Hodgkinson != Sayoc

    If we were a truly enlightened society, we would shed all unnecessary violence and work towards flourishing as a whole. That said, I'm tired of this false equivalence in violence in politics. Cesar Sayoc, now known as the the MAGA-Bomber, is an insane sycophant. Earlier in Trump's Presidency James Hodgkinson shot at conservative congress members...was he wrong to do so, probably...but he had volunteered for campaigns, protested, and followed every non-violent path imaginable before he took to violence...and sorry to say it, but Trump and his accomplices are demonstrably corrupt and unfit, will set us on an irrevocable path towards climate disaster, and endanger our democracy in many ways...so there are definitely empirical and rational reasons to be alarmed and reactive. When you look at the causes Hodgkinson was fighting for and the things he protested, it is clear he is a rational and compassionate person. Sayoc, on the other hand, has a long list of criminal activity, drug abuse, childish delusions, and volatile outbursts. In an ideal world, perhaps all violence is unacceptable... but being humans and in a far from perfect world, violence happens...and when it does, it matters what preceded the violence, it matters WHY they do it, the details matter and not all instances are equal.

How Can Progress Win

    I've been wanting the "left" to be more effective in winning political battles...and how do the politicians decide to try? Not by drafting or passing legislation that will help people, not by removing corruption that can uncripple our system, not by adopting progressive ideals that are extremely popular and winning elections...they decide to throw sexual assault victims under a bus and poison their cause by dragging it into the political sphere to die as a poisoned tribal issue. They've glorified protest...so they can do nothing and put all the responsibility on the public that entrusted THEM to fix things. Why do people have to protest to communicate their will to THEIR "representatives?" Politicians are serving themselves, not the people.
    So what are some solutions... well the most efficient form of governance is a Dictatorship...an order is given and it is carried out. The problem is you often get the wrong Dictator...and you become efficient at regression or malice. Cross that one off the list. Then there are those that will throw out the question: "why don't YOU run?" The political process has been corrupted to be exclusive to elites, it requires time and money that most don't have...it also requires a public bullshitting ability since the system is not focused on solving problems, but 24/7 news cycles and personality worship or assassination. On the other side, everyone expresses worry at what will happen if the people have more power...like a Direct Democracy; everyone says it will be "mob rule"...but at this point what are the elites doing that is better? Our system is a joke, they can't find consensus, they aren't able to protect the planet, our system, or create any meaningful progress...I'm not sure monkeys throwing darts would be any less effective at this point. They aren't even effectively deluding the public...we are getting screwed and we feel it excruciatingly.
    We must get past all this, and focus on solutions...we must get organized...we must improve our understanding of the world, we must learn to grant more "good will" and effectively communicate, we must learn to evaluate and craft arguments, we must all have the humility to be lifelong students and not make everything about ourselves. This is the obvious path forward, do humans have the maturity to follow it?

The Communists Should Have Sought Enlightenment

    My search for improved understanding of economics obviously dragged me across the age-old false dichotomy of Capitalism vs Communism. In this day and age, if you point out the many problems with Capitalism, you are labeled a Communist...which is a sad because it prevents us from having intelligent discussions about economics. That said, I am not a Communist and this is not a comparison or a rant about our economic system, but rather an observation and some funny imaginings.

Note on my economic philosophy:
I think there are a great many people like me that like the ideas of cooperation over competition, intelligent management of resources over Social Darwinism, a healthy balance of ideological ambition with methodological efficiency, and a desire to be sustainable. The best way to describe my ideology is probably a Structuralist form of economic philosophy.

    When I look at the many things communist regimes have done wrong (granted most were just authoritarian regimes that leveraged the populism of "communism") I notice that there is one thing that they did really wrong...and it was CULTURE. They tried to force people to do the right thing, rather than teach them HOW and WHY to do the right thing. Egalitarianism is a beautiful thing to strive for, but you can't force it upon a population who doesn't understand why it is important. It's the same with cooperation, you can't "force" people to cooperate. So we can see why an authoritarian approach didn't work for forming an egalitarian society. Sadly enough, even though we use a very similar authoritarian cultural approach in capitalism (yes your workplace is a dictatorship, tell your boss to "fuck off" and then tell me how you voted yourself out of being fired), it marries well with an economic system that values hierarchy and competition.
    This leads me to another observation, and that is about the culture of Buddhism. The Buddhist tradition has thousands of years of development, and it seems to value the ideas of equality, living frugally, sharing and harmony. This strikes me as fairly compatible with the spirit of communism (the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" bit), but is prewrapped and ready to be adopted by proponents of that economic system.

Note on my religious background:
I am an Atheist and I do not think religion (i.e. ideological dogma) of any kind is good, but I do think Buddhism is probably one of the more benevolent religions.

So just to tie things up, I just started imagining what would have happened if those two things had met up in a serious way, and think they would have made interesting bed-fellows. I don't suggest either of these things, but if you are already a communist with culturally authoritarian tendencies, perhaps you should start looking into Buddhism.

How to love #MeToo too much

I recently brought up the observation that either victims were coming out about sexual assault disproportionally more frequently during elections or hearings, or at the least the media was making it seem that way. When I suggested that the optics were bad...BAM...I got called names, I got called an enemy of the movement...my intelligence and empathy were put in question, I was accused of blaming the victim.
    I started trying to clarify my position...I told them I believed the victims and I believe every case should be taken seriously, I want them to get all the support and investigations they were owed, and that I am not demanding that they come out only under certain circumstances...just that we not create a culture in which they think they only get support when their accuser is a powerful person is in the public eye. My point was optics are a fact...even for the victims, and they have to weigh and be mindful of those factors. I pointed out that victims are NOT being well-served by coming out at these times, they are thrust into the public eye, with death threats, their families being harassed, etc. And yes, I even suggested that if it continues this way, it could become a political tool that is used with untruthful accusations. I also pointed out that by not allowing anyone to question the motivation...they are actually running cover for those who want to use the victim for political gain. The screaming and insults continued.
    Now at this point, you probably have an opinion of whether you agree or disagree with me.  Now if you are one of those who disagrees with me, and you think I deserved to be screamed at, insulted, and called an enemy...I want you to ask yourself some important questions...are you changing minds...are you creating an atmosphere that is making it easier for people to support victims or are you poisoning it? Are you even making it safer for victims? I'm a completely fallible ape, I'm not trying to pump myself up...but I will say I do activism to protect women and their rights and the policies and candidates I support provide a strong record of this, to the best of my discernment I objectively treat women respectfully in my daily life, I call out misogyny...if I am the enemy...your criteria are bizarre. These experiences have made me not want to touch the topic, I have to chant the mantra "the victims are separate from the SJWs, the victims are separate from the SJWs." I understand people are passionate...but consider that being the loudest and the angriest...does not mean you are the most EFFECTIVE...and may even hurt your cause.

Dream Of Inequality

I had a dream that Trump was elected...although we get through the 4 years without nuclear disaster, the US has crushing inequality. They close malls to build banquet halls for the rich and powerful. For some reason I'm in one of these halls at a black-tie event...famous people and politicians are everywhere. They all seem so close and friendly.

I take a seat as the lights dim...and an announcement is made, giant screens turn on everywhere and the spotlight beams to a part of the room. A voice announces that Michelle Obama is being sworn in as the next president of the US. She hugs Melania Trump, who is seated next to her. Everyone cheers and cries...I look to my left where Oprah is sitting and she is crying, she hugs me (a complete stranger) because she is so excited, she is about to take the stage because we are also celebrating her birthday, and she is to exchange congratulations with Michelle.

The night continues and I listen to the conversations between the guests, thinking maybe I can get a feel for who these powerful people really are. They are just making small talk, socializing, and the "shop talk" is very practical albeit self-serving. I get bored of the lack of substance in the conversations so I look out the windows of the building where I see shuffling homeless people. As I watch the endless shuffling of homeless people, I catch a glimpse of a "I voted" sticker on the coat of one of them. At that moment it has never been more clear to me that our oligarchy isn't a conspiracy...it is a choice. A choice made by the wealthy and the poor alike. A system we perpetuate under the unifying principles of ignorance and indifference.

Capitalism

Why is it when I criticize capitalism, so many come to its defense? I struggle to find what is so admirable about its principles. It's like people think no further than "Jeez, I'm not starving to death so capitalism must work," but many people ARE starving, displaced, and economically oppressed.

Let's look at an example: if there is an arbitrarily high demand for wood, the "free market" says we'll cut all the forests down to meet the demand until it's so scarce a resource, and people so aggressively defend the few remaining forests, that market prices make it too costly to pursue. In any sane system, this is not "equilibrium," this is WORST CASE SCENARIO. We've decimated our forests, destroyed biodiversity, and succumbed to the lowest common denominator with no lesson learned, no mechanism to prevent further recklessness, and no regard for collateral damage.

Think about the logical premises of this system. It suggests self-interest (rather than altruism) as the primary driving factor in human progress. It suggests competition (rather than collaboration), specifically through market share domination as the means for resource control and distribution. Think it through, if your goal is market share, the ultimate expression of a "successful" corporation is a monopoly or cartel, corruption is built into this system.

Another staple of capitalism is "private property."

====================
Defining terms:
Private Property refers to ownership of productive (value-producing) assets (the "means of production") by a small class of owners who subsist on the value generated by the means of production. In a capitalist economy, the surplus value takes the form of profit, enabling a small class to subsist on the resulting property income.

There is distinction between "private property" and "personal property." The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on production and wage labor; the latter is defined as a consumer good or goods.

Many assume that the only alternative to Private Property is totalitarian government control of resources but, as with most conjecture, there aren't just two options. Democratized decision-making governing the use of the means of production or systems based on free association and access are several such ideas. Even if we decide to use centralized planning (a good idea), it need not take the form of centralized control.
====================

If our goal is to reward hard work, "innovation," and to drive civilization forward; how does the idea of Private Property (and in modern times, Intellectual Property) accomplish these? They inherently extract value from the work of others.

Any successes we have realized in recent times should surely be attributed to advances in scientific understanding, cheap energy (unfortunately oil in our case), and breakthroughs in engineering that have afforded us more time to pursue non-subsistence activities. Why is that we allow capitalism to take credit for our advancements and isn't it abundantly clear that there are better ways to accomplish what we THINK capitalism is doing?

Beyond Atheism

I've talked about what atheism is but let's extend our conversation beyond the definition:

Atheism is a stance on what we can know; inherently, it makes no judgement on the "goodness" or "morality" or "societal benefits" or "economic strategy" of religion.  There are obviously some atheists that are openly hostile to religion but it is not necessarily so.  There are also atheists that are very accepting of the behavior of most religious people and blend well into those circles.  Typcially though, most atheists fundamentally disagree with the authoritarian stance of religion and its resistance to improvement or refactoring (commonly referred to as "religious dogma") but only take action when those ideas clash in physical reality.

Important groups in atheism:

Secularists:
I'm sure you've heard about "separation of church and state"...this is typically what these people are about.  Most atheists don't care one way or another about religion EXCEPT where those beliefs impose on others.  You need not be an atheist to be a secularist, but typically these ideologies marry well.

Humanists:
Humanism is an ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.  This last part is important to note, because the masses usually don't recognize any way of determining what is "moral" beyond religion and can't understand decision-making without superimposing an authoritarian view of things upon the social-economic-political system.

Final thought:
If you are an atheist, you have not reached enlightenment.  We are all FOREVER students, always growing and always changing.  You can't latch on to some other form of "divinity" whether it be a nation, an economic model, or "nano-technology."  We must learn to treat each other with respect and continue to learn in a healthy, cooperative manner.  Until we have both intelligence and benevolence, whatever else we argue about or discover is meaningless.

The bottom line is, this is not a battle of beliefs...this is a battle against irrationality.

Atheism

I've been talking to a bunch of self-proclaimed "atheists" recently and it was amazing to me to hear what they believed atheism was and what it implies.

Let's get started with what atheism REALLY IS:
Atheism is, literally, a disbelief in the existence of a deity or deities. (Deity: the rank or essential nature of a god).
Atheism is, more broadly, a disbelief in the supernatural (Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe).
The term "atheism" originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without god".

Now these people I've been speaking to, talk about how they're atheist...
but they believe in ghosts, or some cosmic spirituality, or that they have some non-religious soul...
and I will tell you now...YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST!

Just because you have lost your faith or comfort with your religious affiliation...that does not make you an atheist.  We are atheists because we believe in a rational thought process and believe proof can only exist in the form of observable criteria.  Look into the "fallacies of logic" if you having trouble distinguishing what is a reasonable train of thought and what is not.

I can only believe that there is some political or subversive force in play that is trying to confuse the issue of what atheism is.  Either that or really confused humans are latching on to an idea that they don't really believe in, purely, for some perceived social benefit they might accrue.

Defining Social Change

    I speak frequently about "social change," but I feel I haven't written enough about what it means to me and why I feel it's important.  I'll start with saying that there is a duality of what has been happening and what I believe needs to happen which I will describe as "dance and discussion."  Wikipedia describes "socialization" as:
"the process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies. It may provide the individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within their own society"

DANCE
    Traditionally, our adjustments in respect to each other have been in the form of "feeling" a direction of something near you and "reacting."  This is like dancing, where the subtle movements of one person gives you cues to react and adjust.  An example of this is seeing a panicking person running and getting up and getting ready to run yourself due to some alleged danger.  While these have served us well in some evolutionary respect...the game completely changed when we developed a deeper sense of self-awareness.  Once we began to realize that we are able to perceive and that others are able to perceive, the invention of manipulation also began to come into being.  If you can control stimuli being sensed by another person, you can direct them and shape their behavior to suit your own needs and desires.  It is here we see how most of the "socialization" we find today is the manipulation of ideas and the handing down of ideologies that are completely removed from any individual sense of perception.  Without an individual filter of these perceptions, we are enslaved by the perceptions of others.
    Although the concept of "dance" seems quite poetic and spiritual, it is dangerous and leads to ideas like "collective consciousness," religious ideals, and other such nonsense that leads to manipulation.  This is what we need to realize is happening and the way out of this is what I call "discussion."

DISCUSSION
    Knowing that we can create artificial reactions in people and manipulate (as well as be manipulated), we need to find a way to socialize that is much more grounded.  Rather than arbitrarily adjusting oneself to other peoples' behavior or emotional displays, we need to create a system of socialization based around observation.  The connections we make with other people need to be tied to those observations and have a means of verification.  Based on those solid observations, we need to create channels of communication through the use of ideas.  If we use verifiable observations as our common ground, and communicate through related ideas, we can create goals and socialize in much more meaningful ways.
    The way I think people should approach socialization is this: each person is born with a unique way of perceiving the world.  First, we must learn how our unique observations relate to the physical world in which we live.  This is a process of introspection in which a person must identify the processes which give them the closest approximation to reality that they can ascertain.  Next, we must try to understand how others' perceptions relate to our own (again in the physical world).  Finally, we must tie ourselves together in an understanding of the ideas related to those observations.  If we create a social system in which we use these concepts, and our tendencies are not pulled and swayed by manipulation of our emotions and perceptions, we will begin to connect in a way that leaves us not only more productive, but happier and more fully unified.

Why Religion Is Dangerous

    I've been thinking about why I oppose religion so strongly and I think I have narrowed it down to the one thing that is most destructive about it.  Religion is based on authority.  No matter how you look at it, the thing that ties all the things together in religion is that they can appeal to a book or some quote or in some way reference an authority.  The reason this is destructive is it completely removes people from their actions and it deeply impedes them from thinking about something for themselves.

    As I continue my quest to create social change and encourage the expansion of minds, I realize that this rigidity in religion and removal of responsibility from oneself, will be a HUGE stumbling block to moving forward.  As I always say, there is only one person you can really change, and that person is yourself...if people can't get past religious ideologies, we as a species WILL die (or sooner than later as the case may be).