Regime of Prophecy
Introduction
Friends, countrymen and scientists this compilation of essays is for you. I, Frederick, have had the good fortune to be born into an era of unprecedented advancement in human technology as a native citizen of the most technologically advanced country on the planet, The United States of America. My gratitude, however, is sadly now shadowed with a certain uneasiness as I observe some large counter-culture movements gaining momentum in their attacks in upon the force that is solely responsible for this era of human triumph, reason.
The last thirty years has seen our planet become progressively more interdependent financially as every nook and cranny of the globe has become connected. Nations everywhere have become dependent upon one another for security, support, and continued prosperity. One of the consequences of this phenomenon has been the dissemination of information and DIS-information to people on a global scale. All of the world has not progressed uniformly, even within the geographical boundaries of any one single nation, and this has often alienated large institutionalized groups of people whose leaders have maintained internal order by pulpit pounding "unchangeable truths" into their followers in order to achieve a sort of social order of static equilibrium. That the larger framework in which these groups exist is necessarily dynamic seems to matter little to policy makers or dogma fabricators, who use this fact to fill the void of contrived "common threat" that only their flavor of piety can protect against. The seemingly only axiomatic truth in nature is dynamism, as recent astronomical measurements have indicated that even our most cherished "constants" may be or have been fluctuating minutely all along. How convenient is it if one is able to vilipend such a fundamental truth, then provide an ad hoc, nebulous cure all for it in the form of a self-deprecating dichotomy. Herein I will decry the claims of complete conservatism, as it leads only to stagnation, and embrace the dynamic force of progress and human triumph.
For too long now Scientists in our world have perpetuated an aloof attitude within our own circle. Our place was not politics and matters of state. Quietly we do our work and transform the future of the human race while politicians defame these discoveries as portents of impending doom, feeding all manner of paranoid conspiracy theorizing of potential technological misapplication. All the while these same groups cite "prophecy" of ancient revered texts, perverting them to suit their agenda, so that only they might be elected to "protect" the voters from certain destruction. It is now evident that as Scientists are the only verifiable predictors of future events, we must rise to meet the challenge of our civic duties oft neglected and guide the application of our fruits that they may not be used against us and the citizenry we serve. We must not allow technophobia to take hold and thrust society into a new dark age of fear and anti-intellectualism. The Scientific Method provides a valuable algorithm for affecting positive change. All we have to do is open our minds, heed the calling, and accept the challenge I have issued?
Send Email 
To: Frederick - Fourth Apostle to the Antichrist.
Essay II: The Utility of Religion
Essay V: Transcendental Calculation
Essay VI: Transforming Government Part I
Essay VII: Why Weight to Vote?
Essay VIII: The Supernatural As the Ultimate Oxymoron
Essay X: 2001: An Orwellian Odyssey
Appendix I: Selected quotes from The Prince by N. Machiavelli
The most accurate way in which to predict the future is to invent it
.a Taken at face value, this statement would rouse little opposition from anyone. For coupled with intention, good planning, and diligence there is very little short of the limits of the laws of nature on a fundamental level to prevent the human race from affecting what tomorrow holds. Technological advances throughout the ages have only increased our ability to do this; if historical precedent is any indicator of things to come, this trend should continue exponentially. The implications of these facts are far reaching, and are that which often become the flashpoints of explosive, emotional confrontations that divide us as a species.Prophecy is defined as "the foretelling or prediction of what is to come."1 A regime is defined as "a mode or system of rule or government."2 Using these as definitions one could define the
Regime of Prophecy coupled with the aforementioned Principle Axiom about prediction of the future as a ruling social order of proactive prophesiers, prognosticators, or prophets. In this context our modern day prophets are really very accurate probability statisticians, historians, applied research scientists, and government officials that implement effective algorithms to achieve our ends, whatever they may be.In fact, this very point is what usually will evoke a confrontation with individuals whose minds are shackled by prejudice and the confines of religious dogma. Ironically, the central tenet of the predominant religions demands obedience, which implies self-determination and freedom to control your future. The philosophical incompatibility arises when in one case you do this for the benefit of yourself and your species, while in the other you do it out of supplication to a dubious supreme deity originally contrived to control peasants and slaves. The former involves utilitarianism driven by pure philanthropy and has a goal of a brighter future made probable by applying oneself. The latter is driven by fear and nihilistic view of this world and provides only the assurance that you will not be damned for eternity in another world by your beneficent unseen creator. While fear may be a powerful initial motivator, its utility wanes as a function of time, and it is usually replaced by stronger, irrational, paranoid, and dangerous fears that self-perpetuate. A drive towards utilitarianism may be initiated by a common threat, but the positive reinforcement of utilitarianism would ideally replace fear as a motivator.
The single most obvious and frightening implication of the
Principle Axiom is that we are solely responsible for future events as they relate to human actions today. Thus, we need to work towards the creation of a utilitarian technocratic republic where officials must demonstrate their aptitude and qualifications before being appointed to offices. Furthermore, all government policies should be subjected to scientific scrutiny to assess their utility prior to their implementation. No force of divine origin can help us to affect this change. We are fully responsible alone for dealing with matters of this world; employing the means and devices of this world in the most efficient manner possible to this end is up to us.1 - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
2 - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
a - Quote adapted from Peter F. Drucker's quote, "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
Back to the
Table of Contents
Religion as most have come to know it today consists mostly of powerful organized movements with central figures who are considered to be authorities on spiritual matters. In order to avoid wasteful debate about the origins of religion and its original function, I am going to focus on what religion has become in modern times and how these establishments as such may serve the state. Because the adherents to these faiths are malleable and tend to follow their appointed authority figures, I will focus on first obtaining the fealty of their leaders by any means necessary, a mean whose end is the fealty of the respective denomination. The very structure of these organizations makes them inherently easy to take control of by means of subversion of their respective figureheads.
As aforementioned in the leading paragraph, the state's efforts should focus on the religious leadership. Once the upper hierarchy of any religious denomination is controlled, the mass of loyalists is sure to follow. The fantastic claims of church leaders set the mental stage in congregations' psyches to accept many irrational claims with minimal evidence and upon copious emotional testimony alone. Because of this the state can easily disperse what I will call
engineered revelations and miracles through channels of propaganda to gain the favor of church leaders. Those leaders who freely admit that their claims are dubious to the skeptical and who are known to be engaged in such religious activities for their personal profit are even easier to subvert as they will disperse engineered revelations and miracles free of immediate charge. So long as unethical preachers like these are promised prestige and financial compensation for their efforts to unify the loyalties of the citizens of the state once the "word is out," their self-serving greed will compel them to take the bait. Once the "word is out," however, the leader has become expendable, because whatever information the state should seek to disseminate through these individuals should be such that it enforces the idea of state supremacy sanctioned by the divine. The action should be taken in such a way as to leave the church "official" with two choices. Either s/he must submit to and obey the state's wishes, or be threatened with vilification by making public any underhanded transactions that the s/he engaged in with state agents knowingly.Although it can be difficult to change well established doctrines in religious sects and cults, in the past supplementing them has never posed much of a problem. An
engineered miracle can always sway the truly devout. Moreover, if extension to the religious core proves advantageous to those who have been targeted to accept it, it becomes that much more readily assimilated and palatable in general. For instance, how easy is it for one to argue something along the lines of: God is all powerful. So, we are winning this war, because he wants us to. When your target already accepts the premise of an all-powerful deity, self-serving arguments are easy to stomach. A grand scheme of enticing or forcing "holy leaders" to publicly state that their deities have revealed that some state serving mean is "divine will" could easily suffice to bring the loyalties of religious or superstitious citizenry solely to the state.In fact, one would be blind not to recognize that this tactic is already in widespread use by politicians the world over. I merely emphasize it, not to be redundant, but to show that aside from perhaps intellectual stimulation and amusement, a publicly derisive attitude towards such institutions does nothing to further what the state's end should ultimately be, and that is to command the loyalty of all its citizenry. Aside from amusing your intellectual elite, a combative attitude when dealing with an illogical establishment will invite only hatred from its adherents, and sow seeds of disorder that the state will eventually be force to weed out at a greater expense later.
Back to the
Table of Contents
Ever since humans evolved into their modern form, we have had some measure of control in determining the traits of our offspring. All creatures that reproduce sexually possess this inherent ability. Whether these creatures are in conscious control of choosing the most beneficial traits of their offspring is a matter of much debate concerning what intelligence and consciousness really are, an issue requiring much discourse that I may pay tribute to in a later essay. However, no one could logically argue that genes do not control many predilections in behavior and physical traits in life as we can observe it directly on this planet. The
first wave3 of directed evolution occurred when sexual reproduction emerged in the process of evolution, imbuing all its forms of life with the ability to selectively pass traits to their offspring on a large scale within a given species.If we can agree that evolution is somewhat accurate in describing the process by which complex life forms emerged, then this
first wave3 of evolution dominated an aeon of earth time where far more chaos was involved in generating novel mixtures of traits in given populations of organisms. Evolution and survival of species was far more dependent on the whims of the environment. This wave continued until consciousness developed to a point where the lifeform in question could deliberate as to whether to mate or not with another of its species. Once this line is crossed, where a lifeform can consciously make a deliberate choice NOT to mate with another of its species who is undesirable, the second wave3 of evolution took hold. This wave is that which now places individuals in control of the traits their offspring will possess to a much greater degree. The second wave helped facilitate some form of self-determination beyond one's immediate survival.Concerning the
second wave3, one can not reasonably argue that we do not choose the traits of our offspring by this process. If an intelligent man consciously seeks out an intelligent woman with which to mate, he is directly or indirectly increasing the chances of producing offspring with intelligent characteristics. Someone might argue that they were not thinking about this fact when they had children. That may have been the case, but since they have read this and become informed, unless they possess some mental deficiency, which makes them unable to remember what I have written, the individual who reads this now knows it to be fact. In this exceptional case, that individual who decided to mate was still indirectly or unconsciously controlling his or her offspring's characteristics. This broad set of circumstances, now defined, encompasses what I have chosen to entitle the second evolutionary wave3 or directed evolution. Due to advances in medical science and biotechnology, we are now entering the third wave of evolution3. The ability to engineer the type of offspring we produce using accuracy without antecedent is now ours.The
third wave of evolution3, involving directed genetic tailoring, is now upon us and overtaking technologically advanced countries rapidly. Since we already choose the traits of our offspring, should we not do this with much greater efficiency? Does not every unborn child have the right to the benefits that are bestowable upon them? No responsible adult would intentionally conceive a child ill equipped to handle our rapidly changing world now. The two most often raised objections to this are that it involves interfering with nature, and that it raises the "eugenics spectre."4 Eugenics, as the world has realized it, is a crude method of making bigotry into an industry and slaughtering creatures that already exist to "clean" a pool of available genes. If that were the aim of this technology I would agree that its pursuit was unethical. However, the end of the mean of pursuing this technology is the CREATION of life and the CREATION OF BETTER LIFE at that! It is an almost inimical opposite of the eugenics mass death machines employed by the Nazi's or other modern political movements performing exercises in ethnic cleansing. The "specter of eugenics" objection, as I have attempted to demonstrate, is then simply invalid. As for this technology being unnatural I will say only that nature has already provided us a crude and inefficient way to selectively engineer our offspring. We have to employ it consciously or otherwise already. Why not use the other emergent property that nature bestowed upon us, intelligence, in concert with the ability to discriminate carefully what traits our children are endowed with. How could one not envision a much brighter future for the human race when this technology is approached with clear moral objectives?3 - Third Wave. by Alvin Toffler. *term usuage adapted
4 - Redesigning Humans. by Gregory Stock. *for further reading
Back to the
Table of Contents
Contrary to what most Americans are taught, democracy is not what has endowed this country with the ability to survive great upheaval and emerge intact without bloody revolution. In fact, democracy is fragile and can easily give way to tyranny in its pure form for one simple reason. Men are so naïve, and so much dominated by immediate needs, that a skilful deceiver always finds plenty of people who will let themselves be deceived.5 The opinions of the masses are easily manipulated to meet the wishes of those who control mass media. Even though literacy is more widespread now, and it is easier for the independent voice to make available the message its owner wishes to convey, money and time for research limit what any one single person can be exposed to. What really makes our nation strong is its adaptability.
Evolution rather than revolution will be the key to harnessing the volatile political forces unleashed in representative democracy. This is what has kept our country strong for so long and continues to do so now. Our entire government is modular and its ability to change to meet the demands of new environments brought created by technology must be maximized. As in nature, most systems are dynamic. Permanence in the sense of our society, laws, government, and technological advance can only be maintained if the entire system is in some sense mutable. Our bodies are ours for a lifetime, yet they constantly are building and breaking down. Apoptosis kills the old and useless, and anabolism builds units anew. On a larger scale, as the environment changes individuals who can not adapt are unable to pass their genetic sequence to the next generation, and through this inefficiencies and antiquities are pruned. On this planet we have been placed at the apex of this process. It is time our government reflected this power that fortune has left us with. Chance favors the system that is prepared.6 Having observed this effective model provided us in nature, I believe it can be adapted properly to suit the needs of society in a humane and efficient fashion.
Currently it is only our officers, elected and appointed that are given a review time, or a time to be re-elected. I propose that all laws be given the same prudent window of temporal applicability. When their time has expired they should be reviewed for revision and reapplication, or pass nobly into the memory of anachronisms by default, duly noted as an unused appendage that has become dead legal weight. This creates the ultimate evolving governmental organism. In our bodies anabolism and catabolism work in concert to maintain homeostasis. It is constant change that keeps us healthy, and when this delicate balance is disturbed cancers result or organs fail. Our government is currently operating with many cancers and clogged arteries. We need to review the regulation of change itself. It is high time this government got up an hour earlier in the morning to run three miles before going into "auto-pilot" for the other 23 hours of the day.
In short, mandated temporal delimiters should be placed on all modules of our government. Laws and offices that make them alike should be appointed for a time to be reviewed for effectiveness and replaced, revised or discarded when their time is up. A truly dynamic government would outlast the rule of the Egyptian Pharoahs and perform feats that equal the entirety of the latter's achievements in days rather than thousands of years.
5 - The Prince. by Niccolo Machiavelli.
6 - Louis Pasteur. original quote was "mind" not "system."
Back to the
Table of Contents
Michaelangelo once exclaimed that his sculptures were already in the marble that he sculpted, and that he merely freed them from a stony prison. The application of mathematics to the real world can be viewed in much the same way, in that the relations described by them already exist in nature awaiting their discovery. The language of mathematics is the only one whose statements are either true or false and uncolored by the passage of time. It is the only language whose interpretation does not change with shifting social conditions. The applied mathematician merely frees these relations in nature from their nebulous state into a precise form that can be readily grasped by the human mind. Every mind which learns to use these symbols of pure logical expression has transcended the realm of the senses into the arena of hidden implications and truths that by the senses alone may appear to unrelated or unobservable in the cosmos.
Let us examine why I state that mathematics is the only language worthy of being employed by the artist or scientist who wishes to transmit a universal truth beyond the limitations of the existing social conditions and time to a being perhaps in the future. If I were to state mathematically that (a=2b), and someone were to examine this equation in the future, the social conditions of our time would be of little relevance while interpreting the meaning of the equation and the infinite set of other equations implied by it. Of course that is unless one of the variables represented time, but I digress. So long as the relationship between the two given variables is maintained in computations, an infinite number of true equations is implied by this alone, but all may be reduced to expression with these four symbols devoid of any hidden double entendre or idiomatic implied meaning. This is the beauty of mathematics and the single reason why I believe that mathematical symbolism would be the only practical way to transmit any message of worth to anywhere beyond the present. In fact, it is also my opinion that all things may be reduced to mathematical representation or expression, including works of art. Just look at a compact disc or digitized photo before raising objection to my opinion.
One may say that this is a determinist's view of reality. I strongly disagree, because various phenomenon that ironically have been revealed by the divine language of mathematics, which are truly random, are expressible employing mathematics. Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the Higg's Field, and quantum entanglement name by a few of these. The boundaries of infinity and pure chaos bear descriptions and are subjugated to our investigation and explorations by the powerful language of mathematics.
The meaning of
transcendental calculation is two-fold as I have employed it herein. In transcendental meditation practitioners claim to experience a feeling of euphoric enlightenment as they perfect the technique. I claim that the aspiring mathematician feels the same endorphin high as s/he finally grasps the implications of Newtonian calculus in a college course after long contemplation. Another more powerful effect of humankind's ability to calculate may be upon us though. Many scientists in the United States and elsewhere have been working on a functional design for a quantum computer, which has also been called a chaos computer. We are on the threshold of a breakthrough in this field, which may send humanity rocketing up the asymptotic event horizon of virtually infinite calculating speeds sometimes called a computational singularity. There is no telling what we may use this power for as its application would be as infinite as the number of calculations a computer of this sort would be able to perform in any given temporal interval. The statement, "the human race will never be the same, " horribly understates the importance of such a development when it occurs. This is transcendental computation. When the limits on our predictive power will truly become only how quickly we can assimilate information into a processor, it remains only a matter of time before that processor uses genetic evolution to create an algorithm that makes its unfetters its rate of assimilation. We will be at the centerpiece of this transformation.Back to the
Table of Contents
Transforming Government Part I
The recent political developments in this country have clearly left one political party completely in control. Namely, the Republican Party clearly commands the most authority in the highest offices of The United States. Democrats are beaten, but not defeated entirely. Clearly, the Republican stereotype is a Christian, slightly bigoted, war hawk in favor of aristocratic control by corporations and the rich. To some extent this stereotype is accurate. Democrats are seen as lazy, big government, morally loose, neo-hippy types. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is the biotech industry's only friend right now. Had the Republicans seized their opportunity to befriend this budding industry, the fruits of their prudence would have been countless. Instead, they chose to feed conspiracy theorist paranoid fantasies about cloned societies and to fuel the general technophobia associated with fundamentalist religions. Now they have the firm support of the anti-abortion voters for the next election, the future health of our children and this country be damned.
The Democratic party is in a position for a real overhaul. Repairing their platform could rocket them into complete control. First of all, it would serve them well to point to the fact that government grew under the Republican administrations of the 80's and early 90's, then proceed to put together a concise fiscally conservative plan that would trim unnecessary government. Secondly, the Democratic party should focus on the fact that they are science's friend. Instead of attacking the Republican party, they should start running advertisements highlighting new technologies and the benefits they promise. Pictures of healthy children playing can gain one many votes. Instead of complaining that the emerging technology is too difficult to police the Democratic Party should champion the potential benefits alongside legal proposals for regulation of the research. I believe this one topic could be used to transform the Democratic Party forever. The Democrats could also take advantage of one horrible weakness that the Republicans have left themselves open to with their current emphasis on biochemical weapons. There is extreme danger in doing things to compromise America's leading position in this field. Bringing the focus onto this aspect of the issue could take it off of the abortion or stem cell aspect of it. A ban on cloning even for medical research helps no one. Spreading technophobia is the pinnacle of irresponsibility and anti-progress. The best defense against this kind of fundamentalist propaganda is education. Emphasizing the gold mine that biotechnology is will help win over many on the fence voters who are staunch capitalists, if it can be established that we lose out financially when these companies seek refuge abroad, because of restrictive laws here.
Another big problem with the Democratic party is its unrelenting assault upon the second amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.8 As long as the constitution contains this amendment, laws that attempt to undermine it will do nothing but fuel the fear that Democrats want to take away rights. Leading Democrats in the party need to start paying attention to facts. Most deaths from guns in the home are suicides.7 As I have said previously, all things should have temporal delimiters. However, I suspect that if this Amendment came up as a direct voting issue, not only would it remain intact, it might even be strengthened. Even Machiavelli argues that subjects should not be disarmed as it generates disdain for the governing body and mistrust. The Democrats need to do a 180-degree platform shift on this issue.
Finally, Democrats need to prove their fealty to the population's welfare and the state. Often they are accused of being traitorous to the nation. Cuddling up to the anti-war movement is not helping this contention at all. The party as a whole should take a much louder and visible condemnation of individuals who attempt to interfere with government policy abroad. Policing their own more severely would help to repair this tattered image. Also, backing off from the bilingual government issue would help this. All of our government documents are in English. Because English is the official language of the federal government, it should remain so for any institution receiving public funding whose purpose is not to instruct in foreign languages.
The Democrats should remain pro-choice in their platform, but attacking the right does not serve to do much other than aggravate tempers. This is a difficult issue to approach, but perhaps citing what has happened in the past when abortions were illegal would be useful. Also, having actuaries testify to the financial benefit of funding abortions might be useful. Emphasizing the financial aspect of the matter would be more effective that focusing on it as a moral issue. The whole abortion/stem cell issue is very nebulous. Large numbers of fertilized eggs never implant in uterine walls in the first place in nature. T he argument that any fertilized egg is a person is a rather weak one, because of this fact alone. Citing those kinds of facts would be very useful if the morality rather than the utility of the issue must be debated. Religion has really thrown a monkey wrench into this whole issue, because of the idea of a soul. It is a mire that the American psyche will not easily escape, but it can be done.
The government should also publicly fund more educational opportunities. Bilingual centers should be established to teach our populace foreign languages for free. This only serves to strengthen our country as a whole. The government should perhaps encourage unions to recruit people to train, that must sign a contract to work for the union for a period of time after their training to repay the expense of education. Education is what will keep this country in the position of sole superpower. Allowing hysteria and technophobia to take hold would be a most grave mistake. The Democratic Party should seize the moment to exploit this for everyone's benefit, perhaps taking some cues from the Libertarian Party and the Scientific Community.
Another general shift that needs to occur in government is how our direct representatives vote on issues. People should vote to lower welfare or not lower welfare. The details of doing this should be debated and calculated by independent actuaries who then place the possible courses of action in front of the congress to be voted upon. Moral issues should be examined fiscally as well. Utility should take precedence when guiding congressional decisions. The issue of legalizing some recreational drugs should be examined from a scientific standpoint as well. We can never win a war on drugs when the demand for them has ALWAYS been there. We create underground black market trade by doing this. To argue that they are illegal for public safety is simply false, too. Perhaps the legalizing of drugs should also be accompanied by the better regulation of those that are legal. Perhaps all bars should be forbidden to have private parking lots and be zoned on public transport routes. This kind of attitude would legitimize recreational drug use. Again the issue should be examined fiscally as well by actuaries. Let the numbers speak for themselves. The trite proverb that statistics are lies with numbers is a lie. Misapplied statistics are lies. Used properly they reveal many truths. Just ask any stock broker. Maybe we should be focusing on creating safer products than street drugs and driving the black market out of business with legitimate, safer alternatives. Afterall, alcohol is by far responsible for more deaths and birth defects than any of the other drugs combined. If public safety were really the concern that drove the lawmaking, then alcohol would be illegal.
7 - Scientific American Feb 2003. 83% of all firearms related deaths in the home are from suicide.
8 - The Constitution of the United States. Amendment II.
Back to the
Table of Contents
Voluntary weighting of the public's vote may truly be the only way to prevent mobocracy in the United States of America. What I propose is not straight vote weighting proper, however. It is more like voluntarily forfeiting one's vote on specific issues of candidates, in return for a lower tax rate, so that those of us who are really informed on the issue, and have a vested interest in voting may do so with less interference from the uninformed.
In order that I am accused of promoting anti-democracy, I feel I must offer a highly simplified example that illustrates just what I mean. My example will concern voting for the highest executive office in the land, the president. Even for that election, the American voting system is hard pressed to find itself with a consistent 70% turnout. Of that turnout, I think it would be fair to say that many of the voters that show up are only voting how their unions or religious groups have instructed them to with little attention to actual details about potential candidates. The popular vote is regularly abused in this manner, and I believe that what I propose may help clean that up. Perhaps we could actually have a meaningful three-way race here for president if this issue was addressed.
Let us assume that we have adopted a fair flat tax in this country, adjusted for poverty level. For all intents and purposes, you are filing taxes in April, six months after the voting season. It is during that time that you should make some hard declarations about your voting intentions later in the year. For instance, I don't think that you should be prevented from voting in the primaries simply, because you don't declare a political affiliation. We should do away with that altogether. Maybe there should be three elections to narrow down the choices. But I digress. Let us say at tax time there are also four groups you can declare that you wish to be eligible to vote for in the fall. National voting rights would be allotted individuals who place themselves in the primary voting tier. This would also be the default tier you would fall into should you fail to register. This tier would also place you into the highest tax bracket of say 25%. However, you can vote for every legal amendment and elected office up to the president. Should you choose to place yourself in the secondary voting tier, your tax burden would fall to say 16%. However, you would effectively be stating that come the autumn, you have no interest in voting for the issues that are of "national" jurisdiction. As statistics would have it, 30% of the population already qualifies for this tier, by virtue of their inability to show for the election to begin with. By staying out of an election in which you are ill equipped to cast an intelligent vote, you have done your country a service, and received monetary compensation for what likely was not a sacrifice to you in the first place. I would ultimately propose four voting tiers and four associated tax brackets.
I am also for placing more of the tax monies into the hands of individual states. In addition, many of the issues that are now considered federal (abortion, legalization of cannabis, etc.) should perhaps be placed at a state or provincial voting level. Maybe state funded abortion doesn't make fiscal sense in the back woods of Arkansas. I can tell you that it would make perfect sense in a big city like Boston or New York.
I wish to note one further consideration on this issue. Narrowing down the vote to those who WANT to vote might empower people to directly vote on legal issues. There are some votes that require 2/3 to pass, etc. If people choose not to participate, that might get us closer to a 100% turnout and a more accurate assessment of what concerned people really wish. I guess in retrospect, this isn't real vote weighting. However, it will help to make clear what the "will of the people" really is. In that sense, everyone's vote will carry much more weight.
Back to the
Table of Contents
The Supernatural As the Ultimate Oxymoron
All things that have a definable separate existence outside the realm of ideas are by default part of nature. Nature is defined in our context as, "the universe, with all its phenomena."9 A supernatural phenomenon is one which falls outside the realm of nature. By default, such phenomena DO NOT EXIST as the definition of nature encompasses all that does. If the group nature is ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. Then, phenomena outside the realm of nature can only be some of those that do not exist. Just because we have failed to correctly identify the mechanisms by which all real phenomena exist, does not mean those phenomena belong to the realm of the supernatural or incredulous. If the effect of some phenomenon is observable, then the mechanism by which it works falls squarely within the realm of natural.
Sometimes rare events occur. Events that are statistically unlikely happen, however rarely. Humans are most likely to attribute to supernatural causes, events that are beyond their control or that disrupt their lives and have not been encountered before. The perfect example of this is how the Native Americans thought that the first Europeans were gods with their muskets, weapons, and horses. The natives had never encountered them before, and so as primitive human nature would have it, they attributed such strange events to divine origin. Science is the first type of thought that tries to harness the uneasiness of not knowing and direct it towards development of accurate explanations of unusual events. Having the most powerful nation in the world led by people who easily attribute troubling events to divine origin is a dangerous risk. The last thing this world needs right now is a commander-in-chief in charge of the world's deadliest arsenal being prone to knee-jerk, irrational responses to crises on this planet. Certainly we do not need another divine justification for imperialistic behaviors, such as manifest destiny was. Pragmatism suits me, as it should suit our political leaders, just fine when making decisions about this world that affect real situations and real people.
If we can agree that the supernatural simply does not occur, then we must further agree that altruism, utilitarianism and pragmatism are all that should drive policy making locally, nationally, and internationally. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States was our forefathers' best attempt to insure that policy making would not become tainted by irrational beliefs, as they knew humans were prone to. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.10 I find that this amendment is pretty clear in its first two statements. I would take it to mean that no laws favoring any religion would be constitutional, nor would any laws that attempted to create bias against a specific religion be legally sound. It is pretty clear from here that when it came to governing affairs of state and the natural world, the forefathers were trying to keep the realm of the supernatural out of it.
There has been a recent trend in this country for the dominant conservative party to make itself appear devout, and in doing so argue that our founding fathers were also somehow supplicating themselves to some divine will. This works in a dictatorial government, because despite the leader's actual beliefs, s/he can claim whatever s/he wants to. In a representative government that was always intended to be secular, this presents a certain danger. First of all, it sets a mood in a constituent of the voting populace that candidates for public office who believe they are divinely guided are better choices for office. The brutal fact of the matter is this. Any person who believes that they are directly following the will of some divine being is probably delusional and dangerous to have holding any high office in the country. A gruesome testament to this is the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He is the ONLY Catholic to ever hold office in this country, and we know how he met his end. Catholicism preaches the infallibility of the pope. It is a unique feature of Catholicism as opposed to Episcopalian teachings, the latter of which have been the preferred denomination by over a quarter of our presidents. There is an obvious conflict of interest with a Catholic holding office. That individual still must consider himself to be of inferior rank to the Pontiff in Rome. Most of our presidents claim religious affiliation for show, anyhow. Frightening would be the day that our executive officer decides to randomly open a bible to look for an answer on how to govern. For in one section they may be told to strike the enemy and the other to do nothing. As previously stated, the supernatural has NOTHING to do with reality. Honest belief in it translates into irrationality, a quality I would like the commander of the most powerful arsenal in the world NOT to possess.
9 - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
Back to the Table of Contents
Perhaps the one topic that has caused the most turmoil in the twentieth century has been that of race. This one topic has also scarred the image of scientists worldwide, and created distrust within minority populations of the scientific community, because like religious beliefs the scientific method has been perverted by sycophants to serve as justification of genocide and prejudices worldwide. After looking through the US census and some crime statistics in the United States, I find that many of the lingering conclusions linking skin color to criminal behavior to be as fallacious as many religious beliefs when put to the possible worlds test. Since most of this turmoil in United States history relates to black-white issues, I will focus on this issue and the statistics that I feel support my contentions on the matter. I would think, barring other parameters, that this logic would extend to any skin color, however.
First of all, what most people think of as 'black' behavior today is learned behavior. One hears how white people act black all the time. I would like to draw a clear distinction here. These are cultural differences. They are learned behaviors. They in no way have anything to do with skin color, except that perhaps the group of people who have CHOSEN to adopt them may tend to be one particular skin color. What most whites consider, including myself, the idiot-talk tossed around by rap subculture, is not inherently black. If I were some educated black I would distance myself from that like I do from Eminem as an educated white should. The problem is that many of the people that speak this way, unlike their idols, probably do not KNOW how to speak correctly. That is called an impediment in the school system. It is a failure of our school system and the integration efforts of our government in general. Thanks to pop culture it has somehow become fashionable to use monosyllabic slang exclusively, and in general display the behavior characteristics of mental retards. Enough of my diatribe, though. Let us examine the statistics and why these myths propagate.
Myth number one is that people claiming to be white in this country are a minority. This is just wrong. According to the US census of 2000 the total population of the US is about 290, 641, 994 people. The census now allows people to check more than one race. The fact of the matter is that there is no real genetic basis for what people understand race to be today. The term should really be done away with and be called skin-tone/cultural background. Of the above number there are 274, 595, 678 people who registered as a single race. Of that number 211, 460, 626 claim to be white, and 34, 658, 190 claim to be black or of African descent. These numbers will be off a bit as there are some who checked both, rightfully so. As I have stated, the term 'race' is really antiquated now. If you take the total number of people who checked white, whether or not they checked something else as well, you have 216, 930, 975, and 36, 419, 434 checked black. Here is another startling fact. 9.9% of whites are below poverty level. 22.7% of blacks qualify as below poverty. However, if you are to examine naturalized whites and naturalized blacks, the numbers tell something quite different. 11.2% of NATURALIZED whites are below poverty and 11.1% of NATURALIZED blacks are below poverty level. Clearly, something in the condition of native blacks in this country is keeping them below poverty level or contributing to it greatly. I do not attempt to figure this complex issue out. However, the last two statistical figures clearly contradict any connection between skin color and poverty, when other parameters are factored out by random selection of the cross-section. All these numbers have told any competent scientist for sure is that if you are black and a native US citizen, you are twice as likely as a native white to dwell in poverty. It speaks nothing of why that is.
Another myth is that blacks are incapable of higher education. There are some 5, 000, 000 or so blacks out there with some college. About half of them have earned degrees. This is maybe a seventh of the population. Altogether we have some 40, 000, 000 citizens out there with some college and of that number a little over three-quarters has a degree of some sort. It seems these numbers taken out of context might mean blacks have more trouble in school. I can tell you this from personal experience though. Attending college and being poor is twice as difficult as attending without having financial matters to fret over, too. It is my personal feeling that these two factors snowball and even feed each other.
Some other recent statistics show blacks being more likely to commit crimes. Unfortunately, this is not a completely accurate interpretation of the numbers. This may be true at face value, but people fail to recognize the contributing factors to this. They are also far more likely to be victimized. Certainly being subjected to vile behavior doesn't help matters in one's formative years. There are many studies out that confirm that the abused are more likely to commit abusive acts. According to the statistics in 2000, whites were convicted of 30.1% of the crimes, blacks 25%. Just to rehash the above, blacks are about 13% of the total population. What I find more disturbing is that we have 21 million or so whites in poverty and 8.25 million blacks in the same state. If it was just poverty alone to drove criminal behavior, we should have two and a half times as many whites convicted of crimes as we have blacks. The crime statistics found whites convicted of 76.8% of the crimes and blacks 17.5%. Apparently, whites are convicted of more crimes by three-fold, close to the 2.5 times disparity in population size but still statistically more than it should be. For a break down to the types of crimes feel free to look up crime statistics.
Although off the topic, it might be worth noting here that of 68, 156 prosecuted crimes with conviction in the year 2000, 24, 206 of them were considered drug offenses. Obviously the government is not doing much to undermine the demand for illegal drugs. Therein lies the problem. The only viable solution, as I said in a previous essay is to offer safe alternatives. That's what capitalism is about. It would require so much less effort and money to undersell them all with safer, better products.
Back to the
Table of Contents
September 11, 2001 brought with it one of the single most dangerous and rapidly productive policy shifts that the United States of America could possibly adopt in the twenty first century, that of preemptive strike. Under the sweeping domestic reforms and foreign policy modifications lies a monstrous vessel. Within that vessel lies the black writhing nightmare of Orwell's masterpiece, 1984. For those of you that have yet to read this morbid tale, or have had their high school reading list cannibalized by free-flowing liberal thought, I STRONGLY suggest that you take the short time to read this prophetic novel written after World War II. At the very least, I would get hold of it in "book on tape" format and take some time out from the Eminem-pop-sludge to listen to it on your digital automotive stereo system. If I were living in the projects in this country, I'd be pumping that on my system, but I digress. The "thought police" of Orwell's nightmare hauntingly resemble the sweepingly powerful "civilian" police forces that now insure our national security. Since we are all guilty of "thought-crime" (a.k.a. sin to religionists,) which has become the legal premise to turn the constitution into something as self-contradictory as the bible itself, we can all be apprehended at any time, with or without just cause. The first amendment was supposed to be step one in an algorithm designed to insure the freedom of our progeny forever. Now the long snake of a constitution we possess is turning to swallow itself.
I am placing myself at horrible risk for being flagged as another McVeigh for printing something like this, however, as it is my patriotic responsibility and necessary for my children's sake, I will do so. The action at Waco, TX, although perhaps justified, was handled in EXACTLY the kind of manner that Orwell would shudder at. The government reports to the media that it is a "compound" rather than a "church." That way the action is more palatable to the church-going public. Notice the complete lack of utter disgust that our leaders express when an abortion clinic is bombed, because it is perpetuated by members of groups that serve its purpose as a voting constituent. Notice how silent the leaders have been concerning child-molestation cover-up. God forbid someone see a picture of a naked 17 years and 11 months old "young adult" on the web. Do that and you are a thought criminal. Child pornography rings are rapidly dismantled, and rightfully so, with extreme prejudice, while other criminal organizations perpetuate the depraved indifference that their holier-than-thou liturgy espouses. The government, probably willingly, allowed the Catholic scandal to be widely covered, because the fealty of Catholics lies clearly with their pope and god. Had this abomination occurred within the Pat Robertson crowd, it would have been downplayed immediately by administration, and ignored by figureheads who seek the vote. Any "terrorist" group perpetuating these evils would have been immediately dismantled. The simple truth is this: Pat Robertson serves to round up all the free lance Christians for the government under his web of ultimate fealty to the state under threat as described in my essay, The Utility of Religion. The Christian voting constituent is serving to undermine and destroy itself in the most ultimate social engineering feat ever executed by a ruling oligarchy, while it rides the echo of Orwell's warning into its own destruction.
The public has been too busy watching about Roswell, NM to notice the real atrocities that were being perpetuated with their tax money at that time. When this was all declassified in the 1990's, much to the chagrin of UFO-afficianados and conspiracy theorists everywhere, people were too busy to notice that
doctors were permitted by the federal government to conduct gruesome experiments (those were done to hicks on UFO's by aliens…hehehe.) No one remembers that files revealed in the 1990's showed how the Atomic Energy Commission with malice aforethought released radiation on the citizens of Hanford, WA. Next time you file your taxes by April 15th, remember what your money could be used for. The real sad part is, now that you can be branded a "terrorist" and hauled away, everyone wants to pretend that things like this do not still occur. Why haven't right to life groups been shut down as terrorist organizations for aiding and abetting the clinic bombers? What don't we deal with them like we do Syria or the Palestinians? I don't have a problem with heavy-handed tactics. My philosophical incompatibility with all of this lies with trying to justify it all upon false premises. We actually have the same people rallying to have the 10 Commandments on federal court houses (i.e. Thou shalt not kill) driving around with the bumper sticker that reads, "Nuke their ass and take the gas!" Welcome to "double-think." The world wide web was such an appropriate replacement name for ARPA-net. Can you think of who the hunting spider might be? Sleep tight.Back to the
Table of Contents
Selected Quotes from The Prince
by N. Machiavelli
Anyone who becomes a new ruler is always forced to injure his new subjects, both through his troops and countless other injuries that are involved in conquering a state. p 7
Anyone who annexes such countries, and is determined to hold them, must follow two policies: the first is to wipe out their old ruling families; the second is not to change their laws or impose new taxes. p 8
Any injury done to a man must be such that there is no need to fear his revenge. p 9
If one recognises political problems early (which only a shrewd and far-seeing man can do), they may be resolved quickly, but if they are not recognised, and left to develop so that everyone recognises them, there is no longer any remedy. p 11
Anyone who enables another to become powerful, brings about his own ruin. p 14
Destroying cities is the only certain way of holding them. p 18
All armed prophets succeed whereas unarmed ones fail. p 21
Injuries shoulde done all together so that, because they are tasted less, they will cause less resentment; benefits should be given out one by one, so that they will be savoured more. p 33-4
The worst that can befall a ruler from hostile people is being deserted by them; but he has to fear not only being abandoned by hostile nobles, but also that they will move against him. p 35
The main foundations of all states (whether they are new, old or mixed) are good laws and good armies. p 42
A ruler, then, should have no other objective and no other concern, nor occupy himself with anything else except war and its methods and practices, for this pertains only to those who rule. And it is of such efficacy that it not only maintains hereditary rulers in power but very often enables men of private status to become rulers. p 51-2
How men live is so different from how they should live that a ruler who does not do what is generally done, but persists in doing what ought to be done, will undermine his power rather than maintain it. If a ruler who wants always to act honourably is surrounded by many unscrupulous men his downfall is inevitable. p 54
If one considers everything carefully, doing some things that seem virtuous may result in one's ruin, whereas doing other things that seem vicious may strengthen one's position and cause one to flourish. p 55
note to reader: this passage is often paraphrased as "do the ends justify the means" then then attributed to Machiavelli as a verbatim quote by poor calibre scholars. It should be duly noted by the reader that the original text was is 15th-16th century Italian, and no of this is direct quote, nor if you have read this far, could you say that such a paraphrase in any way summarizes this vast (about 90 modern pages) tome of knowledge comprehensively in all of its glorious revelation! I judge a tome's size by number of quote-worthy words, not raw number of words. Memorizing those I have provided here may help you more in this world than memorizing the entirety of any holy book.
If generosity is practised in such a way that you will be considered generous, it will harm you. If it is practised virtuously, and as it should be, it will not be known about, and you will not avoid acquiring a bad reputation for the opposite vice. p 56
There is nothing so self-consuming as generosity: the more you practise it, the less you will be able to continue to practise it. p 57
If a ruler can keep his subjects united and loyal, he should not worry about incurring a reputation for cruelty; for by punishing a very few he will really be more merciful than those who over-indulgently permit disorders to develop, with resultant killings and plunderings. p 58
My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved. p 59
Armies are never kept united and prepared for military action unless their leader is thought to be harsh. p 60
A wise ruler should rely on what is under his own control, not on what is under the control of others; he should contrive only to avoid incurring hatred, as I have said. p 61
A prudent ruler cannot keep his word, not should he, when such fidelity would damage him, and when the reasons that made him promise are no longer relevant. p 62
Men are so naïve, and so much dominated by immediate needs, that a skilful deceiver always finds plenty of people who will let themselves be deceived. p 62
It is most necessary of all to seem devout. p 62
note to reader: the last two quotes are particularly important to note when considering why fundamentalism in all its ugly forms flourishes.
There have been many conspiracies, but history has shown that few have succeeded. For a conspirator cannot act alone; yet he cannot seek help except from those whom he believes to be disaffected. p 65
A ruler who wants to maintain his power is often forced to act immorally. For if a group (whether it is the people or the soldiers or the nobles) whose support you consider necessary for maintaining your power is corrupt, you are forced to indulge its proclivities in order to satisfy it. In such circumstances, good deeds are inimical to you. p 68
Anyone who does not fear death himself can kill a ruler. p 70
New rulers, then, never disarm their subjects; indeed, if they find them unarmed, they always provide them with weapons. For when you arm them, these weapons become your own: those whom you distrusted become loyal, those who were loyal remain so, and subjects are converted into firm adherents. p 72
When a ruler annexes a state, which is joined like a member to his old one, he must then disarm the inhabitants of that state, except those who have helped him to annex it. p 73
My own view is that divisions never benefit anyone; on the contrary, when faction-ridden cities are threatened by an enemy force, they always fall very quickly. p 73
[internal divisions] are useful only in peacetime, when they can be used to control one's subjects more easily. But when war comes, the folly of such methods becomes apparent. p 74
Many people consider that a shrewd ruler should seize any opportunity to encourage hostile forces cunningly, so that when he crushes them his reputation and power will be greatly increased. p 74
Rulers (especially new rulers) have often found that men whom they had regarded with suspicion in the early stages of their rule prove more reliable and useful than those whom they had trusted at first. p 74
If a ruler is more afraid of his own subjects than of foreigners, he should build fortresses; but a ruler who is more afraid of foreigners than of his own subjects should not build them. p 75
Above all, a ruler must contrive to achieve through all his actions the reputation of being a great man of outstanding intelligence. p 77
A ruler who is not an ally will always want you to remain neutral, whereas on who is your ally will always want your armed support. In order to avoid present dangers, irresolute rulers usually prefer to remain neutral, and very often this is their undoing. However, let us assume that you strongly support one of the parties, who then emerges victorious: even if he is powerful and you are at his mercy, he is beholden to you and friendship is established between you. And men are never so dishonourable that they would attack you in such circumstances, and display so much ingratitude. Moreover, victories are never so decisive that the victor does not need to be careful, and especially about acting justly. But if the ruler whom you helped loses, he will show gratitude to you and will help you as far as he can; thus you become an ally in a cause that may flourish again.
In the second situation (when the rulers fighting each other cannot be a threat to you), it is wiser still to intervene: because you will contribute to the downfall of one ruler, and are helped by another ruler who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and if together you win, the ruler whom you helped will be at your mercy. (And it is certainly to be expected that he will overcome his enemy, since he has your help.) p 78
A ruler should be careful never to ally himself with a ruler who is more powerful than himself in order to attack other powers, unless he is forced to, as has been said above. For if you are victorious together, you will be at his mercy. p 79
Prudence consists in knowing how to assess the dangers, and to choose the least bad course of action as being the right one to follow. p 79
There are three kinds of mind: the first grasps things unaided; the second when they are explained; the third never understands at all. The first kind is exceptionally good, the second very good, the third useless. p 80
There is an infallible way for a ruler to weigh up a minister. If you realize that he is thinking more about his own affairs than about yours, and that all his actions are designed to further his own interests, he will never make a good minister, and you can never trust him. p 80
A wise ruler will follow another way and choose shrewd men for his service, permitting them alone to speak frankly, but only when he asks them and not otherwise. But he should ask them about everything, listen carefully to their views, and then make his own decisions. He should so conduct himself with his advisors that they will all realize that the more candidly they speak the more acceptable they will be. Apart from those he has chosen he should refuse to listen to anyone, but pursue his aims steadfastly and not waver about decisions he has taken. p 81
A ruler, then, should never lack advice, but should have it when he wants it, not when others want to give it; rather, he should discourage anyone from giving advice uninvited. p 82
Only those defences that are under your control and based on your own ability are effective, certain and lasting. p 84
I believe that we are successful when our ways are suited to the times and circumstances, and unsuccessful when they are not. For one sees that, in the things that lead to the end which everyone aims at, that is, glory and riches, men proceed in different ways. p 85
All Quotes taken from "The Prince" by N. Machiavelli.
edited by Quentin Skinner and Russell Price. Cambridge University Texts in the History of Political Thought. 2001 printing
Back to the
Table of ContentsLast Updated: Thu May 8 05:18:00 UTC 2003
