Go abandon!

“Let’s go Brandon!” – Some journalist misreporting a crowd’s chant somewhere in the US

“Fuck Joe Biden!” – A crowd’s chant somewhere in the US misreported by some journalist

I watched some of the 75th hearing of the Corona Investigative Committee as it aired. Reiner Held presented charts depicting all-cause-mortality data in Germany these last few years, one spanning 2000 to present day, the others depicting 2020 and 2021 against the average of 2015-2019. On the evidence he presented, there was no event of any significance affecting all-cause mortality in any age group in Germany. The only remarkable thing is that 2020 and 2021 show below-average all-cause mortality in all but one age group.

If the official data referenced by the guest to create his charts is accurate, then nothing happened that anyone could call a national epidemic emergency. In Germany, no event worthy of the term “pandemic” occurred, and yet a lockdown was imposed and sustained – unique in human history –, and continues to be sustained despite the presence of officially sanctioned ‘effective vaccines’ available to all Germans. Across the northern hemisphere, lockdowns threaten yet again, despite ‘vaccines’ promoted by their manufacturers as 95% effective, and despite all-cause-mortality figures that are beginning to show humanity has never been in any danger. This should of course re-beg the question:

What is going on?

Perhaps virology is correct and the bio-chemical things we call viruses are pathogenic. Perhaps SARS-CoV-2 is one of them. Perhaps it was indeed invented in a lab in Wuhan as a gain-of-function bioweapon, and released into the world for some nefarious reason. If so, on the evidence touched on above, SARS-CoV-2 is not a very impressive weapon or virus, manufactured or otherwise, except as a tool to build fear and elicit mass compliance. Or perhaps its highly expensive gain-of-function powers will reveal themselves in due course.

Or maybe the lockdowns are working. Does their relentlessly touted efficacy explain Germany’s slightly falling mortality rates these last two years? Well, if the data presented by the Swedish guest were similarly accurate, then no; Sweden has seen no significant change in all-cause mortality, either.

Many in conspiracy-theory circles call the ‘vaccines’ “kill shots”. I am aware of no robust epidemiological evidence they are, though data is steadily coming to light that strongly suggests they might be, to some currently unknowable extent (more on this below.) I remind readers that the swine-flu vaccine of 1976 was withdrawn after 25 deaths occurred that were associated with the vaccine. Back then, Big Pharma et al. did not have quite the control of the media it has today. We are at tens of thousands of vaccine-related deaths in the US according to their VAERs database, yet still the Biden regime pushes on with mandates. Germany has been ‘vaccinating’ its population since spring; very little has happened to all-cause mortality as a result, except for an above-average uptick through September, which may be sustained through October. Germany is about six months in to its ‘vaccination’ programme. Perhaps the vaccines’ lethality will reveal itself in due course. Perhaps not. Perhaps that particular conspiracy theory is wrong.

I have at this blog nailed my colours firmly to the conspiracy-theory interpretation of what’s going on. My rough definition of conspiracy is, “breaking eggs to make omelettes, while keeping secret which eggs are to be broken”. As such, in this instance as always, the conspirators believe, in their way, they are doing some form of God’s work; i.e., it is ‘right’ to make whatever omelette is being made – a cleaner world? –, even if the eggs sacrificed would vehemently disagree. I have never claimed to know in any detail globalist goals or methods, nor have I claimed to know how many (tenuously) affiliated groups are cooperating, nor what difficult inter- and intra-group tensions beset them. I have also always been of the view that modernity is at an advanced stage of historical decadence, and that this rot – which is a natural part of historical development – has driven the conspirators to make their (desperate) move: crudely, to subject western civilisation to a controlled demolition, then reap the benefits thereof. Having an obviously senile president of the nation said to be the most powerful on earth is but one manifestation of this historical rot, and thus also of the desperation I assert is driving on the so-called ‘elites’.

But just like an all-cause mortality curve is far smoother averaged out over 5 years than over a single season, so my efforts here even out towards better explanations over time (I assert). The material I’ve published on my blog regarding c19 is fairly bumpy as I pursue various musings to see where they lead. My daily thoughts and conversations are more turbulent still, as I react, sometimes very emotionally, to the vicissitudes of the news. But I do try to sort the wheat from the chaff as time goes by. Confronted by an information pool as corrupted as modernity’s, this is a lengthy process. Figuring out with any certainty what we don’t know we don’t know is notoriously difficult, as is ascertaining how relevant this invisible, inaccessible information is. Which is why I promote humility as the only way to travel. It is also why I am determinedly, passionately against all manifestations of groupthink.

Now I’m going to add climate change to the crazy mix I’ve been compiling here these past months, but by way of demonstrating the value of being open about one’s ignorance. This factor – identifying and acknowledging ignorance – is vital to combatting groupthink, conspiracy, and incompetence, and to exposing the danger of placing ‘experts’ on pedestals and trusting everything they say without question. It is also vital in exposing the dangers of not listening to those experts, as to a host of other intractable challenges that attend civilisation and specialisation. Being honest about our ignorance is so vital, in fact, that it is almost impossible to overstate it, however ‘expert’ we feel we are. 

On to anthropogenic climate change. Carbon dioxide is said to be a “greenhouse gas”. Right now, according to DuckDuckGo, there are 413.67 molecules of CO2 in the air for every million molecules of air that are not CO2. By my maths, that means CO2 represents 0.00414% of earth’s air. I further understand CO2 absorbs heat in the form of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), and re-emits it after having absorbed a certain amount. I assume this re-emission of heat energy occurs in all directions, not just earthwards. The height above ground a molecule of CO2 is situated will determine, by my thinking, what percentage of that energy finds its way back to earth.

So far, so non-controversial.

But how does a gas that occupies but 0.004% of earth’s air absorb and re-emit heat energy in sufficient amounts to drive climate change as earth’s most effective “greenhouse gas”? Were I to build a greenhouse, I would use glass like other people do. I would not rely on the air – now richer in CO2 by 0.39% more than last year – even knowing that a ‘consensus’ of scientists report, repeatedly, how dangerously effective CO2 is at warming our planet’s biosphere. An air greenhouse would just suck. So how is CO2 the entire planet’s greenhouse? (I’m leaving out other greenhouse gases, like methane, for the sake of brevity.)

I suspect billions would be outraged by such a simplistic line of enquiry, but my point is not to convince anyone of anything other than the importance of abandoning all pretence of knowing everything, an act of honest humility which fosters an atmosphere of mutual discovery, regardless of what that the truth turns out to be.

Dear passionate defenders of earth’s climate: I have been a vegan for almost a decade, gave up my career in an energy-utility company in 2011 in protest against nuclear power, and live as modestly as I can. My position is that one should err on the side of caution; surely knowing I am ignorant of so much demands such caution. Because I have neither the time nor desire to become an expert climatologist, I try to adapt my behaviours such that my impact on the environment is as benign as possible. However, in my own case, it is consumerism, perpetual economic growth and the absurd power of international corporations I see as root causes of this planet’s ills. And yet these are natural consequences that have emerged, fairly predictably, from the soil of civilisational progress. (Feel free to interpret “progress” in whichever way you choose.)

But regardless of my ignorance, I absolutely refuse to not criticise ‘experts’ and the ‘powerful’, to not question them and their ‘consensus’, their mandates, their claims. I do so in a spirit of honest inquiry. There’s a story about a naked emperor we all know and love that beautifully captures the ability of ignorance – depicted as a child in the story – to cut through any expert’s vanity and pride. We all love that story, but today many of us welcome censoring critics of the official covid19 narrative. 

Why? What’s going on here?

Obligatory trust is an oxymoron

Why on earth should I trust any multinational pharmaceutical corporation? In fact, because “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, I refuse to trust any large agglomeration of power, period. It’s unwise, systemically, for any group to have that much power. People are people, after all. We are obviously not mature enough, psychologically, to handle it, as Lord Acton’s famous saying, slightly misquoted a few lines above, implies. And yet despite this cultural wisdom, so familiar to all of us, it appears we are being mandated to trust Big Pharma; being an “anti-vaxxer” is akin to terrorism, which is illegal. Is criticising or doubting Big Pharma motives and medicines now being made de facto illegal, or at least socially reprehensible? How is this state of affairs not ringing alarm bells in everyone? Because of PR and advertising? How can anything be beyond criticism? Or, in more diluted form: Why should the types of criticism permitted be dictated by the recipient of that criticism? We would never grant such power to each other; why do we grant it to the (already) very powerful?

I choose to think for myself, to resist the influence of groupthink. That seems the healthier way to be, even though it can be socially isolating. I am instantly suspicious of anyone telling me to obey blindly, for any reason whatsoever, particularly for the ‘public good’. Being told to obey ‘authority’, or ‘expertise’, or ‘the science’, however insidiously that instruction is delivered, is precisely how totalitarianism begins. Who can demonstrate clearly, beyond reasonable doubt, that totalitarianism is not currently being installed in as many countries as possible by some collection of wannabe global tyrants? Why are such suspicions so angrily dismissed as lunacy? “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

There’s no such thing as “unnatural”; there is only nature. One of humanity’s most enduringly hubristic notions is that it is somehow outside nature looking in, ‘scientifically’, ‘objectively’, ‘neutrally’. It is a vanity to which we noble beasts continue to cling. But regardless of our enduring vanity, nothing can be outside nature. I do believe, however, that hierarchical systems, natural as they are,  ‘built’ or ‘developed’ or ‘designed’ by historical processes to steadily accumulate power, are unhealthy. I perceive the madness that has gripped much of humanity – a humanity now living in obedient fear of something as mundane as infecting other people – as the visible symptom of an historical bifurcation point born of the unhealthiness of rigidly hierarchical systems of power … hierarchies of power that must, as they repeatedly do, tend strongly towards totalitarianism as a function of their nature. To repeat: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” How many deaths can be attributed to the tyrannical tendencies of those who have pursued power since human history began? Do we honestly believe we have bested tyranny with the likes of the BBC and CNN subjecting governments and multinational corporations to ‘objective’ questioning all across the world? Where is the balanced reporting on c19?

And yet despite all of the above, whose logic I still confidently share with you here, those charts presented on Friday 22 October hit me hard. Exactly how caught up in the insanity I see unfolding around me have I been? Is this entire Corona Circus of the Absurd a big fat nothing burger? (In that hysterically inflated nothing burger, I include the conspiring that is clearly underway at a grand scale.) People are suffering horribly, children in their millions coldly mutated into germaphobes by bureaucratic diktat, then subjected, against all logic and evidence, to an experimental gene treatment relabelled ‘vaccine’ … because profit? Billions of humans have been finessed by skilled public-relations “nudgers”, behavioural programmers and NLP experts into a state of perpetual fear on the winds of a vastly over-inflated nothing burger? For financial gain alone? Could it be so grubby? Is humanity that unimaginative? Could the profit motive alone undergird the push towards global totalitarianism simply because the current Powers That Be prefer things basically as they are, just so they can enjoy ever more of what they enjoy? 

I am offended by how unromantic that would be if true. And I am troubled that that offends me. I have attributed to the globalists a dark and erroneous (negative) nobility, a narcissistic noblesse oblige, a romantic urging towards a mechanical beauty they, dysfunctionally, want to create on earth. If it’s all for money … well, that would be something else entirely.

Is there no population-control agenda in the mix here? Why would the pharmaceutical industry risk a poorly developed set of vaccines, rushed to market in record time, for short-term gain but long-term loss of trust? That strikes me as utterly devoid of any wisdom, intelligence, cunning. It would be mere thuggish greed with no thought for tomorrow.

Such musings may well be an accurate reflection of what’s going on: a frenzied wildfire of groupthink, or groupfeel. And the powers coaxing that fear-frenzy to a global climax are no more or less mad than the rest of us. We are suffering an orgy of collective insanity, and, like fish bound together by the ocean of consciousness we are, we are hurled turbulently this way and that, as if one entity.

Or, if there is a population-control agenda, is it failing miserably? Or is The New Normal – global totalitarianism installed around the new pseudo illegality of infection? – designed to smother humanity’s procreational urges so thoroughly that populations will start to decline precipitously over coming decades? Or are the excess mortality spikes currently reported in the US, UK, Germany and elsewhere – spikes not averaged out and adjusted demographically as in the charts that inspired this article – in fact indicative of a dangerous set of ‘vaccines’ slowly beginning to reveal their ‘side-effects’? It would, after all, be a plan doomed to quick failure if the jabs killed millions within days of injection, while the unvaccinated lived merrily on. No mass-media power would be sufficient to keep such a scenario hidden. If the jabs were indeed designed as “kill shots”, it would have to be in some boiling-frogs manner, a strategy slow and insidious enough to escape easy detection. (Some doctors analysing ‘vaccine’ contents have calculated that up to a third are merely saline solutions, for example.)

I’ve never been persuaded by ‘kill shot” arguments, this despite the likes of Dr Luc Montagnier, Dr Robert Malone, Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr Sucharit Bakhdi, and countless lawyers across the globe, propounding such assessments. Their need to warn the world is clearly authentic; they would not lightly risk their reputations, or establishment opprobrium. But the logic of the notion itself does not convince me entirely. That said, I acknowledge my ignorance and keep open all possible explanations for what is unfolding globally. Global affairs are so unnerving – with nascent fascism now on display in France, Italy, Israel, and Australia –, it’s likely the full explanation of the c19 phenomenon is equally unnerving.

So much uncertainty after all this time, analysis, pondering and discussion! The only things I’m confident of are that the official narrative is carefully deceptive and that history rhymes, with civilisation itself composed of systemic qualities that can only repeatedly lead to such bifurcation points. 

So much detail remains to be properly established: What are the true injection rates of the planet’s national populations? What, exactly, is in the various ‘vaccines’? Why are the ‘vaccine’ ingredients not public knowledge? Does SARS-CoV-2 exist as advertised? How many people died solely of covid19? Is covid19 a new, tightly defined illness, or a generic label stuck on to a too-wide range of familiar symptoms? Where did influenza go? What is a pandemic, exactly, and who should be granted the power to announce one? 

These are just a few of the key questions groupthink prevents us from healthily and effectively discussing. Authority and expertise want dominion of these things, but have shown themselves to be very poorly equipped to handle matters of such global importance. They are all too human, all too subject to the weaknesses of the human ego: pride, ambition, greed, fear, groupthink.

I yearn for a system of widely distributed power balances that prevents, by its very composition, power accumulation. Right now, groupthink stands between humanity and wanting something healthier. The current dominant system of inexorable power accumulation towards global tyranny depends for its continued existence on our obedient compliance. Groupthink serves that dependency.

Groupthink. That’s the problem, folks. Groupthink is the soil in which tyranny takes root and blooms. Groupthink is unscientific, anti-life, and cowardly. Groupthink is virus, super-spreader, and medium of infection all at once. The Powers That Be manipulate groupthink like maestros of the dark arts, but fail to notice how susceptible they themselves are to its mist-covered swamps and seductive self-delusions. 

On and on the circus of history’s madness goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

I think we need more abandon. We need to be more honest with ourselves and each other, more immediate, and then learn how to cope with each of our truths, our authenticity, our ugliness, our beauty. We are too afraid, too timid, too polite, too sensitive, proud, defensive, too allergic to robust community, to honesty, to ‘failure’, to abandonment. 

We need more abandon.

Can we learn to fall backwards, with abandon, into the waiting wilds of chance and discover, fearfully, excitedly, hopefully, whether we can fly on our own without the strings of the powerful keeping us safely netted in some cage of their design? Do we dare help to build a world which encourages true maturity in every individual, with maximum freedom to be as we are culturally expected, nascent in the air we breathe, while accepting full adult responsibility for the choices we make? Can we outgrow our cultural fear of death? Can we uproot our addiction to authority, its dark charm, its promise of eternal safety proffered so tantalisingly, just on the other side of defeating this current terror. Ok, just on the other side of that current terror. Well, perhaps there’s another terror lurking around the next corner…

Tyrannical authority is as addicted to obedience as the obedient are addicted to tyrannical authority. It is a symbiosis, a death trap. Isn’t the way out of this trap the abandon we need to let go of the fears that hold us back, that keep us firmly secured in authority’s embrace? Perhaps we should start looking each other in the eyes and share what we feel. Perhaps we should listen to the other side. Perhaps we should take that risk and see what happens. 

We’re going to die one way or the other.

Go abandon!

Hierarchy and Anarchy

[Warning: this is tentative, exploratory material!]

It is not ‘human nature’—via the heady cocktail of ambition, greed and selfishness—which makes hierarchy inevitable, it is environmental complexity. ‘Human nature’, coarsely understood as just defined, is a variable-complex of low relevance in the generating of hierarchical social systems, and is meaningless when notionally removed from its supporting environmental networks in an attempt to see it ‘for what it is.’ I argue here that we need not refer to this Hobbesian ‘beast within’ when seeking to understand social forms. Another line of inquiry bears more succulent fruit.

Premise: Not only can there be no such thing as equality across the universal spectrum (except in the abstract world of language and imagination), we should never even try to establish such in pursuit of social good. Just as the Piraha cannot count above one—even when shown how by concerned anthropologists—so we should recognize and celebrate the uniqueness of every single thing, at every scale, everywhere. As one consequence of having begun to look at reality in this light, I am beginning to entertain the possibility that the hierarchy-anarchy dichotomy I have been battling with in my thinking for some time now, should be thought of as nothing more than a cultural illusion, a transitional conflict generated by ignorance. These supposedly antithetical social arrangements are but projections from out of our cultural knowledge of Universe, knowledge which is painfully incomplete, biased and inaccurate.

For example, isn’t it always and only the case that, as Universe generates more data-detail out of its ever-changing reality, ‘tunes’ its fractal-resolution ever finer, it consequently generates yet more data-detail in a perpetual, multifaceted whirring around dynamic ‘balance?’ (See note on entropy below.) On our scale (humans and human societies are embedded subsets of Universe), the more information we discern then process and manipulate, the more we generate in the very heat of our efforts to understand, interpret and ‘control.’ We are as much a part of Universe as stars, asteroids and planets. So isn’t it the case that society becomes more ‘complex’ necessarily (albeit not in a linear fashion, but over time)? Musn’t this complexity give rise to social hierarchies?

Therefore, and to focus prosaically on the theme at hand, the chance for small human groups to remain forever ‘egalitarian’—a societal mode we project onto them from within our cultural and historical experience of hierarchy—is, from my newly emerging point of view, zero, not because of human nature and ‘born greedy’ arguments, but simply because the wild mess of environmental (or bio-social) pressures, stirred up with a societal soup of any complexity, is totally uncontrollable. Inescapably, people (trees, flowers, lions, antelope, ants) of varying qualities emerge from the environment producing them, not because of genetics per se, but because of the necessary complexity and vital unpredictability of the web of life. Genetics are a subset of and are embedded in Universe. They mean absolutely nothing whatsoever outside their context, their enmeshed reality. The manner in which genes copy themselves into ‘endless’ iterations of themselves is powered and slowly altered by external environmental circumstances beyond their control. Indeed there is no control, there are no actions; there is only response and reaction. Agency is an illusion.

Let’s look at two of the techniques for sustaining egalitarianism. Teasing: How can teasing to suppress alphas be effective for all time in the face of all that information ‘out there,’ to be discovered and interpreted? No way can we all know enough about everything to deal with ‘experts’ from multiple fields. The ‘You don't know what you're talking about!’ card can be played, and defended, increasingly successfully, as societal complexity increases. Teasing is effective in small groups where there is open access to manageable amounts of culturally generated data about reality, thereafter it becomes ever weaker. Imagining for a moment I could get sufficient ‘face time,’ how would I tease a Margaret Thatcher or a Tony Blair, a Joe Biden or Lloyd Blankfein to humility and humble acceptance of ‘egalitarian’ principles? Not only do I not have sufficient power, I have but limited experience of their worlds, and they would not understand where I was coming from. Killing: And as a pacifist, before even looking at the extreme difficulty and counter-productivity of such a solution, I cannot advocate killing people who disagree with me, or who have a more ambitious personality. Even people like Lloyd Blankfein. (You can relax now, Lloyd.)

Perhaps even more fundamentally, why would nature, via human behaviour, select for ‘egalitarian’ societies at the scale of hunter gatherers? Is nature moral? Does it care about fairness? Perhaps, but not as I caricature it here; nothing is that simple. Christopher Boehm confronts hierarchy and egalitarianism in “Hierarchy in the Forest”. He points out the life-and-death need for total trust among all members of the group, e.g., on potentially deadly hunting trips. If any member of the tribe has personal ambitions, that person cannot be trusted in such delicate situations and must therefore either be humbled out of their selfish egotism, or killed, for the sake of the group. ‘Primitive’ egalitarian societies are a harsh matter of survival in dangerous, non-surplus conditions, and have nothing to do with ‘rights’ or other political niceties. The egalitarian mode we perceive them as having 'adopted,' arises organically from the environmental conditions confronting the group. Hence, with the arrival of farming, surplus, private property, alongside the increasing complexity of social life, egalitarianism simply becomes the less effective social construct. For this stage of the analysis, morality is irrelevant, as is human nature, except that human nature is social and intelligently adaptive.

To recap, social hierarchy could be said to be an organic consequence of increases in generated intellectual information leading to increases in social complexity, coupled with changed environmental circumstances and challenges such as farming, surplus and private property. Over broader tracts of time, and speaking more generally still, the more complex things get, the more information we generate as we further understand Universe, cumulatively—standing on the shoulders of taller and taller giants—the less able we are to deploy effective teasing (and other) tactics to keep the playing field level, and the less appropriate egalitarianism becomes. An egalitarian social mode becomes an impossibility via person-to-person teasing in social and environmental conditions far different from ‘hand-to-mouth’ hunter gatherer tribes. Furthermore, as hierarchies establish, killing alpha males becomes harder, as they are surrounded by ‘hangers-on’, who become an early ‘army,’ ‘police,’ etc. Not to mention that specialization means upending the hierarchy sinks you too. Having specialized, you cannot survive on your own in the wild. Hierarchy breeds dependency on it. A hierarchy composed of equally abled jacks of all trades is illogical.

But of course the story does not end with the supposed ‘success’ of the hierarchical forms we see around us today. It just so happens that human social hierarchies such as nation-states and corporations are wired to grow perpetually as part of their design (and we should see corporations as a smooth ‘progression’ from the nation-state to a form that can grow beyond nation-state borders, while states provide the framework for population growth). They are therefore fundamentally self-destructive at increasing environmental cost, likely to the point of global eco-collapse if not arrested.

Today, we therefore have two (interrelated) choices if we wish to survive in civilizational form (facing, as we do, new environmental challenges such as peak oil, technological unemployment, peak debt, global warming, and other problems unprecedented in human history):

1. develop an anarchic socioeconomic infrastructure which permits the ad hoc emergence of (short-term?) hierarchical social organizations, which are systemically prevented (not forced) from bedding down, dominating and growing in reach and power (goal-oriented or project-based hierarchies); and/or

2. insist on pure anarchic social systems and work out new ways of preventing the ‘unwanted’ emergence of hierarchies in a modern, complex setting.

Right off the bat I have a problem with “insist” (a word I put there for precisely that reason!). It is totalitarian, profoundly divisive, is the deepest antithesis of what a new social form, from this point looking forward, ought, logically, to be about. Because it divides deeply to insist on a solution, insistence renders impossible the ever-emergent consensus, however fractious, an anarchic system would require, would strive to learn how to build. To insist on anarchy and only anarchy is to doom it at the outset. 'Mature' anarchy can only emerge organically from conditions conducive to its emergence (nothing unusual there!). And grass doesn’t grow faster if you shout at it. Hence my continuing interest in a resource-based economy, in which the infrastructure itself is sustainably organized (point 1.) to distribute the necessities (plus many luxuries) to all people everywhere. This infrastructure is a necessary precondition for generating the base conditions of anarchy (egalitarianism), out of which soil ad hoc and short-term hierarchical arrangements, perhaps even ‘institutions,’ can grow and then dissolve, at need, without being able to accrue power. Key is the ‘guarantee’ of a solid and environmentally friendly life-ground, a base providing everyone with the ‘equal’ opportunity to participate and contribute. The degree to which one enjoys one’s life will be up to each individual ‘equally’ (which translates to a loose definition of ‘freedom’ I can live with). The more one constructively gives, the richer one’s life becomes. Contribution rewards by definition, even when it includes failure and set backs.

Such a socioeconomics could include no fiscal debt in the formal sense, no private property, no bondage in the explicit sense of money and formal monetary accounting. Each of us would be obliged/free to play his or her part in the organic and ongoing rebalancings of Universe, adapted and reacted to in an emergent fashion. Without appeal to any sense of fairness or morality, we would get out, more or less, what we put in. And that is a morality I can believe in. A bio-diverse ‘equality’ I can take seriously.

However, in chicken-and-egg fashion, building such an infrastructure first requires what I’ve been calling here an ‘anarchic’ set up, that is, a society accustomed to and politically mature enough to cope with locally organized self-governance via direct democracy and consensus building. We are nowhere near that place. We are political and emotional babies. Before we can even begin to want to build a global RBE infrastructure, we have to re-localize, nucleate across the planet into a cultural sense of ourselves as but one species of many on planet Earth, and establish ‘self-sufficient’ communities interconnected via ‘harmonizing’ Internet-like software and databases capable of global resource tracking and management. Out of this a RBE might emerge, though the path will be stony indeed, before we even consider how difficult the first step will be.

To conclude, the two listed options are in fact one—minus the word “insist”— or are at least interconnected. We begin where we can, as discussed by David Graeber, to construct anarchic social organizations, slowly improve our consensus-finding techniques, and freely disseminate the wisdom we learn. Show ourselves and the world how it’s done. Invite participation from others. Remain open. Stay honest. Believe. And accept that hierarchical social organizations are unavoidable, even within anarchy. Nature is fundamentally anarchic with hierarchical arrangements arising from and collapsing back into it. Anarchy is the soil which enables hierarchy. Seeing them as opposites is wrong.



[Note to self: Complexity cannot increase infinitely. There will be retrenchments, failed-experiments, collapses leading to profound and broad changes of direction. In the manner of Keep It Simple, Stupid, systems can be too complex. Complexity does not equal wisdom. Accumulations of wisdom include rebalancings of complexity and simplicity as Universe ‘progresses’ ‘blindly’ through its many experiments with different forms of life.]

[Note to others: Entropy is not the sole fundamental property of Universe in my opinion. There are many, though change is the only constant! If entropy were the core property of Universe I could not be typing this. The self-organizational processes necessary, over the vast tracts of time from the alleged Big Bang till now, to engender life on earth and now human society and culture out of ‘chaos’ cannot be ignored. They’re here. We are it. Universe did this, and this miraculous (inexplicable) ‘accomplishment’ is not the result of entropy.]