The Quixotic Possibility

An agenda for Unity

Chapter 1: Mythic Knowledge

Humans are the largest minority. Divided consecutively by the features of a world since
passed we live in our tribes. Cities are encampments, mansions are huts, cars are horses, and
supermarkets are temples. Society is one neither savage nor wise cursed to half measures,
indifference, and indecision. I would any day favor the heathen cry of battle or the
sophisticated chatter of intellectuals to these brief intermissions of either one or the other.
However, even in the new world that this text seeks to insight, such simplicity can never be
realistically afforded. Instead, we can only abbreviate, illustrate, and facilitate our
understanding to coax the flow of human knowledge out of its dammed existence and use it
to synthesize new solutions to an ever growing world of problems.

Allow me, the writer inevitably cloaked in a shade of anonymity, to shed some light on the
ground rules that I will follow throughout this book. Firstly, the reader would do well to
suspend some measure of disbelieve as any work, such as this, that proposes a world that has
not yet come into being, can only be fairly categorized as semi-fictional. Secondly, the reader
will find minimal references to past states of affairs, not because they lack meaning or
usefulness in many pursuits, but because they evade the quest of this text to illuminate the
future and would do little more than complicate an already complicated topic. Thirdly, and
finally, I will be the first to admit that I do not have all the answers. But those I have, I will
share. Accordingly, I do not consider myself an intellectual nor am I in possession of
mountains of factual data. However, what I do possess, what all revolutionaries possess, is a
good deal of mythic knowledge.

Mythic knowledge is ultimately nothing more than a vision complemented by a known path
to its rapid implementation. For better or for worse, every revolutionary in possession of this
knowledge is ordained to immerse themselves in it regardless of any external circumstance.
As a result, physical condition is seen as either a secondary consideration or as a means to
achieving an end. To characterize the phenomenon any further is to contradict its fluid nature
and thus loose all perspective. It is necessary for the reader to understand that this text is
written in heavy conjunction with this mythic knowledge and represents and affinity with a
vision or a world that is very mildly connected with the one in existence now. It takes more
brain power and invigorated perception to generate the energy necessary to project a holistic
vision than it does to understand the world in its current state, and, consequently, has more
potential to improve the human condition - the more input the greater the output.

Mythic knowledge is not only more powerful than factual knowledge in as much as it
requires more vigor and energy, but because it is more versatile and can be adapted with
greater efficiency. It provides a passion that drives its possessor to excel that bland
statements of current truths could never bestow. It encourages the formation of knowledge
structures because it gives the human a direction and a lens through which to view their
actions and the actions of others - a gift that every education system should confer upon its
students.

I first began to recognize the existence of such a species of knowledge within myself at a
very early age. In my pre-teens I often embarked on solitary excursions to the woods with the
goal of building a new civilization. Due to my simplicity of mind that is only natural at this
age, the underlying ideals did not extend much further than a desire to forge a forest-city in
which all humans would be free away from the prejudices of the outside world. However, as I
matured, I began to recognize that this forest civilization did not have to be manifested
physically in the wilds beyond my backyard, but could be created out of words and ideas. As
a consequence, I began at the age of 13 mapping the path to the realization of what I
described at the time as an “elemental existence” where sentient beings were sentient beings
and there existed as a perogative little more than the aim of progress. The reemergence of this
youthful simplicity was my saving grace in my late teens when it rescued me from the depths
of disappointing political affiliations that had effectively conditioned me with their
subversive hatreds and narrow visions. I still to this day cannot identify exactly when I
revolted against conventional affiliation or what prompted me to do so, but I can tell the
reader that it was a liberation without parallel. Suddenly all these possibilities started to flood
my psyche as the thrill of creating this vision gripped my sole. I no longer had to conform to
all these things within my previous values that categorization forced me to conform to. I was
intellectually free.

The physical manifestations that varieties of mythic knowledge can incur is defined by the
individual or group who conceives the vision. Its usefulness, practically, virtue, and capacity
to contribute to human society is almost entirely decided by its nature. If the actual content of
the mental picture is based on ideas that are neither considered progressive, good, nor
beneficial then it is only reasonable to assume that the consequences of it will be negative.
The key to recognizing a regressive mindset is to determine whether it bases its key
philosophies on compromising any elemental human interest (we shall see what that entails in
later chapters) of survival or prosperity. In short, most of us can instinctively recognize the
visions that pose a threat to fundamental human condition and make efficient judgments on
that basis alone. After all, the path to progress is never paved with skulls.

These suppositions are of a quite subjective nature. However, within them lies the potential to
be systematically and scientifically mapped out to create an objective basis for human
progress. This, however, is for other texts and for humans who possess a different variety of
knowledge to us mythics. Contrary to a lot that has been henceforth declared by the scientific
community, it is a firm conviction of both myself and intellectuals that formulas for human
progress can be scientifically inferred. However, these formulas are not there waiting to be
discovered. They must be constructed by means of mass consensus and universal practice.
They must exist within the frame of a global value system to which humans conform and
agree upon as the common mode of practice. A system that neither individuals nor states can
put a sunder. Even though this, at first, might appear at best a quixotic idea many of us have
failed to appreciate the role of technology in liberating the human soul to undertake more
diverse pursuits. Modern developments in technology have made the synthesis of these
progressive values possible, allowing them to be defined universally and practiced in a
variety of diverse ways.

There are those who would no doubt find many modes of intellectual argument to deny the
existence or even the mere possibility of a set of universal values. However, as we shall see,
there has always been a set of innate similarities, not only between humans but all sentient
beings, that makes every inhabitant of this planet part of a collective entity. These
fundamentals alone may prove to be enough to forge a set of universal ethics, as they can be
adapted to form any number of mentalities, ideologies, and value systems.

Such possibilities will be the cornerstone of the vision that this book proposes throughout its
duration as we investigate the possibilities that dwell unrealized below the surface of the
human psyche.

Chapter 2: Human Guardianship

. Day in and day out we bear witness to nations, individuals, interests, and organizations
vying for power and superiority. The label of humanity is just the biological roof that tops a
conflictual and divisive international structure with no real consensus or common vision. As a
consequence, most of us have been led to believe that benefit is only something that can be
fully attained by the individual or a small fraction of the global population. It is seldom
thought of and rarely proposed that there could be some possibility of a set of ideals that
could have the capacity to frame initiatives that benefit the entire human population. These
suppositions lay the foundation for human guardianship.

The nearest comparison that can be made present times to the idea of human guardianship, is
one of the conceptual foundations of the People’s Republic of China. This is known to as just
plain “guardianship.” Aside from the patronizingly dictatorial contexts in which the founders
of modern China used it, we can see guardianship as the ruling government representing the
interests of the population in its entirety. This system is opposed to the typical mode of
democratic rule where the government, by virtue of its affiliation with different social groups,
represents a predominant interest. However, within the context of early authoritarian China,
the concept of guardianship was an utter paradox because the government, rather than
limiting itself to representing the fundamental interest of the people, pursued policies that
were ostensibly aimed toward the benefit rural peasants that in reality ended up benefiting
quite a different demographic.

Despite the disappointing applications of guardianship, we cannot deny its pertinence to the
theme of this chapter. No government has ever succeeded in equally representing the interests
of their population simply because, like that of the Chinese, the government does not limit
itself to fundamental pursuits of collective benefit. However, it is unreasonable to believe that
government should do so, because they are, after all, localized entities and legitimacy forces
the vast majority to practice their interest affiliations subtly or in moderation.
Guardianship is most applicable to humanity. Humanity has a very distinct set of fundamental
desires that can be sated by any entity prescribing to progress. Hence, the ultimate question:
Why can’t humanity have a unit that represents its basic interests? Why can’t their be an
institution or body of institutions representing the fundamental human interest of survival? It
is these queries that question the very basis of the international system that must now take
precedence over all the petty debates and discourses that refuse to address the human
condition in its most essential form. We will see politician speaking endlessly about change,
progress, and so other such buzzwords but in the end, because of the divided nature of the
international system and global political society, there is always a group who loses out. All
the futility of political discussion does is flip the coin and choose what group is going to be
discriminated against next. It does not have to be this way. It does not have to be a question
of us against them. But this is what society has come to tolerate from its leaders. This
phenomenon has long been the culprit that grounds even the most revolutionary of us in a
state of fearful anxiety. We see all the divisions, all the little groups forced into a delicate
balance, and we begin to see just how a global set of concepts could be manipulated by either
one to bring a reign of tyranny upon planetary civilization. This brings apprehension to
change. However, there is a distinct irrationality with this concern. Universal values must be
defined universally. They cannot be defined by a dominant group. In this sense, universal
values, when forced on humanity, is a paradox within itself.

Human guardianship ensures no impressionable moths bang their head against the light bulb
trying to enslave a free-thinking race since any conquest through coercion is superficial,
temporary, and doomed to fade. Tyranny always exists in the details of complex interest
grounded in the perceived divisions between groups in society. In this sense, tyranny is by
nature divisive. Cleavages in interest only occur where no foresight to cooperation exists. For
example, there could be five farmers in a famine each possessing only enough food for two to
live. In this state of circumstance it would not be unusual for the stronger of the farmers to
overpower the weaker farmers and take their food before considering any cooperative
alternative. Tyranny and use of force is a heathen instinct that we act on all too often when
provoked. There is always another choice. A choice to view human interest as singular and
dynamic, a choice to fight adverse conditions through unity rather than yielding to barbaric
short-term gain. It is this singular interest that any entity practicing human guardianship
protects.

All sentient beings are part of a collective body. Consequence ripples like water in a stream.
We are part of a single destiny. Currently, this destiny is determined by a role of the dice.
There are so many entities moving in so many directions this destiny can neither be predicted
nor governed. We are all needlessly racing toward an undetermined fate. Only through
unified interest can we move toward the direction that we, as a species, will ourselves to. We
need an institution that conjunctively determines the direction of human civilization with all
those that exist within it. Together, these processes, organizations, and mentalities work
together to protect the fundamental interest of humanity in its most comprehensive definition.

Chapter 3: The System

Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Prize winning philosopher, said "until we extend the circle of
compassion to all living beings, we shall not find peace.” Schweitzer, who made frequent
humanitarian forays into Africa, proposed that Western civilization was in decay because it
was abandoning its moral foundations. Perhaps this, given the wealth and the power of the
so-called West, is somewhat inevitable. But one can’t help but wonder how it is possible to
solve poverty when such wealth exists in situ firmly grounded the in Western world? We have
seen many calls by humans like Schweitzer for the eradication of poverty to take the highest
priority. Many such beings have chosen a direct approach to such maladies, but can we
honestly say that these efforts have had any effective avail since the dawn of the humanitarian
mentality? When we look at the human condition we still see styles of living totally devoid of
any suitable standard. We see governments trying to balance their baser ethical urges with
their relentless quests for self interest. We see charitable foundations trying to make head-
way in an international community consumed with its own consumption. All things
considered, anybody with a humanitarian mentality, should look at changing the system as
the most vital humanistic agenda. We can donate money to charitable foundations, we can
embark on trips to poverty stricken areas, but in the end, what consequence do these
endeavors have on the grand scale? Dictators, corruption, regression, murder, genocide,
death, governments, division, and conflict all stand in our way; all products of the infectious
system. The system is everything. There is not a specific embodiment of it. It encompasses
the nature of relations between governments and organizations, the way in which policy is
pursued and implemented, and the attitudes of those inhabiting society. These are the three
relevant aspects that all humanitarian visionaries must devote themselves to changing. These
proposed changes, are not a product or will of any political agenda, but merely the schema of
progress.

The international system is governed by chaos. Governments relate to each other in a

dangerous and anarchical way. They are unregulated yet internationally acknowledged the
highest actor and authority. States have armies, power, and innate legitimacy while
possessing the sworn mandate to advance the position of their respective factions of the
human race. With a system such as this in place, why is anybody surprised when we hear
about another genocide or war? Indeed, one might wonder how is any interval of peace
anywhere in the word? It basically comes down to balance of power. Balance of power is
essentially the feudal and primitive idea of states’ expansionistic ambition being held in
check by the power of other states. Hence, theoretically, war would be an unfeasible option.
However, as two world wars have demonstrated to us, balance of power is a totally ersatz and
inefficient way to manage global affairs. Look at Europe right now. After being the epicenter
of two of the largest conflicts in human history its nations are now at peace with very little
chance of ever going to war with one and other simply because of the interdependency that
exists between them. This peace, was not built through balancing the power, but was founded
on a social and economic cooperative sphere. This is why states that build strong unions with
one and other rarely go to war. This mode of international cooperation, and more, should be
the highest humanitarian priority simply because of the prospects that it offers for peace and
constructive engagement. What’s more, these spheres do not necessarily have to consist of
intergovernmental relations but can also expand to encompass social non-state relations as
well. Populations must be mobilized behind these ideas to pressure their governments into
engaging in greater international cooperation. Form this, strictly non-state institutions should
arise prescribing to human guardianship that together form an organization that regulates the
interaction of states, reserves the right to form associative relationships with populations,
intervenes in humanitarian crises, and champions the international cause. This organization
will derive its mandate from bodies of planetary citizens that form politically formidable
entities. States will continue to exist but will be subject to regulation by an entity that protects
fundamental human interest.

This proposed reformation of the system is but one alternative to the ineffective and primitive
one in existence now. Without the confines of the superfluous factors and irrelevant
necessities of the system the human race may manifest rapid development of its civilization
as a unified entity. A regulatory organization will intervene to protect fundamental rights as
stipulated by its own priorities that are drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

The second component of the revolution against the system is the fundamental change of
human mentalities and attitudes toward interest. The first such mentality can be aptly
described as Tribalism or the “us and them” mentality. It is totally counterproductive to see
things in terms of sides, or who is with us and who is against us. This is not so hard for
people to accept, so much as to remember. From the day we are born we are conditioned by
the legacy of a bygone age to believe in this “us vs. them” mentality, when really it is far
more logical and far more productive to see things in the opposite light. Wherever you go in
the world people don’t differ at a fundamental level because we are all trying to survive and
progress. The only reason why people don’t survive or reach an adequate level of progression
is because they refuse to cooperate with one and other which is nothing more than a result of
them thinking that if they progress, they must do it at the expense of everyone else. Despite
the more profound consequences of this logic, which we will get into later, these divided
perceptions compromise any of us seeking to make real change. To illustrate how clouded our
perceptions can become one only needs to walk out the front door. Once I attended a
conference on the issue of water shortage. Most of the time allotted to the speakers was
devoted to statistics which were presented in a dull manner that were not really tuned to
making anyone care that by 2020 entire populations could be on the verge of being wiped
out. There was, however, one speaker who was quite spirited in his perspective that more
effort should be put into developing desalinization technology to turn sea water into drinkable
water. This proposal received a lot of criticism because desalinization technology was a very
expensive alternative that only a handful of countries could actually afford to sustain for a
long period of time. This a straw man argument because the man’s proposal had not
suggested building more desalinization plants, but to developing new ways to make it
cheaper. When this point was restated the nay-sayers came to the conclusion that rich
members of society would not be willing to contribute to avert the water crisis. This
conclusion came as quite a surprise to me because I was under the impression that the rich
need water too. Even if they stockpiled the precious substance only for their own survival
how long could they keep it under wraps with the billions of people in need of it baying for
blood? This just shows how even our intellectuals have been plundered of effective solutions
by this “us and them” logic.

Another such mentality are the excuses of the masses. When living in a disgruntled society
one can see that everybody directs blame at the decision makers and the elites while doing
everything they can to deny their responsibility in the matter. A nice illustration of this lies
with the new generation of conspiracy theorists that came into being in the aftermath of 9/11.
I’ve often found that to convince a conspiracy theorist of anything all you need to do is find
the correct way to combine “9/11”, “Elites”, and “World Domination”. The suppositions that
I project in my day to day discourses have been irrationally accused many times of serving
the will of the social elites because these ideals don’t favor their systematic alienation by
directing sensationalist rhetoric at them, while allowing the masses to conveniently deny their
roles in the predicament. It’s common to see the academic or the armchair politician sit and
slander the American invasion of Iraq, but have they actively fought against the actions of
their government? All conspiracy theories, fatalism, and anything that preaches we are not in
control of our own lives is nothing but an elaborate excuse not to change. I’ve come across
numerous individuals who try to convince me that their inaction is because they simply can’t
do anything because the powers that be won’t let them, and, ironically, most of these
individuals were from free societies. When I argued them down to the elemental basis of the
argument 90% of the time it came down to the fact that they simply thought that governments
and elites had put too much red tape in their way. Strangely, most of them acknowledged that
there was something deeply wrong with the world and yet, when it came down to it, all they
could do is blame the decision makers. Most conspiracy theorists, fatalists, and others are
simply those who have radicalized this perspective and instead of devoting their time trying
to actually liberate society from entrapment or oppression, they seem to spend most of it
trying to convince society that they are in possession of some “truth” that it is too blind and
ignorant to see. This is not what I would call a successful means for acquiring followers.
Down to the heuristic, ultimately, anything that tries to convince us we’re not in control of
our own destiny, that we don’t have the ability to make choices, is cowardly and
counterproductive because all it tries to do is compensate is justify its own inadequacy.

Chapter 4: Facts defeat Fear

It seems that everyone has a right to privacy except those who want it most; cultural icons
and to a lesser extent politicians. Ironically, those who have privacy don’t want it. People at a
grassroots level always want you to be interested in what they’re doing, it’s why most of
them scream loud on the phone and disclose personal secrets to mild acquaintances – all part
and parcel of the obsession to be “known”, which is not a bad thing if it drives us to succeed.
However, in the realms of these concerns a lot more serious topic arises: should we provide
information to society and if so, how do we ensure that this information reflects logic and
truth? Of course, under any rational civilization it’s a given that every human has the right to
information that effects global affairs, but under the present system it’s not so cut and dry. In
the present world order of conflict and division nation-states are willing to do anything that
will further their so-called “national interest”, and keeping secrets from their populations is a
well documented phenomenon. This can be seen as nothing more than a legacy of when
rulers, by nature, were at the very least totalitarian if not open tyrants, even the ones who we
look back on with admiration. We have evolved, but the system has not. By virtue of the
current system, it is impossible for governments to give their people accurate and coherent
information about matters that if made public, could compromise the security or the integrity
of the country. Beyond this, however, information is the single most precious thing any
human can possess. Facts eradicate fear. This is not just about the information obtained by
society about the activities of its government, it is about information obtained by societies on
how to survive and prosper. To quote a parroted cliché, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.
Fear cripples a human’s mental processes and drives them into a state where their rationality
fades and desperation controls their actions. This creates a roiling disorder where there is
nothing but the brutal short-term necessity. Without knowledge and understanding fear
always prevails, and the chaos that often follows it is in nobody’s interest. However, in the
effort to export knowledge abroad people are often condemned for forcing their ways and
their culture on the recipient. Even though the West to the rest exports of knowledge are
better documented, this knife cuts both ways. The refusal to learn from the different is a
common flaw of the regressive egotist. But for all this, in the end, there only is what works.
Keeping your population ignorant doesn’t work even to preserve tyranny, as ignorant masses
can bring down tyrannies as easily as enlightened societies can, they just do it for the wrong
reasons. The same goes at the most basic level of human interaction. As any human should
aim to be a soldier of necessity, we must correct the most elemental flaws first otherwise the
luxuries of free information just for the sake of it will always be compromised. What we
need, what this planet needs, is a network of information that flows freely to anybody who
requires it. What’s more, this information needs to be accurate and practical. We already have
the basis of this system; the internet. But universal access to it is far from reality and the
information contained within it not necessarily accurate. People interact with technology
differently to the way they interact with people and no matter how far technology advances,
there will always be that difference in paradigms between human and machine. We use
technology, we are not at one with it. This is why we, as sentient beings,, must find some way
to unite the technological and the biological, only then will information pour straight out of
discovery and flow into the minds of the masses with ease. This idea of paradigm difference
between humans and technology first came to me after I had read several articles about the
work of a Non-Governmental Organization in Africa. In order to alert the townspeople to the
danger of malaria, this particular NGO printed and widely distributed an enlarged picture of
the type of mosquito that carried the disease. About three months later the campaign to raise
awareness about the disease had failed to bring down the amounts of mosquito-bite related
deaths. It was at this point that the NGO learnt that the townspeople had been on the lookout
for insects about 5 times the size of the average mosquito because of the misleading size of
the insect on the awareness flyer. The world is riddled with mishaps of this nature simply
because material has not been properly integrated into the organic. There needs to be the
establishment of a social network of knowledge about small scale wisdoms and truisms of
survival. This network must be kept alive and fueled by the necessity to know. There needs to
be a forum, in cyberspace and the real world, where reliable knowledge is made an
undeniable availability to anybody and everybody. Even though there are no concrete ways in
place to do this, it must be part of any sane planetary agenda; to achieve information
efficiency and get knowledge to the people who need it.

In order to have any intellectual synergy, a new platform must be created. Even the most
fundamentally conflicting ideas one can possibly imagine can find some way to cooperate for
the greater good of both concepts. This is simply because Universalis* create these concepts
and use them toward the aim of progression no matter what their beliefs. People only do
anything because they believe it is in their self interest and this supposition makes every
ideology out there not that different as they all have one common aim: progress. So if we all
have one common aim, why can’t we unify the concepts we know and make them work
together to attain it? If two people are barricaded inside a room, and they know there’s a
chance to get out if they work together, they’re going to do it because it’s in both their best
interests to get out. Not all situations are so cut and dry but this is the basis of the theory. If
we all have the same objective, why don’t we cooperate to get it? The same principle applies
to every idea in the human lexicon. Most disagreements in the realms of politics and
philosophy spring from ego, namely, a concern for oneself masked as a concern for others. In
politics and society there has always been a great fear of someone or something “rocking the
boat”; by this fear we are taught to respect stagnation and incremental progress as necessary
to stability. If we don’t do this, we risk complete alienation which is nothing more than a
product of fragile ego burning in the light of the rising stars until the egotists unite to
extinguish it - once again at the expense of human progress. This is why it’s a necessity, for
all those serious about holistic evolution, no matter what their irrelevant differences, to unite
in order to counter all the ego tied up in the system. A unity of this nature is also required in
the field of knowledge if any intellectual progress is to be made. The unity of knowledge is
not a necessity that starts with this book, there have been several calls by numerous
intellectuals and scholars for a platform of agreement to be synthesized on this level.

Poverty of the pocket is but a result of poverty of talent. The eradication of the latter is
another goal of this new variety of intellectual unity. The poor regions of the globe are not
only effected by poverty because of their lack of monetary resources, but also an inequality of
talent. Most individuals who are educated and have knowledge and resources to invest in the
third world choose not to do so. Rather, they go to places of the world that have already
attained a certain level of development. Part of any solution to maladies like poverty is to
redistribute the outlay of educated and moneyed individuals to parts of the world that are
devoid of them. There, they can teach, invest and thus cultivate undeveloped nations into
prospering societies by passing their wisdom and resources through its veins. This is not only
in benefit to the poor country, but also to entities who exist in rich countries and humanity as
a whole. Think of it. Billions of people currently exist in circumstances where their potential
cannot be realized. Any number of these people deprived of food, shelter, education, and
other necessities could have the capacities and mindsets to invent and think of great things.
Think how many Einsteins perish per day because they don’t have access to civil society.
This inequality of talent and the developed world’s apprehensiveness to remove obstacles to
constructive engagement with third world countries has an impact on the collective state of
humanity as cures, innovations, inventions, and solutions are lost in the tides of chaos. The
developed world must begin to see that the developing world is a problem that the collective
consciousness of humanity will have to address sooner or later. In half the world living in
destitution it is only a matter of time before the illusions are ripped developed world’s eyes as
they reach a point in progress where it is no longer possible to turn their heads the other way.
Talent must be realized and fostered in the communities that progress has forgotten about. For
their good, and the good of collective humanity.

Media

The challenge confronting anyone in media is how to get accurate information to people
quickly and effectively. In this day and age, we seem be well on the way to fulfilling the
quickly and effectively criteria but the levels of accuracy and reliability really leave a lot to
be desired. It’s not just errors that affect the quality of the media being consumed, it’s the
entire system and the mindsets which control it. Not just the way the media is run, but the
way the public consume it. The problem lays in the fundamental refusal of every-day media
consumers to construct meaning in the messages they view. The way to avoid brainwashing at
the hands of the mass media is not to view everything they present to you objectively, but to
look at the paradigms of the messages and make them work for your benefit. In more simple
terms, just endeavor to have an independent opinion. Naturally, this does not pertain to first
hand factual reporting as there is ever only one true version events and anybody who denies
this are simply misleading themselves. But our concern should not be truth, but logic. All
truth will reveal itself when logic prevails in our societies, and right now, the mass media is
far from adhering to either one. Then again, it’s not meant to. Most people don’t watch
television or read newspapers to be presented with reality, they do these things to be
presented with alternate realities; realities in which they do not live. Sure it might give them
the general gist of what’s really going on, but no unevolved media consumer wants to
understand anything, even fiction, beyond this level. It seems that if a piece presented
through any medium doesn’t hand its meaning to the audience on a silver platter, the average
audience immediately looses interest. The result of this has been a monotonous stream of
media mediocrity with repetitive plots and predictable dialogue interspersed with the odd
effort to break the cycle, efforts that are frequently shot down by critics. This repetition has
resulted in a kind of passive brainwashing where these bland mindsets are emulated by the
general population. We are told to be mediocre, we are brainwashed to believe that we can
only achieve within the system. We are told that in life, the greatest things we can ascertain
revolve around material gain. When we account for all the diverse prospects there are out
there for humanity as a whole, this is a pretty shallow goal. The entertainment media should
endeavor to do but one thing; give people a cause, a blueprint to achieving an epic ambition.
In computerized games there are epic quests and tons of alternate realities, it should be the
sole aim of the media installment to enable humanity to contribute to its own prosperity while
reveling in the epic glory of conquest and achievement. Life should be like a video game,
where everyone has a quest and a purpose – united by one common vision.

The system by which the media governs itself needs to be modified in order to facilitate these
new objectives. Media companies need to integrate themselves into society and create
grassroots initiatives to foster talent and farm out a greater diversity of skills. In addition
creating a larger abundance of ability, a direct benefit to media companies, it will allow
society to link and socially network through these companies as they begin to coordinate their
efforts to build a new planetary civilization. In simpler terms, right now in the social
networking world people have Facebook and MySpace profiles, under this proposed system
people will have entire legends to represent themselves through huge interactive mediators
presenting them with literally hundreds of thousands of tools to evolve and innovate their
personalities and quests. Readers may believe this to be unattainable or at best a hope of the
distant future but the truth of the matter is its only unattainable because people refuse to work
together to get it. History is accelerating, and whoever sneers at these epic ideas as
impossible today, will be crushed by the reality of tomorrow.

Chapter 5: Beginning of History

When I was young, I often scoured the history books looking for a role-model and a
champion civilization. The quest turned out to be a big disappointment because whenever I
picked an icon in history to emulate, there was always something amiss with them, something
that made them fall short as a champion of humanity. For a time I began to venerate
Alexander the Great, before I learnt that he frequently presided over massacres of entire
civilian populations. This happened to me again and again until I realized that so called “great
men” were only great because they were really good at manipulating the prejudices in the
system. They were good at controlling people to get what they wanted and this would always
have same consequence: a disappointing and inglorious downfall. The same went for
civilizations. They would rise by means of brutality and compromising the interests of other
civilizations and then in the end they would enjoy they’re time in the sun, prolonged by
however good they were at manipulating the system, and then they would die. But as has
been implied, if you don’t change the very fabric of the system, all you can do is delay your
downfall. In history it would have taken a great man to see and act upon this, and maybe
there was, but we will never hear of them simply because there were no means of them
expressing themselves. Today, we have no such excuse. The very fact that my voice is
reaching you now is testament that the time has come to instigate real change. It is often
common in some general paradigms of belief to deride history and mark it as best forgotten
as it believed that it is responsible for all the modern day prejudices and disputes. However, it
should be a conviction that it is the intimate knowledge of history that should lead us to shed
our prejudices and divisions as the consequences of indulging in them have been made clear
time and again. Change and evolution are necessities but we should never make the mistake
of being ungrateful for this point in our progression. We live in the freest, democratic, and
most developed age in human history. But these privileges are, after all, a benefit enjoyed by
the few rather than the many. However, regardless of what the pessimistic news media would
have us believe, this is changing. Nations are developing. Revolutions are happening. But all
this progress is in vain unless humanity can confide in a unifying mindset to sustain its
current rate of development. If we don’t do this, a new dark age will decent upon world as
global problems that couldn’t be solved due to the divisions that exist within the global
system catch up and put an end to what future generations will look back upon as the golden
age. History is something to be studied, something to be learnt from, but it is also something
to be transcended. History is often used as an excuse for the mediocrity and backwardness of
nations as well as a justification for aggressive foreign policy and social prejudice. When one
looks at all the negative attitudes the discipline provokes, one can clearly see why the Post-
Modernists call for the complete abolition of history all together. But like any thought system
that has negative repercussions, it is only because it is not being utilized in the correct
manner. Naturally, there are plenty of reasons why the complete abolition of history is a
foolhardy response to resolving the prejudices it provokes. For a start such a gesture
dishonors the memory of all those who have died fighting for a better world thus taking away
an incentive for people in the present to do the same thing. Then there’s the inevitable
consequence that history will live on in its most prejudicial forms, as peoples will not forget
the slights done to them by past generations but the constructive study of it will be abolished.

Bearing all these things in mind history is an occupation best left to those who have an active
interest in it, who want to study it for the sake of studying it rather than distorting it to justify
prejudice. Historical justifications for aggression are simply not helpful and should be utterly
disregarded by any adjudicating state or institution. To all those who derive a sense of pride
from their culture’s history, they should continue doing so in a manner that doesn’t substitute
actual progress for progress made in history. Akin to the phenomenon of nations looking to
their history as a substitute for national progress, is the act of individuals looking to their
culture to substitute for their lack of progress as individuals. All culture is in this day and age
is justified plagiarism, a device to allow the indifferent many to take credit for the actions
devoted few. When you hear a person claim that an innovator from their country invented
something, they say it almost as though they invented it themselves. Ironically, however,
most of these inventers and innovators couldn’t actively care for the cultural obsessions; all
that drove them was the prospect of contributing to human society, to get recognition the
world over for their genius. This farsightedness enabled them to leave a legacy that would
outlast them. This is why, when achievements are manifested by those who actually use the
Human paradigm of transcendence, it is very disappointing to see their achievements claimed
by the stagnant masses as part of a collective accomplishment. This Transcendence is key to
overcoming the innate prejudices in history and culture and establishing a sphere of human
accomplishment and forgoing the legacy of a destructive past. Transcendence must be
introduced into society by means of norms of fashion, to give those who don’t want needless
conflict a creed to adhere to and a leg to stand on. It must be designated as the friend of
anybody promoting tolerance and social evolution as a necessity of humanity. It must be
taught in schools, perpetuated in the media, and be made into a mindset in the political sphere
to assist diplomats in solving conflict. The cycle of conflict must end somewhere, and all it
takes is a handful of people, united in the scared principle of transcendence, to unite and end
the division. The key to winning any conflict is to stop caring, to embrace a higher cause and
a higher meaning, and all one needs to do to make the victory complete is to gather followers
who are willing to do the same. History is history and the only difference between those to
read it and those who write it is the willingness to transcend all the mundane conflict. We
speak of historical characters like Hitler, Alexander, Julius Caesar, and so on as if they have,
for better or for worse, a certain undying memory. However, on the grand scale of things its
only last week when Caesar and his legions marched through Gaul, only yesterday when
Hitler and his Nazis began to carry out the final solution. Humanity is still only breaking free
from its tribal past. The real legends and history-makers have yet to come. Over the course of
the last two-thousand years or so humanity has changed how it organizes itself remarkably
little and we are all still living under the hegemony of tribes. The differences between the
tribes of today and the tribes of 2000 years ago have been made purely by technology.
Humanity still identifies itself with specific territories and specific cultures which shows that
on the grand scale, little has changed since the dawn of civilization. This must change, the
system must evolve, and anything that gets in the way of that evolution must be obliterated.
History will be made and all those who previously made it practically erased by those who
change the very way in which the global populous perceives itself - those that outshine the
old world and challenge the regression that we have come to accept as inevitable.

Chapter 6: New World Order

It is a very productive endeavor to chase after new alternatives and unexplored solutions.

Neoism is often at the receiving end of a lot of support from self-proclaimed advocates of
“love and peace”. For its main premises of human evolution and cooperation Neoism is often
assumed to be a liberal utopian ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from it
being redundant to attempt to define Neoism as anything, this classification does less justice
to our true beliefs than most simply because we do not promote human cooperation because
we think its innately good or we want to teach the world to sing, we promote these ideas
because they’re logical. We are more pragmatist than idealist. Because the only idealists are
those who resist change and cling on to the quixotic status quo. Most “peace and love”
movements expect peace to have such strong innate advantages that all they need to do is say
the word and people will flock to their cause. Needless to say, neither the pragmatists nor the
idealists think the creation of a Human Army is anything that will happen any time soon. Of
course in order for this to be true, you have to assume that we don’t already have something
akin to a human army already, which we do; the United Nations peace-keeping forces. Like
the United Nations is the forerunner to a Planetary Government, its peace-keeping force is the
forerunner to a human army. That is to define a Human Army as: a force that intervenes in the
name of an impartial entity to restore order and peace to a region. In theory, this is also what
UN peace keepers are meant to be for, but because of several flaws in the principles of the
UN (that will be explored later) they have not been serving in this capacity at all. The biggest
issue confronting the UN is an identity issue, it is in fact an organization with no true
members. Instead, every member of the UN holds their loyalties (in theory if not in practice)
to a nation-state. It is utterly impossible to impartially enforce any body of an International
law without members of the institution in question prescribing to an international identity.
This does not mean to say we should expect members of international institutions to renounce
their heritage so much as embrace an international citizenship in order to cultivate a
professional loyalty to a human culture.

Human Culture

Human culture refers to a shared spirituality of transcendence and impartiality. Namely it is a

standard; a standard of expansion and a standard of progress. It is the elemental basis of all
human interaction and a set of norms that everybody conforms to as the basis of global
society. These norms are primarily to do with a realization of shared interest and holistic
human destiny which results in a responsibility to defend the innocent and defenseless in the
name of honor and logic. If you see a person being beaten mercilessly by a mugger it is in
your best interest to find innovative and practical means of showing that mugger the
consequences of his actions by bringing him to justice. This is in your best interest for so
many reasons that are concealed under the surface of inaction, but there are also reasons that
present themselves which are as clear as a tropical sea. For instance, the most obvious, it is in
your best interest to live in a society free from such debauched and artless crime as you or
someone you love might be the next victim. The action you take to stop the mugging is
entirely up to you and must be dictated by your circumstances. It might be something as
simple and as short-term as calling a law enforcement official or something as intricate and as
long-term as revolutionizing your community’s crime prevention systems. No matter how
witnessing this event inspires you to prevent future occurrences of it, something must be done
because for all events such as these make humanity suffer, thus, by proxy, making us
eventually suffer. Human culture is a realization of how we are connected to the collective
destiny humanity and how it is in our best interest to ensure that this destiny is a prosperous
continuum of holistic progress and inspiration. This is not Karma or some metaphysical
construction designed to keep us obedient, this is logic. A logic that has been observed time
and again in practice, but never in theory: compromise the interests of others (directly or
indirectly) and you will, by the same token, have your interests compromised. A tyrant can
oppress a nation, but he can only keep sitting on his throne of bayonets for so long before
they, for better or for worse, impale him. Ultimately, Human culture is an affinity with the
destiny of humanity and an insatiable will to see it prosper as a whole.

The United Nations: the forum and the primitive forerunner.

Needless to say, the concept of the UN is a human accomplishment. It’s both gratifying and
regretful to think of the destructive wars and conflicts that could have been prevented if the
UN existed as a solid international forum earlier in human history. Since the end of the Cold
War, however, the United Nations has often been on the verge of losing the hearts and minds
of its international audience as even its strongest supporters call for swift reform. One could
fill up this entire book with intricate and complex reasons why this is so, but to really get to
the core of the issue, all you need is one: the UN is attempting to be something it isn’t, and
given its current structure, never will be. It is attempting to pass itself off as an impartial
adjudicator of conflicts and vanguard of international law. Given its makeup, all its members
hold national loyalties. The organization itself relies on hand-outs from nation-states with
invisible strings undoubtedly attached. There is no international identity, there is no
international citizenship, the UN has no grassroots legs to stand on. At the levels of everyday
society nations and governments are all people know. How can the UN expect to be a success
when nobody is loyal to the International Ideal because the United Nations, the very
organization that stands to gain the most from this concept, hasn’t bothered to promote it?
Their very own Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every
individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration
constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote
respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction.

No organ of society can keep the declaration “constantly in mind” because the UN has
absolutely no stake in society. Every day people aren’t going to bother promoting the UN’s
vague principles of international rights because no such cause exists. How many UN
commercials promoting the principles of the organization have we seen? How much local
airtime does the international ideal get? How many times have we seen the UN taking its own
initiative to promote the ideals that it stands for? The Neo-Nazi establishment in the United
States is more in touch with grassroots society than the UN is or ever was. And yet, somehow,
the high ups in the UN wonder how dictatorships, tyrannies, autocracies, and regimes
generally unfriendly towards the concept of an international community come to power. It’s
simply because the message of the UN is filtered out or at best distorted beyond all
recognition and meaning before it gets to the masses. In order to solve this sorry situation the
UN needs an ideology framing its principles, a global movement, a significant media
presence, and grassroots initiatives aimed at recruiting like-minded supporters who might be
interested in serving the international community in a capacity of their choosing. Far from
pursuing this strategy and cultivating a global platform of support for the ideals that they
stand for, the UN is ready to reject anybody from their service who doesn’t fit into their elitist
definitions of worthiness. This is to say nothing of the fatal flaw in the entire concept of the
UN touched upon before: the issue of identity. The UN consists of members loyal and
dependent upon states for protection and security. There might be some semblance of
impartiality but this is always stripped away in the face of true adversity. This lack of
international identity is fundamental to the failures of the UN as an impartial adjudicator as
there is no higher entity prescribing to a higher body of ideals and law. The UN is made up of
National citizenships, allegiances, and identities both formal and informal and there is always
going to be vested interests and petty agendas. Simply put, instead of representing a single
humanity and its elemental interests in survival and progress, the UN is representing
hundreds of governments with intricate and divided agendas. But what can we expect? The
UN owes its life to governments who, by the nature of the international system, have to vie
for power and superiority – an agenda that renders the United Nations as a mere tool in the
Geo-Political Chess game that is our world. Everything we’ve come to come to expect from
the UN is hindered by this flaw in the very nature of their existence.

The Forum

As was mentioned at the outset of this chapter the UN is a human accomplishment without
parallel. This is not because of the ideals it represents or the bankrupt system it puts its faith
in, but because of its nature. The United Nations should be preserved with tooth and nail for
one simple fact: it serves as an international forum for nations to debate their differences and
give vent to their intentions. The forum that the UN provides for the worlds nation-states is
an indispensible resource that has saved us from hundreds of conflicts and cut short hundreds
more. Nonetheless, this is nothing more than the result of the world’s nation-states being able
to diplomatically communicate with one and other due to the way in which the institution was
constructed. The UN should cultivate and expand upon this accolade as a forum that
facilitates communication between nation-states and stop trying to fill all these voids in the
system which the UN itself is perpetuating everyday through inadequate depth and a faded
faith in its own principles.

Human Army

A timeless notion of a humanity united for long enough for governments to surrender their
monopoly on force is devoid of all meaning to the modern reader. We cannot even begin to
imagine how such an entity would come into being. But what we must remember is that
change is swift and uncompromising, and new intuitions, leaders, and legends will necessitate
the new and ever more radical synthesis of principles to facilitate progress and evolution
within the Neoist movement. The future that Neoism envisages is one that is difficult to
convey with mere paper as the canvas for the future master piece, but it is one in which epic
constructs like that of a human army will come into being and what’s more retain the capacity
to become a great success. This idea is not so much a principle of the Neoist ideology so
much as a necessity for the preservation of a new planetary order that the Human Revolution
will create. This concept begs many questions, most of all, how will we get those who have
the power, namely governments, to accept the creation of such a force. The question revolves
around sovereignty; a government’s right to call the shots within its own borders. This is
thought by many to be a sacred principle and a predominant norm in the international system
that no country will ever accept deviation from. However, they are holding sacred a concept
that in practice just doesn’t exist. The violation of national sovereignty is completely and
utterly inevitable if power is unevenly shared. We have seen this many times with the
American invasion of Iraq to the Russian forays into Georgia to the NATO invasion of the
former Yugoslavia. Keeping humans, expansive creatures, within boarders is an enterprise
that has failed time and again. Compressing philosophies, ideas, and convictions within a
particular territory will never end well and the only reason it hasn’t resulted in more tension
in the past is because humanity had fewer means to swap ideas much less the resources to
organize them into one body of unified thought to advance the holistic will of the planet. But
now that we do national sovereignty, in most cases, can only be maintained in the most
primitive of forms; that of government protecting the government’s interests in governing a
territory. In simpler terms, a government can still barely uphold its right to govern its people
no matter how brutally or incompetently, thus maintaining the semblance baser sovereignty,
but cannot maintain cultural, lingual, social, ethnic and ideological sovereignty due to influx
of ideas and personality paradigms flowing into the country by means of innovations like the
internet and television. Of course, governments will a lot of resources at their disposal have
realized that it is not in their best interest to alienate themselves and their people from the
international community. Only governments like North Korea have had the governmental
coherence and resources to flat out ban ideas flowing into the country. In all other cases, the
flow of ideas is dammed by sheer negligence and poverty of the mind and pocket.
Sovereignty is a concept preserved for governments by governments. The number one aim of
any government is entangling their short-term interests with that of the people and thus
convincing them that national sovereignty is in their best interest when really that country’s
people would be better off if the government opened its borders to international influence.
But because the constitutes of such governments are elites, they have access to the
international world but through the concept of sovereignty deny their people the same thing.
Kim Jong-Nam, the son of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, was expelled from Japan in
2001 after attempting to enter Disney Land Tokyo on a forged passport. A few years later
Japanese media claimed that the son of the Communist ruler had also popped up in Paris to
see a world-class dentist. The height of hypocrisy apparently knows no limits when it comes
to dental work and the inviting grin of Mickey Mouse.

In short and simple sovereignty is an illusion that springs from narrow sight and short term
logic. When sovereignty is violated militarily, justified or not, sovereignty is still violated.
Whether the invasion is a culmination of the international community standing up to the
vilest of tyrants or whether the invasion is an act of unilateral dogmatic imperialism matters
not in the eyes of sovereignty. So why does humanity put its faith in this insupportable and
ill-defined concept? The answer is: it doesn’t, at least not those in charge. The nature in
which actors in the international system interact with each other has become a great deal
more normative and less heavy-handed over the last 50 years. Any pragmatic politician
knows that any act of insupportable and unjustified militarism will induce no end of negative
repercussions economically, diplomatically, and militarily (assuming that the country in
question had any clout in these three areas to begin with). This leaves a smaller window for
acceptable acts of tyranny, thus clever forms of that latter have had to adapt themselves to
appear less threatening. This includes finding more subtle ways to violate sovereignty in a
direct or indirect manner.

Where does all this tie into the concept of a human army? Sovereignty is the greatest
argument against the creation of such an entity. If a country spits in the face of the
international community and the powers controlling it long enough the downfall of that
government is inevitable. If there are some practical issues or acts of national necessity
sovereignty will not protect independence. Foreign armies will invade your country,
compromise your culture, and your national dignity. Under the present system, this is
inevitable. So we have but two choices: Continue letting world policemen and dogmatic
imperialists role in economically, socially, and militarily to extract resources for their national
benefit. Or to put our faith in a single international entity, a human army, to intervene
impartially in situations that warrant intervention. This Human army would be an order
restoration force that would be centrally commanded by a group of leaders prescribing to the
human identity and human state. The leadership of such an army would not have an
ideological or national agenda and obviously such a leadership and such a force would have
to prove themselves worthy of such a responsibility. Such an army would primarily concern
themselves with enforcing safe conditions for NGO and aid workers in places of strife and
conflict. Such a presence will streamline the relief process and allow those working for
righteous change in dangerous areas to feel that much safer to allow their numbers to swell
and multiply. This way, the government of the nation-state in question would not have to
expend resources on prolonged and drawn out conflicts allowing them to spend their
resources and time on more constructive pursuits to benefit their people. It is not for someone
such as myself to decide on how such an army would work or necessarily come into being. It
is merely my intention to point out the necessity of one once the semblance of a new
Planetary Order has come into being. Neoists are soldiers of necessity, and it is a necessity for
those conducting operations in hostile areas to be protected. Right now we are expecting
grass-roots Revolutionaries to fight on their own with barely a wing and a prayer. What
academics, politicians, and the like often lose sight of is that at the grassroots level people
aren’t crying out for democracy or social revolution. They’re crying out for jobs, for
opportunities, for progress, stability and peace. Even in so called developed nations peoples’
desires are exceptionally elemental. It isn’t about ideologies, religions, thought systems, or
complex motives; it’s about doing anything that is necessary to give societies the foundations
on which to build their prosperity. If a gang of thugs with guns happens to get in the way of
that cause and that dream, of stopping people fulfilling their elemental needs as humans, the
Human Army stands ready to protect the progress of human civilization and the collective
necessity of survival and progress.

After deliberating on all these points I refer the reader to the title of this chapter: Further from
wrong is no closer to right. This one phrase holds the fabric of this chapter together. We have
seen how the United Nations is a forerunner to a planetary government and how its
peacekeeping forces are precursors to a human army. We have seen that right now, as
disappointing as it may be, the United Nations is the flag ship of the International Cause and
that their efforts to cultivate and expand upon this most powerful of positions have not failed,
but never begun. We are told that no formations like a greater human government or a human
army will come into existence because of sovereignty and other metaphysical constructions
of the International System. This book could systematically lay out all these arguments and
spend chapters coming up with complex rebuttals to defeat them, but we in fact only need
one: It doesn’t take skill or devotion to come up with reasons why epic plans and
revolutionary ideals won’t come to pass. When someone hears the avowals of Neoism or any
other movement with visionary members and devoted leaders and shouts a negative opinion,
let that person say how he would do things differently in his cause, and what’s more, let him
do it. This person, like the UN and all unevolved international institutions, may have pointed
out a solution, but until he devotes himself to do all it takes to manifest that solution in
reality, to make all the modifications necessary in himself and others, he is no closer to right
that any of those he criticizes. We must synthesize courage in the general population so that
they realize that the time for indecision and half-measures is over. Neoism wants the absolute.
We don’t want a loose confederacy of bickering tribes, we want a Planetary Government. We
don’t want small amounts of troops that can only intervene in conflicts only when a group of
nations say they can, we want a Human Army. We don’t want ineffectual and fragmented
resources thrown at problems, we want totalistic and comprehensive solutions grounded in
society and government. Until humanity decides to become holistic and universal in devotion
to their own progress, we will continue to live in a global society that can be best compared
with purgatory. A society which is neither savage nor enlightened.