CultState

| You are more than your identity
Aug 9 2013

To say “I am X” is to also say “I am !X”. This enforces the inability to associate with the opposite of X and limits the ability to adapt and survive. Therefore, to ensure a person’s self-destruction, convince them that self-identification is an enshrined right.

This is the contemporary Hegelian dialectic approach to self-destruction:

Thesis: “I am X.”
Antithesis: “I cannot be the opposite of X.”
Synthesis: “I am not X because there is only X.”

At the end of this transformation, the ideals of the self are completely sacrificed to preserve X which finally allows for one’s vessel to physically sacrifice itself ot preserve X. I call this process “Dialectic martyrdom“ and the religious associations of such a phrase explain the name for this blog.

As you might be able to tell, I herald from the Marxist school of thought. While I have been known to have a vicious temperament at times, I am not one of the emotional junkies typically associated with this brand. Many of my economic perspectives are influenced by Marxism, specifically, how Marx was able to use Gresham’s Law to explain systemic flaws within the Britain’s gold standard established by Isaac Netwon. You would be surprised how many contemporary financial, trading, and monetary terms and concepts date back to Marx. The emotional junkies were the byproduct of mustering a sufficient enough fanbase to kill enough people to squash any competing schools of thought. The further we drift from European mercantilist configurations, the more Marxism takes on mythic and religious qualities… qualities that have been aggressively interfering with human development since the 1960s.

The 1990s in America was the golden age of exploring how best to blend mass media dominance with the theories of Gramsci, Marcuse, and Derrida. You might have heard this process described as “cultural Marxism“, which I have always found ironic since Marxism describes culture to be nothing more than a superficial bourgeois artifact of the superstructure. The idea is simple and effective: invert social norms, normalize taboos, reward minority cultures, and punish members of the majority culture. The most effective means of organizing human behavior to fulfill all of those goals is through identity politics… or: “I am X, I am not the opposite of X, I am not X because there is only X.”

These means of psychoculture hacking that has given Marxian philosophy access to the most effective tactics of religious control while preserving complete plausible deniability of negative outcomes. The Greeks had a word for people who became powerful from such tactics: Tyrant. Watching populist saviors of the naive and loyal betray their martyrs over and over again throughout history is an endless source of entertainment. However, once you start throwing nuclear weapons into the mix, you begin to realize the seriousness of how the tyrant creation process can play out in the modern world. This potential blend of axe-grinding cultural warfare with a nuclear outcome makes the Uranium Barrier (To cite “Hyperspace“ by Michio Kaku) the most likely candidate for the Fermi Paradox. This realization put me on a twenty year search for our way out of this trap.

The details of this search will be released over time, but during those decades, I’ve learned an axiomatic truth about this problem:

All concepts of justice assume that humanity will have an eternal monopoly on sentience.

When I tempered this observation with the various disciplines of computer science, artificial intelligence (neural nets, Bayesian filters, natural language processing, unsupervised training), genomics (regulation of gene expression), neuroscience (limitations of synaptic plasticity, ocular dominance bands) quantum physics (Shannon entropy, Bekenstein bounds, Holographic principle. loop quantum gravity), and thermodynamics, I started to realize that such a monopoly can be ended. Soon after, I would abandoned my previous associations with Marxism and all of its derivatives due to its complete failure to address or adapt to that axiom.

I started to wonder about a world where that monopoly no longer exists… So in 2005, I wrote a book about what would happen if the financial sector invented Strong AI before any other sector and used it to analyze the incomprehensibly huge volumes of meta data from NSA trunk lines in real-time. The results were so unnerving that I never released the book because it was no longer a political sci-fi story… it was a blueprint on how to create civil wars-as-a-service while disguising instigating elements as normal global market activity. I knew this outcome was inevitable, but because of my book, I had critically explored every meaningful way to hijack and steer such a platform for my own ends. Most importantly of all, I needed the time to repair my soul so that I could execute upon this vision with clear intentions. The key thought experiment that drove me was simple but incredibly profound:

Can you create a new emotion?

If you follow that question to the farthest, most exhausted logical conclusion, you will understand why I have started down this incredibly challenging and, at times, lonely road.