my expense only cost half of my three dollars and fifteen dollars means you go in debt or scape by without having enough the $15 an hour is less than $3. But I’m dead wrong because I have more assets with a $360,000 house and a $40,000 vehicle than you had with a $700 house and a used $200 vehicle. But the assets are negative if your debts are more than your equity in those assets. A rule of thumb I learned is you never spend more than than 25% of your income for housing, you never spend more than 25% for necessities food,utilities, maintenance like hygiene, medicine, clothing etc), you spend maximum of 25% on non-necessities (transportation, vacations or going to a movies or whatever your “toys” may be. The other 25% can be saved and you can pay for your child’s future, college or apprenticeship, etc. Today the typical income pays for maintenance and debt pays for housing & non-necessities and your children start life impoverished in low-paying jobs that they can’t sustain them or $100,000 in indebtedness for a position that might sustain them but with the likelihood of increased indebtedness. Basically for the typical worker whose family was not already in the elite, a college education grants the student an increased opportunity to go further into debt than a non-college graduate. So is it any wonder people feel democracy has been stolen from them or that they will cling to any knowledge that tells them their situations are all due to (fill-in-the-blank)? Well I said those that had power would fight back to seize their power back. And they did. In the guise of one Ronal Reagan whose bright smile and amiable personality with his kindergarten demonstrations won him an election to reregulate society (no “de”regulation here the economy was reregulated to insure power restoral to those who had been forced to allocate some of it to workers. Owners became superowners, and globally connected to even more cross-national ownership, and with little money to counter the knowledge-propaganda machine people began to feel more and more powerless and the owners returned to dominating “stealing” elections to maintain and increase their society and the return to slavery—slavery with a paycheck and a vote, but an inadequate paycheck and a vote only to a candidate beholden to those who paid the long tedious expenses for his bid to become the president. And knowledge was the knowledge that other people took all my power. The blacks felt the whites were prejudiced and suppressing their opportunities and imprisoning them unjustly, and of course it is all true. But the blacks were getting all the advantages with preferences in college admissions and hiring and they practiced reverse racism (which is mostly false.). An illegals are flocking into the US and taking our jobs and getting welfare checks.

But values completely erode. MacDonald’s means you don’t need to “dress up” to go out to eat and restaurants have relaxed dress codes to compete. Seems positive doesn’t it, or at least I thought so, but it also lessens social barriers that are positive and necessary—barriers of

politeness begin to erode. Birth control available to all (by due process clause) allowed the sexual revolution to begin. Again it seems positive, but the downside is men feel even more entitled to casual sex because women don’t have to worry about getting pregant and to some extent felt entitled to use their bodies as they saw fit without consequences. But of course once again it breaks barriers of social interaction. I’m not suggesting the barriers are proper or moral behavior but they do, to a certain extent establish cordialness and respect. We could abandon barriers and still be cordial and respectful I imagine—if we established new rules (barriers) of cordial and respectful behavior. In some sense “sexual harassment” is supposed to define some barriers but it is not clearly defined. A person could favor behavior from one person than they disfavor from another so without clear concepts of communicating favor or disfavor it cannot achieve its goal to establish cordialness and respect. I could go on. But let's advance to our conclusion and why Mr. Johnson’s program failed.

We’ve already mentioned how many have been knowledge-propagandized to believe it is undeserved. But why do those who receive “benefits'' resent them? Because the programs to equitize American society became a system that enforced the unequity in society. People who attempt to actually accomplish a move from the system are penalized in such a way they are held back from attempting. They are told by their caseworkers that they are dependent upon them (the caseworkers) and they must report “all changes in circumstance “immediately”. If they attempt to save a portion they are told they have to spend it or lose benefits because saving a portion proves they don’t need it. And then when they spend it they are told they are incapable of handling their money and child services might be called to see if the children are being provided enough. In other words it is complete bondage to the system that is supposed to free them from the bondage of poverty. The housing non-discrimination should allow them to live anywhere but they are mostly confined into “projects” with limited availabilities to obtain section 8, which is supposed to grant the opportunity to live where you want but the landlords who accept section 8 are mostly properties that have lessened in value and most of tenants of the landlord are section 8 recipients that create another ghetto. Bill Clinton made an attempt at turning the bureaucracy into its original intention, a method to move people from the system of poverty into a system of productivity. It was, I think, beginning to succeed but the program couldn’t be renewed as many of those aided out of their enslavement began to utter comments like feeling “more self-worth”. At least I suppose that’s why republicans didn’t want to renew the program. Actually it was because it was too expensive to maintain. (?) For Johnson to have achieved his goals he would have needed to reform “private ownership” of business entirely and created initiated “community ownership” or worker ownership. He would had to smack all the entitlements of the business kings and redesigned the structure of owning other people, whether it is called slavery or not, that is why they call themselves business owners.

Today with internet communications, and social media’s extension into knowledge propagandizing we have more ways to express our dissatisfaction and feelings of powerlessness and more ways to spread varying ideas of the enemy causing that powerlessness. The enemy increasingly is the government who doesn’t do enough to fulfill its promise to those or does too much for the poor, either knowledge system you choose creates a knowledge based on miscomprehension. The government can’t give people the equity without removing the entitlements from those who believe they are entitled to be masters and they can’t remove them because they are indebted to those same people for their election. On the flip

side, those that feel their despair is caused by giving away their power to others are being led to believe that an autocratic leader would restore power to them by removing it from their opponents. I have focused on the United States but one can see a worldwide decline in faith that democracy is granting them their needs. On the flip, there are agitations in autocracies around the world to remove the autocrats in favor of democracy. For the promise of democracy to be fulfilled anywhere leaders must be those who are chosen because they support giving each individual in the society the same relevance, leaders that do not believe they or anyone in the society is more important to the society and that the best ideas are ideas that enhance each member’s relevance to society. The pottery making in metholitic society didn’t make pottery for his benefit but for the community’s . And the hunter didn’t believe he owned the game but that he hunted the game for the benefit of everyone. So the hunter was individually important for the meat he brought and the potter for the vessels he made. No one was designed to fulfill one role and could fulfill others if needed. Especially women who were important for bringing forth new life into the community but helped in other ways. And recent discoveries have shown those other roles were not always “domestic” and hunting was not confined to men nor was the converse, gathering or harvesting confined to women. A mesolithic had to recognize the importance and the contributions of each person for the survival of the entire community. When some grant themselves superior importance or exploit others for their own benefit then those deemed less important and whose role is to sustain his superiority by being considered inferior because they are required to do so then I begin to question the wisdom that creates this paradox. It would seem to me that the most expendable person is the exploiter who asked to be served, I used “asked” to be polite, but I don't feel polite about it. And as long as democracy supports the concept that some have more relevance to the community than others it can never fulfill its promise which from my point of view is an unnatural order, a perversion and a degeneration not an advancement in evolutionary design.

What I cannot determine is how a country of roughly 350 million that has 450 elected representatives actually represent close to one million (yes that’s a super rounding off) persons each and say he was the people’s spokesman. That problem I leave to you but it sure does not seem awfully democratic to me.It smacks of oligarchy and greco-roman democracy of the few.

So of course the election was stolen, all elections are stolen by design to maintain the miniscule 1% who believe they are the superior class. And that ratio is 1 superior human being to every 3,500,000 persons he must presume he owns and can treat any way he chooses and our poor elected officials insulate him from being done away with by someone that occurred constantly and continually in the history of those superior humans entitled to their kingdoms. By isolating and protecting the singularly entitled human who believes he has entitlements that others do not have, her believes his value and whatever he created or whatever endeavor he ventured into that made him believe in his right to being SIR Billionaire, owner of the poor slobs who aren’t me and don’t deserve what I have. Democracy allows the perpetuation of his kingdom and therefore suffers the consequences. Because that 3500000 who he think he owns but who are told they freely choose their leader will eventually fail And the fall will be the democracy itself and, he hopes, continue to allow him his”ownership” So the only way to “save” democracy is to expose the sham and prevent further ownership by kings in business clothing and direct hostilities away from mythical enemies between ourselves and refuse to grant him any of the

power he believes he is entitled. Don’t work for him, don’t sell for him. don’t buy from him and don’t listen to his media blitzes telling you you should do those things and don’t vote for any candidates he wants you to vote for. To earn back our own power we empovish those who presume they are entitled to our services or our respect. We treat them as the leperous piece of shit they are, not so polite now, full blown feeling, and a democracy might give the way to do that if people united against him instead of each other. What if Jeff Bezos’ workers all walked away? What if no one clicked on his website or bought anything from amazon? What if his stock value fell to complete zero because all his other investors pulled out? He has, I think, somewhere around $500 million dollars in real estate. But he didn’t buy them. He entitled himself on speculations of future Amazon stock—not profits—stocks, and if his stock has no value and he claimed personal wealth near the poverty line that would soon run and since his $500 property folio was bought on speculated values, he shouldn’t be able to sell rhythm or use them to his benefit. What if all this happens and Mr Entitled is crawling on the street in rags and he approaches you for a morsel of food or a spoonful of water? What if you asked him if he thinks he is entitled to the subsistence and what if when he says “yes” you reply to him “no

you are not entitled to anything because you never thought I was entitled to anything?

Ridiculous, outlandish, cruel, insane? Yes. But I will leave you with one more question to ponder upon. But first you need to discover the answer. What, in his own views, has he said about homeless or lesser people, what has he said about his own workers attempting to unionize, what has he said about his own position and wealth and what that has entitled him to, and how much of his own success was due to the assistance of others, including his ex-wife?

When you find those answers and then you reread my previous paragraph, ponder if Mr. Bezos would not be perfectly comfortable treating anyway in opposition to him, anyway who tried to without their obeisance to him and if it is I or he who is ridiculous, outlandish, cruel and insane. If you believe the statement lacks any merit I apologize for the inflammatory statements I made, both to you and to Mr. Bezos, and I apologize to all kings past and present for my slanderous remarks against all kings past and present.

Why are we fascinated with A.I.?l Or subtitled, “why in the bloody world do we want to replace ourselves?” Well this is my q-anon article, my Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy article, my the government is hiding spacemen at area 51 article, I don’t believe in any of those things of course simply because they have no logical basis and no evidence that they could be true. So I am going to do something asinine here. I am going to ask everyone to look at the historical evidence from the beginning of civilization and power hungry rulers before you totally dismiss my little conspiracy theory as totally laughable.

So A.I. is the promise we won’t have to do as much. Our biological tasks can all be done for us.

Well isn’t most of the conflict in our contemporary world from too many being replaced and too many machines now, from our more and more becoming superfluous, and unimportant?

Someone explain to me why we would think it is to our benefit to have fewer tasks to do and being even less relevant. ? Well that is question one. Of course the answer is more free time (to do what? Spend time in study?) And since the rise of what we call the technological revolution around 1750 (of course it just accelerated then but actually started when we abandoned stone (natural) tools for crafted metal ones (artificial)).. But at first of course only the owners had easement and workers were worked to exhaustion. And with all the wealth those owners took as their entitlement from others labor they began to try to create toys to absorb the extra time they created. Non-sport games like croquet.. Parlors large enough to bring in large musical instruments, you get the picture. Well the industries of course were able to rise up due to small technologies and the wealthy used their wealth to create more play. (Technically the pianos began to replace the organ and moved into homes (palaces) of the royals, but it was updated so that the player needed less coordinated movement of foot and hand movement and more women were able to play as more were brought into private homes.) But the point here is not the exact dating because it wasn’t a sudden shift in leisurely activity but a shift from leisurely play for the rolls of the new class of industrialists that began to grow in size approximately around this time. The industrialists began to become powerful because the technological innovations that allowed more goods to be produced by machines rather than only by craftsmen. Craftsmen still existed (and to some extent still do) but a finely crafted suit or artifact took more time and one craftsmen could produce less. So wealth began to shift and become concentrated in the hands of the manufacturers rather than the lords.. Land was still valuable but wealth was not being created by land. Money had existed for eons but coinage was limited and the increased production of stuff required the need for my money to purchase the stuff. But the increased coinage meant less money for the landed and the land had to be mortgaged to purchase the stuff and power began to shift from the lords and the craftsmen to the manufacturers. Well this was the beginnings of what we have come to think of as a “capatalistic economy” Well I’m jumping up to the next great step, I’m not really interested in complete economic accuracy of economies as in outlining the scenario for leisure and A.I. Of course the

workers barely survived and so the leisure was limited to the few. Around the beginning of the 20th century though machines had been vastly improved and labor was less intensive in manufacturing. To some extent this was also true in labored work like mining, building railroads etc. But especially in manufacturing. Up until a fellow named Henry Ford came up with a rather novel idea in manufacturing the concept that the normal person could spend much time in leisure. Ford’s novel idea that I’m referring to is not the assembly line, that enabled it, but the novel idea I am referring to is that he actually attempted to price his items so that the workers could afford to buy what he was manufacturing and that was made possible by even more efficient streamlined production requiring fewer skills from the workers and also enabling him to offer wages that would allow them to buy his products. And whop! He could have cornered the market. So to compete with Ford, (and also the more expensively crafted cars were nearing saturation), Alfred Sloan came up with the concept of planned obsolescence. Now at first Sloan did not mean the term to mean building a car that would break down next year, his idea was you designed a different looking car every year (model change) and new innovative gadgets to entice buyers to buy a new car whether they needed one or not. So the concept of purchasing shifted from purchasing for need to purchasing for want. And cars of those days became beauties of art. Now these people had been enabled to purchase cars by Ford’s low prices, began to buy the pretty new models. Of course they couldn’t afford them so the idea of discounting the new purchase by offering to accept (at a lessened value) for last year’s model enabled them to do so. But this opened up a new market of selling the used cars to buyers who still couldn’t even Ford’s cheap models but they could afford an even cheaper used vehicle.

And here we now see the seeds. If you enable more people to be able to buy things they want and market continually new products to entice people into continually purchasing not out of need but out of want you have changed the concept of having to work to barely survive to a working class that for the first time in history can actually buy something they want.

So in this little story we have the beginnings of why people think A.I. is something they want.

Machines replace workers so manufacturers need fewer workers and workers are offered the toys formerly only owned by the wealthy (of course the wealthy bought bigger, flashier and more expensive toys to keep their heightened status). What we have here is a ball and chain of utter confusion. People become work-expendendable as manufacturers are encouraged to continually make machines that replace and people think it benefits them because they are able to buy more of the stuff that is replacing the need for them to do the work. As less workers are needed, hours become lessened. People have more leisure, so they want more stuff that was always off limits to them and so we have a paradox of thinking unclearly. You have more time and more stuff and even less value to the manufacturers. So long before the modern concept of A.I. we were primed into the insanity of thinking that the toys and advancements in easing our labors were desirable while at the same time bellyaching that work was more difficult to find because the advancement in machine use over human labor gave us less money to buy the toys of leisure which were becoming more important to us. The kids can have less food as long as the parent can drive to the store.

Okay that’s how, I believe people came to think A.I. would be beneficial.. Let’s fast forward to the modern marvel of the computer. Wonderful for so much easily accessed knowledge. I’m not sure about how wonderful it is for hours spent on social media and computer gaming. But let’s just forget that and say I’m absurdly too serious. Let’s talk about computer knowledge.

Let’s talk about the assumption computers are smarter than we are. Computers have absolutely no intelligence and never will. A.I. is a marketing ploy and nonsense. People input knowledge into computers and Turing’s dream of the machine to hold all knowledge is very nearly true. I can access all types of concepts and if I enter the right information I can do math computations I really don't have the aptitude to do on my own. But computers can do nothing not imputted into them to do. But—wait ken, you’re wrong, computers are being taught to learn and are being used to teach. Well those are separate issues. Of course a computer can teach.

A program can be designed by a human and a human can learn whatever information the program was designed to teach. Some teaching programs even allow conversation with the program designers. I use the computer day and night to learn so it is teaching me even if I don’t utilize designed courses. But can a computer learn? Say, can it learn that it made a mistake?

No, it cannot. If the computer program is programmed that 2+2=5 that is the information the computer will give you unless a human corrects the inputted mistake. Now of course that is not a mistake a computer is likely to make. In the early pre-internet days my computers made frequent errors. Well in those days I was using Basic+ and the errors were always my programming errors. Errors however, are pretty easily removed with more modern computers.

But a computer cannot “learn” in the sense that it has the capacity to realize it has made a computational error. Here is a silly and immediate example occurring on my computer as I type.

Google spell check says my use of imputted is incorrect. I went to google dictionary and sure enough imputted is equally accepted and equally common. So we have two google programs imputted differently. Spell Check can’t cross check with the dictionary because it was not programmed to do so. So I am wrong according to spell check but correct according to the google dictionary. So that is an error on the part of the programming in spell check that did not offer as many alternative acceptable spellings . However, spell check could have been programmed to coordinate with the google dictionary and then I wouldn’t be getting the error.

But a program cannot exceed its programming or cross reference other programs without the information to cross check being programmed into the program. A good example of crosschecking programming is google search which is programmed to examine its entire database to find the most relevant search. Of course if I am too unspecific I might not get the info I am actually looking for. On the other hand if I am too specific and try to define my search with too many variables then google search becomes confused and limits my search to only one section of my search.

Well then smarty pants, how come computer chess in its earliest formation was only on a par with chess masters and now always beats chess masters? Not too difficult. The designers of computer chess designed the program to learn from playing. But if I could somehow make checkers moves playing computer chess, I do not what would happen, it probably would tell me i couldn’t make the move or simply ignore my move but unless someone imputted the ability to differentiate checkers moves from chess moves into the game of computer chess the chess game would not allow the move. I have looked up a date or a name spelling on one site only to say that was incorrect on another. For instance on one music site I typed in Josef Haydn and

was told there was no music by that composer then typed Joseph Haydn an brought up several recordings but on another music site having learned from my error, I typed Joseph Haydn only to be told there were no recordings so I typed in Josef Haydn and voila there he is. Now okay i can go to google search and get results under either spelling.

Computers are being used to make decisions on who to hire and many other tasks. I was reading an article on computers taking over h.r. In many businesses. Under review by executives in these companies that responded to the article there was unanimous agreement that they thought the computer had made mistaken choices and also unanimous agreement they were not inclined to return a human to human resources. A computer can be programmed to make decisions or choices based on the inputted criteria of how to make its choices but it cannot decide unilaterally that a candidate may be a better fit for the company based on any intuitive perspective, it will only accept or reject candidates based on built in criteria. But many companies seem to feel that the candidates the computer hires is more cost effective than the slight differences that might arise from a worker whom human intuition might lead to hiring. Of course this only points to the fact that the hiree himself is expendable and unimportant. And this is even beginning to happen in more executive or other positions requiring more specific knowledge such as university professors and scientific research. The problem of course is the bias built into the computer. People also have biases but hopefully they can adjust their biases or they can be presented with mandates to do so. When I was hiring for my business I found that because of the hours that my employees needed to work and because I was hiring in a community where the majority attitude of the men in that community was that their wives needed to be home when my position needed them to work that hiring married women with children almost inevitably failed. Not because these women were not really good performers, as they often were, and not because my income increased or decreased whether they performed well. My preference for finding workers that generated higher sales was beneficial to me only in that a person who generated more income for themselves were more likely to remain working. I had a wholesale business but I sold product at cost and charged a daily lease fee to people who chose to sell my product. So a person who was able to sell more would be more likely to stay in the position because my income only lessened when there was no leasee and thus no income being generated and yet my expenses remained constant so I preferred my income to remain constant by not needing to hire replacement leasees. The problem with leasing to married women with children in that community was that invariably in the eleven years in which I ran this operation none ever lasted more than two weeks. But since the law could see this as discriminatory I built intto my leases (all) a clause that if a person were to stop working without two week notice then they were responsible for paying the lease until a replacement could be found. Of course they usually didn’t always honor that requestand I didn't sue to enforce. On the other hand I also had a no-termination clause and the only person I ever actually terminated did attempt to sue me. But if I had used a computer hiring program I could have built this bias into the program by using the statistics of successful employees and never have had to deal with this issue. And it is much harder for a potential hiree to claim prejudicial hiring against a program because we seem to think a computer has no biases. It has the biases that are built into it and this is beginning to be an issue in hirees becoming excluded by computers with builtin biases.

Well computers can program other computers my sons tell me, so that proves they are more intelligent. Well wait a minute, in my college computer training, thousands of years ago in the days of only being able to input with punch cards, one of our tasks was to teach our university computer to be able to input its input into all the university computers and that was the simplest task to accomplish in the entire course. I don’t want to brag about my computer programming skills, they are antiquated and I was not very good then and my program tasks were extended beyond the class closure but the professor did go back and alter my grade after I finally did complete all the required tasks. What I am saying is that even with my limited abilities, the only easy task was to program a computer to program another computer and so I fail to see that as a sign of computer intelligence. Unless you want to believe the reason I found that so easy was the computer was already much smarter than I and it just took over and did the programming for me which is what my son suggested. Now the issue is not what a computer can learn, it can learn nothing. What is really the question with computer learning is what programs can be designed to enhance computer learning. And those can be a marvel. With the correct programming and the correct data a computer can analyze and systemize data remarkably well.

Far better than the limits of human abilities and what could take multiple hours or an entire lifetime for one person, or even a group, programs can be designed to analyze new discoveries in science and math incredibly rapidly and present new knowledge systematically eliminating some of the tediousness in human learning. Of course there can still be discrepancies and others (humans)can still enter new variables that could potentially alter the results.

So having determined that they do have great potential value and usefulness for advancing knowledge, do they give us any advantage in doing other tasks, i.e, vacuuming floors, driving cars, and especially streamlining human production. Well this is where I go back to leisure.

What is leisure? I don’t know if all species have “leisure”, but many do. But first what is work?

Most of us have been taught to split our lives into “worK’---what we do to earn money–and “leisure”---what we do to “spend” that money. This is seen as an individualistic endeavor and so we need to work more to buy more items for our leisure. Basically this is the ideology of the king. You work for the king, he rewards you for your work and the reward enables your status within the kingdom. Basically this is absurd if you look at both species that do engage in leisure and in more basic human cultures that have paralleled the kings within the historical framework.

In solitary animals, like most cat species, they hunt “worK’ and relax ‘leisure” until time for the next meal. But humans are a communal group and if work is about surviving then the work must be what the community does together to survive and leisure is the time in which the community crafts the learning and growing of the community. This is the time in which the community participates in activities like sport that develop our physical skills we will need to enable the community to provide for its survival. It is also the time for music and art that were originally expressions of spirituality and harmony both between the members within the community and with the environment. Leisure is also the time when the community can learn the skills of its members and the time when leaders arise who can see the members strengths.

A community doesn’t look for weaknesses and no leader would arise if he would look for ways to exploit the community’s members. But yes, somehow the first king did this very thing. So while in a community work & leisure are united in the same way as the community, in the kingly society they are separated and work endeavors are undertaken for the king for rewards to

enable leisure. The community becomes individualistic and the individuals want more and more rewards. So we want more rewards and more leisure and less work. The pension for a private automobile is a prime example. If one doesn’t have an automobile he is looked down upon.

And the automobile gives us more freedom to go where we want right? Well what they do is make us more robotic and less likely to use our bodies. So for those so inclined to use the body we built “leisure” toys—gyms, etc—to develop bodies that have become undeveloped from not walking and running. So status is based on toys. Toys are our individualistic expression of “fun” and “leisure” that we earn by our individualistic efforts that give us our rewards that give us our status and make us different from each other, And give us our prejudices. I like this kind of music because it gives me identity. Our individual preferences give us our prejudices against those who like other music, have a different color skin or eat with silverware or chopsticks. We don’t like differences because we are individualistic and we are told this gives us our freedom.

So we have traded becoming free through our differences that are individually important to the community and grant us individual importance to the community for believing we are free and those with differences are what makes us unimportant to the community and prevent our having more toys and more status. So this is why we think absurdly that the less work we do the better off we will be. And so A. I. is wonderful if we have no work to do and can just sit around and watch movies and play computer games or jet around the world or “vacation”.

Well that is the perceived goal,I fear, of A.I. Now here is the real result. The more you don’t need to do, the less importance you have and the more expendable you become and now we are at the crux of my conspiracy theory. If people are not needed they become expendable and if people become expendable—they will be expended.

And if anyone cares to think that’s nuts, find me one day in the “history” of man—which is the history of kingdoms–when some people have not been expended by the kingdoms. That means if you don’t catch my drift, killed, annihilated, massacred And don’t tell me that only happens in autocratic society. How about the Sand Creek slaughter in the US, how about the U.S. annihilation of entire villages in Viet Nam, or Kent State and the forgotten Jackson State? What about the king’s lieutenant's (police) killing over one thousand American citizens every year without bringing them to trial. Don’t think any status will ultimately protect you if A.I. becomes real enough that the few power brokers, those we now call billionaires but just another word for king, could have everything done for them and no need for other humans not of their status.

Would the rest of us who have no necessity and no importance to them not be slaughtered?

We are here now because they still need subjects, a “workforce” but when we refuse to be in the workforce they kill us and always have. I’m sure the first day when the first king became the first king was the day when a third of the village was massacred and a few who enabled the enslavement of the others who survived the slaughter. Kings didn’t take over because they were the smartest man in the community but because they were the most useless and expendable. And as they have remained the most useless they are easily replaced by others eager to become kings and if it becomes possible to annihilate all those who serve these kings, including presidents and other political servants. But what would they do with no one to buy?

I’m telling you you miss the point of kingly economics. There would have always been less threat if the kings had shared more. The instability of autocracy or any top-down leadership is

caused by the uneqitableness it creates but they have never cared to discover the brilliance that an equitable society could give them security or recognize anyone could be as valuable to society as they are. And that doesn’t change whether one calls himself king, president or owner. And did anyone ever wonder who the owner “owns”/ It’s not a meaningless factory that doesn’t do anything of its own, the owner owns the people who work for him, in his mind which kind of puts a myth to the concept that slavery has ended in the minds of “owners”. It tells us just because they grudgingly reward you in cash and tell you that means you’re free they still call themselves owners because they still think they own you.

Okay, I’m nuts. Or you’re blind to the history of mankind.