Joshua Roberts

In every western country the story is the same, but in Europe it is clear that what started as a humble commodity organization was ratcheted up into a dictatorship. But hang on, this isn’t your grandfather’s dictatorship, no this is a certain plutocratic technocracy disguised as “democracy” which as we all know is the buzzword for “ok form of government”. But let us then hearken back to a time when this word was understood for what it truly means, mob rule, let us be clear that in both name and substance a democracy is a flawed institution in a highly specialized society. Not since the ancient greek polis have we seen a level and degree of social organization which allowed for this sort of concept to have some meaning and even then the republic was preferable. Yet here we are in 2009 almost and we still have not answered the platonic riddle enshrined in his dialog The Republic: namely, how do we create good governors.

Let me suggest, as I often have, that at some point the process of governance can be computerized. That while it may not be possible to create noble, wise and beneficent politicians, it may be possible for scrubby hackers and lovers of freedom and justice to code them. Why should this be possible? Because, the logistical framework for the creation and sustentation of a politician is vastly different than that of a programmers application; moreover, the code is a digital construct and can be patched, it can be open-source and a human being, even at their most enlightened and scientific cannot employ so readily the insights of the many. Indeed one could not hope for a more direct form of representation than for any programmer to be able to adjust the coding of a computer model which represents civilization and its inhabitants in some context.

Does this mean we can totally replace government by machines? Of course not! But it does suggest that we can utilize machines to satisfy the ancient paradox “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” to a certain extent. The great trap here is the same one we find ourselves in today, and it is twofold, I shall endeavor to explain these two terrifying aspects.

The inherent inaccuracy of all models and willingness to treat those models as fact and not a mere representation of some phenomenology is a dangerous problem.

Firstly, there is the tendency to use a model or system of modeling and to accept its results when that system itself is incomplete, or more precisely when that system is incomplete with regard to the probability of it accurately modeling the underlying phenomenology. This is like the global warming swindle, in that one uses a series of models that are flawed because the data being fed into the database from which the model is generated are limited and the structuring of the procurement itself has been tampered with in order to yield results desired by people who have the power to do so and who wish to do so for the sake of some political, commercial or cultural agenda. This practice has almost ruined data modeling in the political sphere, one need look no further than an instrument t like the FICO score for other examples of abhorrent modeling systems and how they are dangerous and inept tools in the wrong hands. Again we face at the front end of this systems based approach the very problem of who will watch the watchers, it is clear that if the programming of such systems is not open-source it will invariably be skewed in favor of some or other special interests.

The tendency of laziness to do away with the complexity of existence and to pronounce the inherently complex subject known as life as merely another type of machine state.

Secondly, the very existence of such models may lead us at some point to choose them as a cure-all when in fact they are merely a sort of governor for existing and more robust human systems. While one can imagine an artilect tasked with the job of managing our civilization and doing a marvelous job, we cannot simply turn over the reigns of human destiny to a hive-mind supercomputer and expect all of our problems to be solved without anyone even having to program it beyond the incipient algorithms. While this approach may satisfy a very large role and can become for us a tool against human corruption it cannot ever be seen as the solution to the entire problem, for on the day we have surrendered to a machine state the destiny of our species we, ourselves, have become machines. This view is adopted more and more I feel, and transhumanism as a culture is symptomatic of a physiological misunderstanding: the organic is seen as a machine, in the end this leads to man as a synthetic commodity within a discrete system, when in fact this is the very opposite of what organic life is – it is in fact, an abomination and profanity of what it means to be human and not just human, it is a profanity of what it means to be Alive. Make no mistake, behind this perspective is some sick desire to undermine the very concept of Life. That is a great danger, that we might suspend Life itself as a concept and pronounce the universe to be a machine! What an absurd piece of folly and how perfectly modern that would be!

In every western culture the same trend is on the rise, a political elite conjoined with international, verily, supranational and globalistic corporatism which is oblivious to both the desires of the least powerful humans in the world and the balance of power that would ensure opportunity for all humans to pursuer life, liberty and happiness. That you see in the EU a more naked determinism with regard to this effect of diminution of inherent rights and of life itself should be of great concern to you, whether you live in Beijing or New York: a storm is coming and it is not Our storm. The current financial crisis is an engineered event structure, it did not happen by accident nor by act of a supposed god, it is not as if wheat had stopped growing or that all the cattle died or we suddenly forgot how to make steel and shape it – no, what has happened is that the real owners of this world have set in motion the necessary prerequisites for a global power-grab of unprecedented brutality. What is needed then is precisely what Tarpley has suggested and that is massive political action. UKIP in the UK is a good example but let us go one step further, let us unify the third parties in America and produce a solution to the totalitarianism of the false left/right paradigm which masks a total control of our government. We must admit that we have lost the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government to a veritable crow’s nest of special interests, whether they are military-industrial, financial or a sort of sick corporatism which is a mockery of the foundational principles of American business.

In every western country the problem is the same and while the solution must be peculiar to the logistical framework of its origin, the solution in many ways has one striking similarity: the decimation of centralized power structures and the tendency towards a more emergent nodal structure. The recapturing of the right to Representation within a political system by the people of this planet in their various civilizations is the great task of our era, if we fail they shall have a New World Order characterized by gross inhumanity – our solution then must be globalization itself. As I have proposed we must beat them to the punch.

America 2.0 a global movement toward a free humanity is a concept which says in short that a bill of human rights must exist which challenges the U.N. because it is a corrupt and highly centralized institution. That emergent and localized control system must supplant the centralized control systems of the entire planet and that ultimately we must network the entire worlds resources together in such a way as to address the very real problems that face our species like environmental degradation and the threat of a massive meteor impact. The systems which exist today merely prolong the danger and introduce new ones, new dangers such as GMO crops replacing naturally evolved strains, the very approach is a condemnation of our agricultural practices, if we were more sophisticated when it comes to everything we could avoid such toxicity! We could be building highly efficient and roboticized agricultural systems which would eliminate the need for chemical pesticides, but we are still taxed by the flux of business cycles and competing markets. Do you really think that an institution like the U.N. will allow us to achieve truly revolutionary leaps in factors of existence such as food production? Or will they merely serve the interests of selfish corporations who seek to dominate food production and not to free it? The same could be said for any of our fundamental needs, whether it is energy, transport or the need to interact with one another in meaningful ways – in every case there stand organizations which would use those needs as means to achieve power and autonomy from that very cycle of needs through the amassing of capital.

Answers Please