There is ‘value’ (which is stored work) and ‘money’ which is tokens which ‘represent’ or are ‘backed by’ as in ‘exchangeable for’, that value.
Let’s say there are 1000 value. There are 1000 token in circulation. 1 token is exchangeable for 1 value.
Over the course of a year, some people do work, which increases the stock of value by 10%. Other people sit on the couch smoking/drinking/causing harm to their health.
At the end of the year, the people who did the work expect to get the claims on the stored value representing the work they put in to increase it. Illnesses caused by health harms increase, requiring more expenditure on health care, which diminishes the stock of value. The amount of value available for distribution is therefore decreased. Under the UBI system, the claims on this reduced value are distributed to others. People who harmed the system benefit. People who contributed to the system are penalised. Next year those doing the work don’t bother doing any work because they’re not going to be the beneficiaries of the labour.
Other scenario of failure. The global government commits to deliver 100 tokens each year in UBI, but value only goes up by 50 value, therefore more tokens now exist than value. This causes inflation which does not increase human wellbeing and CANNOT create value.
This is why aggregate societal wellbeing always declines under socialism and always increases under capitalism.
So no, UBI won’t work but it will be used by the globalists to destroy every shred of individual liberty in order to institute such a system The self harmers will vote for it because they selfishly want to be better off at others’ expense and the value creators will go elsewhere.
I was recently asked as part of an application to take part in a technical program (related to the building of digital IDs using blockchain technology), what my superpower was and what I would use it for and how villains would try to misuse it (or something like that). I assumed it was meant to be humorous, but this was my reply.
My superpower is appearing supremely dull and uninteresting while possessing piercing insight and analytical powers. I would like to empower individuals, aka humanity, via technology. Villains, i.e. governments and other mafias, are increasingly seeking to use technology to control individuals.
We are truly at an inflection point in human development. Software is taking over the world. This technological advance has produced the capability to communicate and work with fellow humans from across the entire globe. Advances such as this have also occurred across a whole range of disciplines and spheres. This new technological interconnectedness creates huge new opportunities from the benefits of cooperation, but also produces great non-linearity which makes the future more unpredictable. Unpredictability represents unforeseeable threats.
Governments have a primary agenda, which is continuation of government, whereas humanity has (or should have) a primary agenda which is continuation of the existence of humanity. Governments view technological empowerment of the individual as a fundamental threat, since the cooperation it permits disproves the requirement for centralised control and exposes the failures of centralised control. Governments are therefore seeking to use technology as the means of maintaining supremacy.
We are already seeing this with “vaccine” passports etc., which are actually nothing more than movement licences. Coming soon : social credit score, online centralised government databases, online centralised non government databases which can be coerced by government agencies under threat of legal sanction, video surveillance using facial recognition, monitoring of all online activity, censoring of online comment not in keeping with the official (usually untrue) narrative, CBDCs with in built programmability to limit the freedom to spend. This pathological behaviour is now normal from those who secure public office across the entire planet. Their intentions have been made clear.
We cannot stop this technological advance but we can provide a cooperative and anti-authoritarian alternative to centralised government controlled systems.
Cooperation takes different forms, but all require trust. Commercial cooperation is founded on contract; the ‘actionability’ of contracts enables the parties to trust each other. Other forms of cooperation, such as voluntaryism, are founded on free will and mutual understanding which leads to trust and this enables the choice of doing something because it is good or right, rather than required by threat of sanction.
Trust is absolutely the key component of cooperation. In the digital world, identity is absolutely the key component of trust.
The challenge we face is to create the means of allowing individuals to possess their own digital identity without allowing that identity (and all its associated data) to become the property of the state.
By providing for a privately controlled digital identity, we maintain the ability for the individual to maintain their autonomy. Autonomy is the essential component of integrity. Integrity is the essential component of good judgement. And good judgement (like not trying to genetically engineer viruses in labs to be more harmful to humans) is what is needed to avoid falling prey to unforeseen non linear threats.
Ideology has three functions: To inculcate robotic mental algorithms in people; to get us to demand our own subjugation; and to ensure power for a select few to dominate and control society.
Ideology is not a political system. It is a way to make normal people willing to fight, potentially to the death, to defend what takes over their thinking, removing the intervention of the mind. This is done by the loading of ideological words combining to form a mental algorithm automatically processing social, political and moral decisions. So, kind, well-meaning people can turn into callous, judgemental monsters
But, ‘I think, hence I am’ still applies. Tolerance of disagreement is nil because it is felt a full-on personal attack. Ideologues have an on/off switch. You’re either with them or against them. Lacking any shade, nuance or subtlety, they are semi-robotic in their blind obedience. Their excluded middle is like a computer- on or off. Possibility is anathema- the on/off switch forbids it
The third aspect involves the few ideologues running the show. Some will be deluded thinking they are working for the supposed objectives of ideology that promises a Heaven on Earth that never comes. But all will systematically and callously use ideology to con people for the sole purpose of ensuring absolute control and power over them.
Once you see through the manipulation, the aim of all ideology is power for its own sake. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, virtually every political ‘ism’, bar perhaps humanism, are cruel and dishonest methods with the sole aim of domination and power. Many Centrists will deny this.
They do differ in the speed and urgency. Where far left and right are happy to use force or cruelty to get power. So called ‘moderates’ tend to be happy with long term manipulation and deceit. But all want power and moral supremacy for a few. Cliques of power obsessed ‘holier than thou’ manipulators pose as moral supremacists
Ideologues loathe disagreement, thinking compromise and cooperation irrelevant. Democracy stands aloof to the gaggle of ideological and authoritarian systems of the Left/Right spectrum. Authoritarians try to present it as encompassing the entire selection of political choices. The idea of rejecting Left, Centre or Right outrages them. Democracy is, thus, their greatest enemy and they, ours.
All ideologies boil down to: reducing people to a semi-robotic state of blind obedience; to engineer self-defeating demands for mental and physical subjugation; and to satisfy the lust for power in a select few. It is a nasty and dangerous scene. When left fights right, it is only a sordid squabble over who will get the power. You can be certain none of them care for us.
The main strength of the doctrine of Individualism is “Locality of failure”. Under the doctrine of responsibility for self, failure is local to the individual. The individual is connected probably with 5 or 6 other people who can provide some assistance.
However, when a collectivised system fails i.e. a system where everyone is relying on everyone else, then everyone is in the same boat and there is no one capable of bailing anyone else out, let alone the whole system.
This is why all forms of coerced collectivism throughout history have killed 100’s of millions of people.
Individualistic capitalism on the other hand has created the greatest levels of wealth because it is the most robust and most immune to failures of all kinds and this is because the individual is the most fundamental component of society.
I’ve been invited to an online event this evening with the foreign
Secretary @DominicRaab. I am tempted to pay my £10 but I am fairly
sure I will hear nothing but a load of platitudinous sphericals,
since his performance on Hong Kong so far has been woeful.
Hong Kong is the
most significant issue facing the world now. A major power, which is
also a totalitarian anti-state, has openly abrogated, not only an
international treaty, but also its own internal law (Thanks Dom for
pointing that out in Parliament the other day. Maybe you could have
pointed that out publicly and loudly a few weeks ago and prevented
the new Security Law being introduced ??)
The battle over Hong
Kong is a microcosm of the battle humanity faces in the 21st
century. We simply cannot allow totalitarianism to win.
Given
the descent of western society, under #WuFlu lockdown, into Orwellian
dystopia, it seems apt to quote him :
“Sometimes
the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”
Communism
is deceitful, coercive and destructive to any healthy society. The
Chinese Communist Party, since taking power in 1949 has destroyed
China. The Chinese like to think of themselves as one of the longest
surviving civilizations. However the China that existed before Mao no
longer exists.
“When
Mao took power,
he changed the official name of the state to the People’s Republic
of China. In so doing, he declared that the old government’s debt
to American lenders was defunct. By the stroke of a pen, he wiped out
what in today’s money amounts to $1.4 trillion in debt, by
declaring that the old China that signed the obligations no longer
existed.
Strangely,
when the Hong Kong lease agreement between Queen Victoria’s British
Empire and the old China expired in 1997, past contracts were
suddenly valid again.
Mao
didn’t just change the name of the country. He destroyed its
culture too. Chinese people are often proud of the fact that the
continuity of Chinese symbols for thousands of years allows modern
Chinese to read documents from the archaic era.
Except
that they can’t, because Mao insisted on introducing simplified
Chinese symbols, which ruined the only salient feature of the
language: its continuity with the past. Now, the Chinese still have
to learn thousands of symbols just to read a newspaper, but they have
lost the ability to read documents from the past. [Of course Hong
Kong, Taiwan and Macao, the parts of China untouched by Mao’s
philistinism, still use traditional characters]
This
severing of history was a feature, not a bug. Mao urged his devoted
followers to destroy any remnants of the past, and they set about
doing what communists are doing in America right now: destroying all
statues, temples,
and cultural artefacts.
Taiwan,
the last stronghold of Chiang, is the only remaining genuinely
Chinese place that is untouched by the cultural revolution”.
So
Mao secured Party control over all aspects of Chinese life and in so
doing, turned the country into the rootless, cultureless, moral
wasteland it is today. There is no private property ownership because
if any business is sufficiently successful to pop up on the radar,
the nearest Party member will steal it take it over
“for the people”.
The
world is now connected and computerised. And since the Chinese don’t
recognise individual property, all Chinese technology is a threat.
Consider this brilliant post on Reddit (which is now partially owned
by Tencent so say goodbye to free speech there)…
Some
tech hacker dude checked out TikTok the Chinese video app aimed at
children and young people.
“So
I can personally weigh in on this. I reverse-engineered the app, and
feel confident in stating that I have a very strong understanding for
how the app operates (or at least operated as of a few months ago).
TikTok
is a data collection service that is thinly-veiled as a social
network. If there is an API to get information on you, your contacts,
or your device… well, they’re using it.
Phone
hardware (cpu type, number of course, hardware ids, screen
dimensions, dpi, memory usage, disk space, etc)
Other
apps you have installed (I’ve even seen some I’ve deleted show up in
their analytics payload – maybe using as cached value?)
Everything
network-related (ip, local ip, router mac, your mac, wifi access
point name)
Whether
or not you’re rooted/jailbroken
Some
variants of the app had GPS pinging enabled at the time, roughly
once every 30 seconds – this is enabled by default if you ever
location-tag a post IIRC
They
set up a local proxy server on your device for “transcoding
media”, but that can be abused very easily as it has zero
authentication
The scariest part of all of this is that much of the logging they’re doing is remotely configurable, and unless you reverse every single one of their native libraries (have fun reading all of that assembly, assuming you can get past their customized fork of OLLVM!!!) and manually inspect every single obfuscated function. They have several different protections in place to prevent you from reversing or debugging the app as well. App behavior changes slightly if they know you’re trying to figure out what they’re doing. There’s also a few snippets of code on the Android version that allows for the downloading of a remote zip file, unzipping it, and executing said binary. There is zero reason a mobile app would need this functionality legitimately”.
OK
that’s a bit techy but they’re scanning every detail of you,
your device and its usage and sending them back to base. To coin a
phrase, “All of your base are belong to us”.
The
Chinese people do not recognise property rights because they are
actively not
enforced or upheld by the government or considered
valid within the
political systemic thinking.
So
of course if you’re a Chinese tech firm building an app you’re
not going to even recognise that limits exist on what you can and
can’t extract from a user’s device. The concept is entirely
alien.
So
when Boris gave his speech at the UN last year addressing the
impending onset of technological totality and wondered (and
I
paraphrase since I’m sure he mentioned Prometheus
or
some other greek bloke a couple of times) whether it would free us
or enslave us, I
can tell you for sure, unless we actively resist and object and
oppose any and all trespasses on individual liberty via
technological means we’ll
end up as slaves. I’m not sure that the leadership have grasped
this and am thus pretty gloomy about humanity’s general prospects
if we let Hong Kong fall.
So
that’s where we are. The decision to offer British citizenship to
the BNOs is faintly laudable but also reeks of surrender. We’re not
going to take the measures required to prevent China from breaching
its Treaty
obligations and destroying freedom in Hong Kong, which should include
extensive and immediate economic and financial sanctions against all
of China through the establishment of a coalition of regional powers
plus CANZUK and the US. Accepting 3m is all well and good. But what
about the other 4 million. Screw them ?? It’s incoherent and short
sighted. China is a threat and needs to be tackled.
The
decision facing humanity now
is
how we organise ourselves as a species. The choice is between a
system based on coercion versus standing against all coercion and
promoting free association and cooperation founded in individual
liberty. The CCP does not have a role to play in any
future
of the
world I want my children to inherit.
The
grim reality is that I don’t think we have leadership of the
calibre capable of preventing it.
The range and complexity of issues surrounding the Covid19 pandemic has opened the debate about globalisation. These factors include the origin of the virus in Wuhan, the fact that the CCP covered up the virus and have behaved reprehensibly, e.g. buying up supplies of PPE throughout the world before going public, not to mention flat out lying about the numbers of dead, and the response of governments throughout the world, although particularly in the UK, to alleviate the economic impact of the lockdown.
There is an emerging realisation that reliance on China is a bad idea. Alongside the reprehensible way the Chinese have interacted with the world following the outbreak, the crackdown on free speech in Hong Kong has shown Xi’s regime to be a force for evil in the world. The unlawful seizure of Hong Kong is analogous to Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland, with the difference that it is unwelcome by the population of Hong Kong and we know where that eventually led. Anyway, it seems fairly probable that the pressures on globalisation which have been unleashed will only grow. We contend that these pressures were one of the major inputs in Brexit and logically point to a new future founded in localism.
Brexit was the assertion of control by a people who refused to be governed by a system over which they had no control and which was ultimately unanswerable to them. This genie is out of the bottle now. Our Italian friends will get it next, hopefully.
Technology is huge part of this. Technology is largely not subject to control by central authority (OK maybe the anti gravity and zero point energy stuff is controlled by the guys in Nevada or wherever 😉 ) but the everyday stuff is tumbling from the future into our lives. Technological advance has already created the conditions for localism; enhanced communication enabling instantaneous peer to peer communication, enhanced technology such as 3D printing putting vast capability into the hands of more and more of the population increasingly cheaply. These open the way for a resurgence of ‘cottage industry’ and micro societies, only on a far more efficient level. #WuFlu could just be the catalyst. There is also a whole discussion on cryptocurrency and the emerging parallel economic ecosystem based on blockchain tech.
As our grasp of the bigger picture and our role within it becomes more comprehensive, consensus is emerging that in order to preserve civilised society we cannot treat people as being economically expendable and outsource their livelihoods based solely on a narrow measure of profit (ie one which ignores certain costs), such as importing cheap labour under free movement or by offshoring to a mafia run state like China.
I believe we will eventually start to evolve a theory of organisation where we ‘think as a species’.
Each of us is voluntarily and individually responsible for adopting behaviours that promote overall well-being, without the requirement for centralised coercion. Individual self interest is not incompatible with this, since causing harm to our neighbours is harmful to the environment of which we ourselves are a part. If a new economic model is to emerge in keeping with this strain of thought, people in the UK will start to act with ‘economic localism’ as a way of reflecting these ideas.
The UK (our ‘somewhere’, the one we can influence) is big enough that we can viably operate all areas of the economy. We can have all kinds of industry. We can have a thriving agricultural sector. We can provide enough fish from our waters etc. We can be self sufficient. But we can also continue to trade globally within this framework. But further, the damage to the financial system required by the suspension of the preexisting economic model, as evidenced by ‘Rishi’s splurge’, will wake people up to alternatives. These include blockchain based distributed monetary systems as opposed to ‘fiat money as debt’. Money is nothing but ‘effective demand’ thus this technology will also impact political interactions; collective ‘centre of opinion’ will eventually come to be arrived at by blockchain token voting, i.e. true verifiable consensus, supported by digital IDs, with anonymity secured by cryptography.
The old pre-digital world ended probably about 20 years ago. A lot of dead wood will be razed by this pandemic. Scarcity will decrease and economics (the science of scarcity) will also change irrevocably.