Scientific Brain Model Chapter X

 CHAPTER X - The Ideology has taken on a life of its own: - As inequality grows - those who benefit of the System impose the single right way of thinking upon everybody and, with that, - as inequality spirals out of control - the countdown is set up for the day the Revolution will start eating Its children.

 * Given the way things work, where are things heading?

The barbarian raiders definitely better do not let all the intellectual effort of the society's great ancestors go to waste, because it would only be foolish to think that love for the goose will be enough to keep them from killing it. Now, if we cannot trust love will save us from digging our own grave, it behoove us to follow the example of the barbarian raiders (for that sake the indigenous peoples' as well) and study past experiences, reason out where things may have gone wrong and so fathom out the rules of Nature. Indeed, If it is a bit of a stretch to argue that barbarian raiders felt any love for the sedentary communities they preyed upon; it should be likewise a bit of a stretch to argue that big corporations could feel any true love for their customers. For instance, certainly nobody is saying that big pharmaceutical corporations wish death to any of their customers; but love, real love ...that is, you know... what you and me mean love, would be a bit of a stretch to define a big corporation's 'feelings'. As any libertarian could explain, there is no logical reason to hate pharmaceutical corporations, since - if only for their own interests - they will always care for the patient's life almost as much as the patient herself. Evidently, if she dies, they will not be able to make any more money from her. However, if we follow the libertarian's logic, we will have to likewise conclude that pharmaceutical corporations will be equally adversed to achieving the patient's full recovery; for, once she is completely cured, they will not be able to make any more money from her. This is certainly not meant to chastize the ethics of pharmaceutical corporations, since - given how things work in this wild and very competitive world - they have little other choice; unless they do not mind to die, that is. As any barbarian raider could explain, just because you accept to dig your own grave, it does not mean that others will do it as well. In other words, by the sheer 'survival of the fittest' rule of Nature, whichever pharmaceutical corporation puts its patients' health and wellbeing before its business interests is destined to go out of business sooner or later.; and so the only corporations that will survive will be those which keep their business front and center. To make a long story short, by the sheer rules of Nature, if health care is left in the hands of capitalist private corporations, the system will naturally converge into a 1984 world, where human beings are kept chronically ill and under heavy medication for as long as possible; yikes! By the way, does anybody know how come (non-embrionic) stem-cell therapies are confronted with such insurmountable obstacles and belligerent opposition, despite the fact that there is a scientific consensus - as unique and extraordinary as overwhelming -, that stem-cells are a much safer and effective treatment than pharmaceutical drugs and prostheses? Yikes!, yikes!, yikes!

Well, given these dreadful prospects, we may want to reconsider if, after all, perhaps, barbarian raiders could actually have felt genuine love for the sedentary communities they were leeching off... You see? I told you! love is at the very heart of human nature, all our actions ultimately circle around love and it is only because we are this way that we have achieved such fantastic and stunning levels of development, security and comfort. In fact, we would not even be here anymore, if it were not for love. Yet, you thought that I was only full of it, did you not?

Unfortunately, our world today is in the hands of giant overpowering private corporations, and these - other than insatiable greed - definitely are not known to have any comprehension of any feelings, let alone feel any love. And, if by any chance they do, their actions most certainly do not speak to it. Quite to the contrary, heartless as they are, corporations strictly follow the System's ideology to the letter, word by word, as it flows from the lips of the financial markets. Absolutely, you do not need me to tell you, that money is at the very core of our system's ideology. In our fake-democratic world, everything circles around money. In fact, money makes the world go round. True, money does not bring happiness, but it helps. It actually feels like a million bucks; but money does not grow on trees. Money talks, indeed. Long story short, as any reckless, self-liquidating, careless and heartless barbarian raider would say, all what matters is money. But you did not need anybody to tell you, did you? You already knew all this, did you not?

Indeed, as children we are told by our elders about the supreme importance of money: it does not bring happyness but it certainly helps. Remarkably, as Graeber and Wengrow relate in their fascinating recount on the indigenous critique to Western Civilization, it is basically the opposite advice youths in indigenous North America (for that matter anywhere in the indigenous world) used to received; at least until Europeans started lecturing everybody on how things actually work. There is a clear and strong difference between them and us, though: the teachings we receive do not come from any ancestral wisdom; but we go by what we are told in school, Church and the Media. This obviously gives us a much wider view of the entire world. OK, indigenous folks may argue that their superior knowledge on the benefits of prescribed burning proves they are actually smarter than us; but we know well that the reality is a bit more complex. We go by the historical and scientific facts, after - as methodically as rigorously and thoroughly - collecting and analyzing all the data and evidence. Indigenous oral traditions may have been able to extract some incredibly valuable insights on how things work from the Cahokian nightmare; but - as eye-opening or enlightening as the Cahokian episode may have been - our historians and archeologists have been researching and studying all sorts of civilizations and peoples from all ages from all around the world. Those who believe in the existence of certain people gifted with a privileged brain, may still be ready to give that Native Americans' ancestors should have included some truly extraordinarily-beautiful minds; but, when all was said and done, who wiped out whom?

    

Except all our data coincides point by point, and confirms word by word the indigenous North Americans' observations on Cahokia. Indeed, it is not known of one single big civilization, that has been able to maintain for more than a few centuries a state of widespread growth, prosperity and wellbeing. It is not just that all big civilizations (for that matter all complex societies in general) have failed; but most of them - not unlike Cahokia - ended catastrophically. Western historians are particularly well acquainted with the Roman Empire and its Carthaginian nemesis. In this context, especially informative is a well-known anecdote from Rome's final victory. - As Mike Dunkin relates in "The Storm Before The Storm" - as the commanding Roman general stood watching Carthage burn, "Scipio reflected on the fate of this once great power. Overcome with emotion, he cried. His friend and mentor Polybius approached and asked why Scipio was crying."

"A glorious moment, Polybiius; but I have a dread foreboding that some day the same doom will be pronounced on my own country." Scipio then quoted a line from Homer: "A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish, And Priam and his people shall be slain."

As Mike concludes, "Scipio knew that no power endures indefinitely, that all empires must fall." And fall Rome did, indeed; and fall they all did, indeed.

It is certainly questionable if the conversation really ever took place - the details get usually blurred with time -; but the core message, the moral of the story of Scipio's (true or just purely fictional) forboding did not only survive, but proved to be incredibly prophetic; since that memorable day of Rome's final victory - as historians have long recognized - marked the exact time all Hell broke loose and things started going down the drain for the Roman Republic. Indeed, with the death of Carthage, Rome gained full control over the fabulous gold and silver mines in Spain. As it always happens, the exuberant influx of riches totally ruined the Roman Republic. As it always happens, wealth always sticks to the fingers of just a few, and - as any indigenous North American could tell you - the resulting grotesque inequality sowed the seeds of destruction of the Roman Republic.

        

It is not likely that Scipio's forboding had been a coincidence. There is a good case to be made, that our instinct is continuously and tirelessly making projections into the future. It is just that in most cases, the predicted reverberations are not relevant enough to attract the attention of our reason. Obviously, we only get weather alerts when something big is going to happen. Otherwise, if the prospects look good, we just feel happy. Now, not always is it convenient to listen to our gut. It is good and all to care for what the future may bring; but before we start thinking about tomorrow, we need to eat today. 

It is certainly understandable that Scipio did not take his forboding more seriously. Definitely, not only nobody would have understood, but undoubtedly everybody have got outraged, if he had called off the siege and spare Carthage from its fatal fate. In all likelihood he would have been accused of treason and very severely punished for it. Besides, there is no way he could have known that becoming the hegemon of the Mediterrenean would lead to the inequality cause of his nation's destruction.

       

It is , however, as inexplicable as outright stupid to repeat the same choice of the past, knowing it had fatal consequences. Indeed, knowing as they knew full well about the utter disaster of the Roman Republic - as evidenced by the unabating political upheaval and horrific civil wars that led to its catastrophic collapse -, it is simply unforgivable that the founding fathers chose to follow the example for the new nation. It was not just a choice between the lesser of to evils - namely, monarchy or oligarchy -; but the new system was designed to the model of the Roman Republic. Granted that the founding fathers had not been raised under any ethos or culture contrary to inequality. Quite the opposite, all civilizations' ideologies have always exalted the superior nature of an elite of 'aristocratic- individuals over the rest of the population. Indeed, the 'aristos' were the 'best' in the society. In fact, if there has ever been any concern with inequality, it has been to caution those who matter in the society against the rise of any authoritarian figure - a so-called tyrant -, who could abuse the other aristocrats and dare to curtail the freedoms of the lords to dispose of their social lessers as they saw fit. For instance, the medieval French aristocracy saw as an intolerable, outrageous encroachment on their freedoms, King Louis IX's relentless efforts to prosecute Enguerran (Lord of Coucy), for hanging three boys caught poaching rabbits in the aristocrat's forests: ‘Sweet France can no longer be called that’, lamented the lyrics of a song addressed to France’s nobles. ‘Now she is known as the land of subjects… I would much prefer to remain master of my fief.’ (excerpt from Justine Firnhaber-Baker's excellent book: "House of Lilies").

Remarkably, the discourse is definitely strikingly analogous to that of our revolutionary founding fathers. After all, if the landed, slave-owning colonial aristocracy had (in the name of freedom) revolted and called their social lessers into war against the English tyrant King, for his relentless efforts to collect taxes from them; no one can call oneself to any surprise, that they had the same ideas and views on how the world should work. Evidently, we do not adopt the ideas which our brain's intelligent agent finds more logical; but just go by the mentality we have been raised on, and only later may adapt it to whatever fits our interests best. In fact, in the Bill of Rights, there is not a single so-called right meant to ensure equal opportunities among all the people of the nation (that is, equal access to good education, health care, justice, etc.). Rather, they are only conserned with restricting the power of the government and protecting those suspected of having broken the Law. You see... the government can never be trusted, especially so if the government is by the people.

Probably the best and most obscene example of our ideology's exaltation of inequality is the right to legal representation. The sheer concept of the right speaks to its contradiction: if a counsel is necessary in order to receive a fair trial, it means the scales can be tilted. The veredict will not only weigh in the evidence and the facts, but the counsel's arguments as well. In fact, if so much emphasis is placed on the right to legal counsel, it is obviously because its weight is not just anecdotal, but decisive. There is obviously a reason why the very fake-Democracy's courts stress so much the advice of hiring a good attorney. Now, that would all be all right, if everybody could have equal access to a "good attorney"; but, since attorneys are as good as high are their fees, only those privileged with a big bank account, will get the court's ears. In other words, under fake-Democracy justice is for sale.   

If the employees of a powerful private charity organization break into your apartment and seize your belongings, the head of the organization will solemnly affirm that, as a matter of fact, the Constitution does not apply in your case. As you stand there in disbelief, no other than a police officer will come to confirm, that, in your specific case, the Constitution does not apply, indeed. After all, if the Children are willing to believe that Santa comes every Christmas Day, then they will surely fall for anything a prominent figure may say. The whole point of the Law and Civilization itself was that the Law is public domain, so that everybody could understand the rules of the game. However, with the advent of fake-Democracy, the Law became obscure and complex (if not all the way esoteric), so that the powerful attorney and Your Honor the Crook can make up a loophole in the Law, with which to take the common, self-represented citizen for a ride. In theory, judges are given ample discretion, so that, if there is a loophole in the Law, the judge can appeal to the spirit of the law to sort out the issue for the given situation. However, in reality, what actually happens is that, if the letter of the law does not quite suit the wealthy litigant's powerful attorney, Your Honor the Crook will use his or her discretion to still rule in favor of the wealthy litigant. Yes, our fake-Democracy is truly repugnant, indeed.

           

At the beginning of the second millennium B.C., tyrant King Hamurabi of Babylon elaborated in Ancient Mesopotamia one of the first legal codes in human history, in order to "protect the people, especially the weakest among them, from the strongest, who constantly prey on them." Regrettably, 4000 years later the legal system has degenerated to the degree, that now it is the strongest who employs the courts to abuse the weakest. The old Medieval Church used to sell indulgences to the wealthiest individuals to save them a place in Heaven. In contrast, today it is possible to hire a 'powerful' lawyer with a good connection with the District Crook, in order to have one's own paradise right here on Earth. To make a long story short, fake-Democracy offers the best justice your money can buy.

 

Definitely, we do not have to worry about barbarian raids anymore; violence is no longer an acceptable venue to resolve disputes. The barbarians had eventually come down from their hilltop forts and built themselves castles from where the new lords could ravage with absolute impunity. Violence was then morally accepted, since it was executed in the name of God. Those were the days where there was no state, and the King was the only law, but He did not have any way to enforce it. It was only after many years of constant warfare, that technology developed to a point that His Majesty finally had the means to consolidate the lands of the realm, build state institutions and finally bring the lords into submission. That was the time the wealthiest families of the realm understood the need to unite and depose the tyrant. Now that the State is controlled by the upper class, the State has the monopoly on violence and there is otherwise zero tolerance. Lords are today business people and they are willing to negotiate with the commonfolk. If, by any chance, we consider we have been scammed or somehow taken for a ride, we are free to take the matter to the crooks system. If we decide to go through the expense and trouble, we will find in horror, that the District Court will systematically resolve the dispute in favor of the party paying the most money in attorney fees. In other words, under the new fake-democratic system, the wealthiest families will get ever richer, whereas the poorest families will get ever poorer. Given that these are the basic dynamics of a (catastrophic) system runaway, we can only wonder, what kind of fool may like such a toxic and destructive ideology. Why do our brains' intelligent agents struggle so much to get to grips with the fact, that the goose that lays the golden eggs is going to die, if it gets leeched off to its very last drop of blood?

Now, it is certainly lamentable that our founding fathers had such an odious mentality; but as bad as these news are, the good news is that we do not go by our ancestral traditions anymore, but we go by the historical and scientific facts, and this obviously gives us a much wider view of the entire world. True, unless we go to graduate school, rarely ever are we able to have direct access to any scientist or true historian, but Media offers us the opportunity to listen to those experts at the cutting edge of human knowledge. We certainly need to be careful who we listen to; given all the scams and crazy conspiracies out there, it is not like you can just trust anybody. Yet, whether we like it or not, we definitely need a good expert's insight, because this worl is so freakingly complicated, that, without it, it is basically impossible to form oneself a clear idea on the world's big issues. For instance, how on Earth is anyone going to know, whether tariffs are good or bad in the long run for the Economy? If tariffs are detrimental to international trade, it stands to reason that, in the short term, they will have a negative impact. However, if tariffs discourage corporations from outsourcing jobs and manufacture, then it would be good for the national economy in the long run. Yet, it is questionable to what extent raising tariffs will actually persuade big companies to bring their business back home. Besides, high tariffs are likely to raise inflation, and, as far as we know, the experts consider that to be negative... Long story short, it is just too complicated; however, there is still something we can be certain about: the way things work, if your livelihoods depend on international trade, you will adamantly think tariffs are bad for the Economy, as much as you will adamantly think they are good for the Economy, if your job has been, or is about to be, outsourced overseas.

Now, if we depend on mass-Media to gather all the facts required, in order to be able to form ourselves a clear idea on the big issues; - given that mass-Media is controlled by the wealthiest families in the society - it follows that the way of thinking Media is going to promote is the upper class' view of how things should work. Horror of horrors! We put the fox to guard the hen house! Indeed, it is not just that everybody in the Media keeps repeating over and over again that our so-called Democracy is the best system ever conceived, and on every election day they fervently encourage us to go to the polls to cast our votes and defend our "wonderful Democracy'; but they share the exact same mentality and ideological mindset than our oligarchical, landed, slave-owning founding fathers; namely, there are some people, who is more intelligent, talented or simply better than others and they deserve all what they got, because they must have worked really hard for it. These superbly gifted individuals should be totally free to amass the most obscenes fortunes, because the wealth they keep for themselves is nothing compared to what they create for the nation. It is the idea behind the American Dream, signature of our fake-democratic fatherland: If you are talented and work hard, it is promised you will be sumptuously successful. Admittedly, it would not seem to unreasonable too consider unpatriotic and perfidious anything but full adherence to such a lofty principle, if it were not because it hides a grim unspoken corollary; namely, if you did not achieve success, it is because either you never worked much or you are rather dumb, or - most likely - both of them together. Thus, don't you bitch about the nation and go on pathetically whining about the lack of opportunities you received; for not only is it unpatriotic, but you only have yourself to blame for your sorry state of affairs. Needless to say, neither is there ever made any mention of the ghastly horror shows that one day after another play out in the abominable, monstrous and truly repugnant, evil Crooks System, thanks to our founding fathers heinous privilege to legal counsel and get out of jail card. To make a truly grotesque and monstrous story short, under the current fake-democratic system, kids born to wealthy families receive all the opportunities necessary to succeed, whereas kids born to poor families find nothing but hurdles in their way; so that - when all is said and done - the wealthiest families will get ever richer, whereas the poorest families will get ever poorer. It then certainly does not take the brightest bulb in the room, nor the sharpest pencils among us to understand why inequality has soared to such grotesque levels.

Unfortunately, we cannot even hope that love will finally come to save the day for the goose that lays the golden eggs, from the barbarian raiders' reckless voracity. The problem is obviously not that mass-Media journalists are nothing but heartless individuals, who do not care for us; but are only concerned with indoctrinating the citizenship into the values and ideology , which serve the basis for the exploitation of the commonfolk by the upper class. Of course journalists care for us, or have you not seen how devastated they are whenever there is any calamity. OK, if you have ever tried to bring any issue to the Media's attention; - unless it was a case of political corruption - chances are you may have been greatly disappointed with the cold response you received (assuming you received any response at all). However, you need to understand, that it is not like mass-Media can get preoccupied with every little issue going on. I mean, seriously, if barbarian raiders ever came to allow a bit of breathing room to the sedentary communities they preyed upon, it is not because they came to love those sedentary folks. It may be funny to joke about it; but, let us get real, love was not what dissuaded barbarian raiders from looting everything they could from their sedentary preys. Regardless, we should not take verbatim journalists dramatism; or are you sure you really love your siblings as much as you always swear to mom you do, or it is more like that you came to learn, that she loves to hear you saying so?

If lack of love is not the problem, neither can we hope to find causes for our societies' current sorry state of affairs, in some sort of disagreement over the pernicious effects of inequality. Rather, nobody seems to keep any doubt that our societies would function much better, if there would be a reasonably balanced distribution of wealth and resources; but, oddily enough, - as much as our societies' brightest bulbs have been racking their brains - everybody appears to be at a lost on where all that obscene inequality comes from. For instance, in line with fake-Democracy's ideology, Graeber and Wengrow suggest that perhaps the degradation of women's working conditions in the temple factories of Ancient Sumer may have been the starting point of "how we have got stuck in a social reality, where relations based ultimately on violence and domination came to be normalized". It is, however, unclear how the improvement of the working condition of women in said temple factories would have help the men being grinded to death, working under the most inhumane conditions in the quarries. Unless, of course, the reasoning is that, given women's natural prodigious talent and ingenuity, - as Lisa Simpson could tell you - if they were given better opportunities, they would not only invent bread (as Graeber and Wengrow hypothesize), but they would be able to boost innovation and technological development, for the benefit of everybody in the society. Alternatively (as our fake-democratic way of thinking enjoys to suggest) perhaps the Homer Simpsons being grinded to death in the quarries were only being punished by God for their natural abusive tendencies; in which case, certainly, nobody would have any good reason to be much concerned with their gruesome fate.

Now, the concern over inequality, as morally appalling as it certainly is, has also important  (if not outright critical) practical ramifications. Indeed, if you are all powerful,  you will be less inclined to feel any appreciation for your social lessers. I mean, I do not know about you in particular, but aristocrats and rich people alike never exhibited any esteem for the unwashed masses. Why waste energies cajoling, when you can just bark your orders around? Why go through the pain of a serpentine route, if you can just take the straight line? It is certainly reasonable to question, that (as I contend) love evolved to encourage the social animal to keep the long-term in mind and seek cooperation with other individuals; but it nevertheless serves the purpose.

It is rather pathetic to listen to the grotesquely disingenuous criticism of current political scientists and historians alike against the nearsighted, self-loving and self-serving ways of Late Roman Republic's senators, as compared to the high-mindedness and virtue of their Middle Republic counterparts. If, right after the fall of Carthage, Roman senators started acting far more selfishly than what they had done one - two centuries earlier; it is clearly because they were now living in a poles-apart world and they had to negotiate totally different circumstances. Obviously, the Roman Republic senators' DNA had not change; hence, it could not be that something inherent to them had gone so terribly wrong. It is certainly disingenuous to argue that Late Republic senators should have followed the example of their counterparts two centuries earlier; since Middle Republic senators had undoubtedly exhibited the very same selfishness, if they had been born in the I century BC, whereas Late Republic senators had been every bit as virtuous and high-minded, if they had been born during the times of the Middle Republic. If the Roman senators of the III century BC were ready to set their selfish interests aside and ultimately kept Rome's priorities front and center; it is because their life was on the line: namely, Hannibal had them on the ropes and they had no other choice than to work together, or they were not going to make it out alive. Evidently, if Julius Caesar had lived during Hannibal's invasion, the Roman senators would have never wanted to assassinate such a successful general. Basically, if there was something wrong about the ethos in which Late-Roman-Republic senators were raised, the blame has to be put on the society's ethos, rather than the individual persons themselves. Moreover, if the Republic was rotten, what had been the point of giving one's life in the hope of keeping it alive?

Let us be honest, we all look after our own interests; but we will be sure to adjust the level of aggressivity we should employ, based on what we consider will be the most successful strategy. If you so happen to be a small fish in the pond, it does not seem a smart approach to take on a bossy personality. If a spoiled child acts selfishly and capriciously; the blame should be on the parents who spoiled it, not on the child's supposedly inherent corrupt and selfish nature. Similarly, if the barbarian raiders had a limitless pool of sedentary communities at their disposal, they would never have had to care for their preys' subsistance, in order to ensure their own long-term likelihoods. Long story short, the way things work, this kind of obscene inequality will lead us to dig our own grave, by killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Let us accept it, regardless of the degree to which human beings are capable of logical thinking and making rational choices on the basis of such virtue, fact of the matter is, if the System works for you, you are going to love it, and if the System does not work for you, if you get the rough end of the stick, you are going to hate it. Just the same, come Hell or high water, nobody will ever recognize his or her triumph was out of luck or privilege. Or, have you ever met any wealthy person, who ever admitted his fortune had not been the result of his or her talent and hard work; but in actuality was only the natural consequence of the privileged opportunities he or she received? Now, if the most knowledgeable among us say our so-called Democracy is the best invention after peanut butter, who are you to doubt it?

OK, OK... our so-called "Democracy is not perfect; but, at least, it is better than nothing"... Yet, if he does not love you, the argument according to which it is better than nothing that, at least, he keeps telling you he loves you, is not just idiotic but repugnantly disingenuous. If he does not love you, you want to know the truth, before you go to bed with him and become pregnant from a man, who tomorrow will be depredating on a different woman. Clearly, the worst oligarchy is the one that fakes to be a democracy; for the same reasons that the worst illness is the one, that does not produce symptoms. Indeed, any merchant could tell you that the best selling strategy requires to display special affection for the prospect buyer. Or, would you ever dare to reveal to mom, that you do not exactly love your siblings as much as you always say?

Here again, the mistake is to frame the argument in moral terms. What fool would want to poop where he or she eats? Are you sure it had not backfired , if - as a little child - you had revealed to your mother, that you do not quite love your siblings as much as you always swore? Fact of the matter is the barbarian raiders' families (elders, women, children...) had never accepted, even less understood, that their leaders would have kept any concern for the sedentary folks' livelihoods and have done anything less than sacking the hell out of them, as if there were no tomorrow. The way things work, a leader has always been valued for the amount of bacon he brought home, not for his vision for the future. If any challenger had more to offer, who had time to listen to the old loser's words of wisdom? For all what matters to the people, if the goose that lays the golden eggs dies, what is the problem with starting leeching off the next door's goose that lays the golden eggs. Indeed, as any North American white settler could tell you and any Native American would confirm, those peoples who prey upon their environment as if there were no tomorrow are more competitive than those who appreciate and care for it. As all empires have shown, from Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire or the Carolingian Empire, as long as the scheme expands from one door to the next, there should not be any concern that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but sky is the limit.

Today, it is easy to criticize Late-Roman-Republic senators for their self-serving ways; but, if there was no central authority, it was not any single person's fault, that the Roman Republic was going down the drain, . Clearly, if there is inequality, there is a privileged elite. If - not unlike nowadays - there is no central authority, the only peaceful option to restore the society to a reasonable balance is to convince the most wealthy to give up their privileges. Needless to say, not only is it unseen the case, where a privileged class has voluntarily stepped down, but whenever an incautious central authority figure dared to put the wealthy under dures, they have always fought tooth and nail to maintain (if not further grow) their privileged position. Hence - not unlike any individual politician today - any individual Late-Republic senator had all reasons to reckon, it was most absolutely hopeless to try to fix the System. 

It is not reasonable then to criticize any individual Late-Republic senator (or, for that matter, any individual politician today) for his unwillingness to tilt at wind mills. Here are again those who live in crystal houses going about throwing stones around. Indeed, if there is something on this planet, that journalists, reknown intellectuals and public-opinion leaders alike love more than Homer Simpson enjoys eating with his hands, it is to haul today's politicians over the coals. It is certainly appalling that - giving all the problems in today's societies: criminality, homelessness, mental health disorders, environmental degradation, unemployment, social injustice... - politicians remain most absolutely aloof to the citizenship's struggles and hardships, and instead are only concerned with their very own ambition for power and wealth. For journalists and public-opinion leaders alike the lessons from History could not be more self-explanatory to anybody who wants to see them: namely, it was the exact insensitivity and disregard for the people's suffering, how Late Roman-Republic senators brought up the destruction of their "democracy". Instead of working together to address the gross inequality, deplorable living conditions and chilling poverty, that afflicted the commonfolk,; all what Late-Roman-Republic politicians could think of was how to destroy their rivals and advance their power and wealth even further, thereby causing even further social unrest and instability. 

Yet, at some point journalists and public-opinion leaders alike could think of ever practicing what they preach and suiting a little their actions to their words: namely, at some point journalists and public-opinion leaders alike may want to consider, if - beyond the lofty name they chose to give to the spawn - perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong in our system's foundations, that explains why all politicians without exception turn out to be so corrupt, self-serving and self-loving. Perhaps there is anyone with any voice in the public arena, who does not find utterly repugnant our very odd concept of justice, where those with enough money to hire an attorney enjoy a decisive advantage to get a favorable ruling from the crook system? We all understand it is a shame that in average women earn lower salaries than their male peers. Certainly, any explanation according to which the reason for this bias is, that in average women are less intelligent than men, not only does not make any sense, but is just plain stupid. Rather we do not turn much the question over in our mind, before we conclude, that the explanation must be somehow related to a significant difference in the level of opportunities available to women. Yet, for some very odd reason, we do not apply the very same logic to analyze, why - compared to people of high socio-economic origin - folks of low socio-economic origin have in average lower income, experience homelessness at higher rates, or are more likely to spend incarcerated the best years of their lives. As it turns out, to the eyes of the most educated and brightest light bulbs among us, it is more of a ethical concern a woman's lower salary, than a low-class man's much higher likelihood to end up being homeless or incarcerated, as compared to a man of high socio-economic origin. Obviously, this is not just an example of the most obscene double standards, but categorical proof that the educated elite's faminism and expressions of care for the livelihood and wellbeing of women is most absolutely fake. Clearly, the lack of opportunities to which the current system subjects the lower classes does not only affect to men, but to women quite as much if not even more. Indeed, there is a good case to be made that - under the fake-democratic system - the lives of middle- and lower-class women has suffered the most severe deterioration. For only one thing, middle- and lower-class women are now required to take on a paid job, whether they like it or not. Evidently, - even more so than ever before - the claim of some superior moral standards - as bogus as this generally turns out to be - is fundamental to the maintenance of a higher social status. As we all have always intuitively known, if you want anyone to follow you and do as you say, you better make a good case, that you are a person of utmost integrity, who fervently adheres to the System's moral values. In fact, given that we all never can get enough love, we are constantly striving to present ourselves as a good person, who loves and cares those other beautiful souls around us; but will never want to accept, that in our modern, (heavily civilized) societies everybody has been taught to make a pretense of his or her feelings. By the way, I forgot to ask, how are you doing today?       

   

Now, given that all this dysfunctionalities are endemic to our modern societies - far more so than to traditional societies -, it is difficult to see how any individual politician - as powerful as this may be - can be blame for them. In fact, there is a really good case to be made that the whole point of the so very revered fake-democratic system's principle of 'separation of powers' is precisely to ensure no individual person is ever able to accumulate enough power to threaten fake-Democracy's status quo of privilege and inequality. Definitely, it does not seem possible to escape the conclusion that - despite all what journalists and public opinion leaders alike may argue it is better than anything we have had before - our fake-democratic system is utterly repugnant through and through. There is really no wonder why founding father Benjamin Franklin could anticipate how it would become so hard to keep our republic. It was certainly difficult to see any way how the spawn they engendered would not end up devouring us all.

     In fact, as History shows, in Rome's times it had been much more difficult to move the Senate than it is today. The Roman Senate was The Power; whereas fake-Democracy's Government By The People is only fake. Power has always been power; either you had the power to get your way or you had not. The retelling according to which there is a Political Power distinct from the Economic Power is only our fake-democratic ideology's recent invention. Not only does money make the world go round, but money is what gets civilized humans going. Evidently, whoever owns the money will be able to build sufficient following to sway the government in any direction. Journalists and public-opinion leaders alike always resort on the very pathetic "not perfect, but better than nothing" argument to disparage, divert and dismantle the slightest hint to start an inquire or critic examination of the fake-democratic system. Yet, the implicit suggestion that it is not possible to make it any better, could not be more obscenely disingenuous. There are certainly ways to reduce the countless grotesque System's unbalances and injustices; but, obviously, only those who get the short end of the stick will feel the motivation to look for ideas.

For instance, Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber did not need to resort on any rocket-scientist light bulb, in order to come up with a plan to send to the judiciary the most thunderous, powerful message of "Zero tolerance on (alleged) abuse or sexual assault". Evidently, Professor Dauber was most absolutely outraged by Judge Persky's leniency in the Chanell Miller's alleged sexual assault case. In early 2016, celebrating that her sister was back home for a visit, Palo Alto resident Chanell Miller went to a pary at a Stanford University fraternity house. Chanell was determined to have some fun and so did not waste time at the party, before she started drinking as if there were no tomorrow. A few hours later, Chanell was found together with Stanford athlete Brock Turner, totally intoxicated, lying on the lawn outside the house. One year later, Brock was convicted by a jury of three counts of sexual assault, for his failure to understand that - intoxicated as she was - Chanell was in no condition to decide whether she wanted to go ahead with a sexual encounter. As the rules of our system establish, it is the jury's responsibility to make a guilty or innocent veredict; but the judge is then allowed ample discretion to assess the precise circumstances of the case to determine an exact sentence. California law at the time established a maximum of 14 years in prison for the type of crime Brock had been convicted of; however, Judge Persky deemed a lower (6 months) sentence was more appropriate. After all, it does not seem completely out of mind to question to what extent, it had been Brock's responsibility to ensure that the Virgin Mary would not act injudiciously; even more so considering that he himself was drunk as well. Let us be honest for once, if the girl does never reject any advance, how many drunken 19-year old men in a alcohol, drugs and sex fraternity-house party would not have continued moving forward? Moreover, it is likewise controversial to what extent Brock's oversight warranted 14 years in prison (or the 3-years minimum the new law now establishes). For such a subjective question, reasonably enough, the Law does not determine any exact answer, but - as it is usually said - it is basically impossible, that both parties to a case of this sort will ever be happy with any given sentence. In fact, outraged as she was, Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber understood that the most effective course of action for her cause was to start a campaign for a recall vote. The movement, however, did not proceed free from criticism from the legal community: There was indeed an overwhelming consensus among law professionals and legal analysts, that Judge Persky had applied the Law correctly and there were no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, violation of any judicial ethical obligation or any bad faith in the judge's actions. This is so much so that the very Santa Clara County district attorney, who had prosecuted the case did not find enough grounds to appeal Judge Persky's sentence. Regardless, none of these calls to protect the independence of the judiciary was able to placate the popular wrath the campaign had incited, and Judge Persky therefore became in June 2018 the first judge to be recalled in the United States since 1977, as if - incredibly enough - his sentence had been the most injudicious in that period of time. Professor Dauber's message to the judiciary could not be louder nor clearer: from here on out, if a woman ever makes any allegation of abuse or sexual assault against any man, by hook or by crook, the guy will have to be burned at the stakes, or else... It should then not come to anyone's surprise that just five months later another young woman only needed to say, she had forgotten to mention her blind husband had been abusing her all throughout their 6-years-long marriage, in order to be handed out an order of protection against him two-and-a-half years after they separated and stopped having any contact. Professor Dauber's message called out the judiciary to be more supportive towards survivors of abuse and sexual assault; however, as Brock Turner and this blind guy could tell you, at some point it would be good if we also ever have any consideration for the survivors of false allegations of abuse and sexual assault; thank you very much.    

    

Given the above, it is possible to suggest a model explaining how, under the current fake-democratic ideology, the justice system has slowly evolved to the current corrupt state. There are all reasons to believe that any human being judge would want to do what is right and adjudicate the legal disputes among citizens in a fair manner, according to what the Law dictates and the available evidence indicates. However, if - no matter what - there will always be a party extremely unhappy with the sentence and the outrage of said unhappy party may lead to severe consequences for said judge; it is only natural that the courts will slowly adapt their operation to hand down those rulings, which will cause less trouble to the judge; Obviously, it never seems a good idea to ruffle a powerful attorney's feathers; who knows, the judge may miss the next promotion. However, if the case is the kind of high profile story, that is likely to attract the attention of the general public; then, if the customary shredding to pieces of the small fish bears the risk of ever provoking the wrath of the populace; then the small fish will get a good chance of coming out on top. The case will indeed be a formidable opportunity for the fake-democratic ideology to proclaim and propagandize its beneficence, benevolence and humanity. Yes, the way the System works, judges enjoy ample discretion. However, we were never told that the whole point of said discretion is to allow the judge sufficient room to manoeuvre a ruling in accordance to whatever fits the System's ideology's interests best. Still, as bad as this news are, the good news are that, in the same way that the system was corrupted, it can be as easily be fixed back up. 

We like to appeal to morality in order to guide others through the right path; however, whatever is right and whatever is wrong is obviously always subject to the eye of the beholder. Definitely, we will say that someone acted correctly, if he behaves in our benefit; whereas we will say he acted incorrectly, if he does otherwise. It is, for instance, easy to demand politicians to act with the common good always front and center; but then no journalist or public-opinion leader will ever dare to say a word against the evil fake-democratic monster, since - if no one will ever be able to fix the System - it is only foolish to go against the grain. Yet, what terrible consequences are we so afraid of, that we do not even dare to say a word? If it is so difficult to fix the System, it is because no one will ever be foolish enough to take the first step. Indeed, given that we all agree that it is impossible to fix the System, it would only be foolish to follow the one fool, who thinks he can save the world. Yes, when it comes to handing out advice, we ask everybody to be considerate of other people's interests; however, when it comes to pondering what is that we will do, - as we can see - it is only smart to assume that everybody will follow our very same model of behavior: namely, selecting the course of action we reckon will yield us the greatest benefit.

To make a long story short, if we frame the argument in moral terms, we will always view as good those who say to care for us and act in our favor, whereas the bad guys will always be those who do not. We will so repeat making the same mistake - the abuse and exploitation of the weak by the powerful (i.e. those with sufficient resources to offer patronage to a greater follwing) - for - so long the ideology serves our interests - we will support it as if there were no tomorrow.

* The Ideology has taken on a life of its own and - much like regular cells to the organism it belongs to - humans have become slaves to it.

What fool would want to bite the hand that feeds him or her? What purpose would it serve? What foolish journalist would dare to criticize our fake-democratic system and be immediately ostracized? If the most knowledgeable among us say our so-called Democracy is the best invention after peanut butter, who are you to argue against it? Given all the scams and crazy conspiracies out there, it is not like we can just trust anybody. 

Yes, fake-Democracy's ideology has taken on a life of its own. Far more so than a parasitic pathogen, if anybody tries to shake it off, it will fight tooth and nail for its survival. We all, big and small, have been indoctrinated by the most educated and knowledgeable among us - those privileged by the System - into the belief that, with the American and French Revolutions, our revolutionary founding fathers set us all free; but in reality it was only the Ideology which broke out free. As the King's head was chopped off, the Ideology's bond to the King was severed and it went from being the Royal Ideology to be haled as the System Ideology. As a matter of fact, from then on out humans became slaves to the Ideology, much like any regular cell to the organism it belongs to: Indeed, no matter how evil, ruthless and harmful the System may be, no single human being will ever have enough power to change it. Any importan decision requires the agreement of many different people, and - even if one or more persons may quixotically try to come up with some strange radical and groundbreaking idea - the ideology dominating the overwhelming majority will always prevail, get imposed and re-establish order. Who would want to risk losing the perks of the current status quo? Certainly not the (very much indoctrinated) majority. Certainly not those who benefit the most from the current status quo. Certainly not those with any sway to make any significant change. We all know it, whoever does not abide and follow the values, principles and orders of fake-Democracy will be replaced and thrown into irrelevance and oblivion. It is very symptomatic that - despite the very trumpeted freedom of speech - no single person dares to say in public a single word of criticism against our so-called Democracy. Yes, we enjoy freedom of speech; but - if there is separation of powers and no single person has control over the System - what is the point of criticizing an individual person for the monstrous System's inhumanity? In fact, the fight against the evil System is so hopeless that the Ideology's clergy has even been able to convince us, that Don Quixote's fight against the evil giants is as futile and foolish as tilting at wind mills.     

 complex dynamical systems as humankind either find a stable state where to converge or spiral off into chaos and disappear. As any parasitic pathogen could tell you, leeching off your host as if there were no tomorrow, works only until the pool of hosts is exhausted. As any historian could tell you, all "civilized" societies, as fantastic as they appeared at their climax, failed soon after they stopped expanding. Arguably, an exception to this rule is the emperors' Roman Empire ; but - tellingly enough - there was a strong central authority, the rest of the aristocrats and magnates alike had very little power, nobody was allowed to possess more wealth than the emperor, and pretty much anybody with a strong military record could aspire to become emperor regardless of his social origin. If the DNA of our society - our way of thinking - is that those gifted with a privileged brain bulb should be free to amass wealth to their insatiable heart's content; - not unlike any other pyramidal scheme - the system is only going to work so long there are still unfortunate souls left from where to siphon off wealth. If we have not yet arrived at a 1984-like society (and it would be really hard to argue we are not), the way things work, the dynamics of our current fake-democratic system most absolutely inexorably lead us to such a horrific and terrifying world. Now, unfit as such a society is, 1984 is the last stage before we disappear. Hopefully, there will be somebody left to learn the lessons and take it from there. To make a long story short, as much as we will never know if the social arrangements reviewed by Graeber and Wengrow resulted from conscious choices, we can say with certainty that, if fake-Democracy was one such conscious choice, it most definitely was a really foolish and suicidal one.

* What is our intelligent agent's choice?, true democracy or is our current fake-Democracy spawn as far as the most privileged and gifted brain light bulbs among us are able to think up?

Now, as bad as these news are, the good news are that human beings are certainly capable of logical thinking and making rational, conscious choices on the basis of such virtue. It is just that as humanity's knowledge has increased to such staggering levels, it is becoming less and less practical to rack our brains. Are you really sure you can get the wheel any better? You do not think it would be smarter to just learn what other people has already figured out? If only everybody would have access to the most relevant and sensitive knowledge... Yes! that is the key of the whole problem: a few have appropriated the most relevant and sensitive knowledge. Indeed, there is no sensible reason why we should abide to any such odious ideology; it just takes us to come to terms and become aware of its evil foundations and cause. Indeed, if there is one really good thing about fake-Democracy is that it only takes the people to skip Election Day and the whole monster falls apart. In fact, given how much we all despise the entire political class and how well aware we are of their hypocritical ways and self-serving motives, the truly perplexing incongruity is why do we all, one election after another, so religiously go to the polls to vote them into office. Obviously, - not unlike little naive children follow their parents' guidance - we have come to blindly believe in anything we are told by the most educated and knowledgeable among us. It then stands to reason that, if only journalists were democratically elected - rather than selected and maintained by the wealthiest among us -; - since it is only foolish to poop where one eats - journalists would serve the interests of the people - rather than the upper class', as it is currently the case -. There are all reasons to expect that, as public opinion finally breaks out free from the priveleged's control, journalists' ingenuity will sharpen up and, beyond the very pathetic "not perfect, but better than nothing" disingenuous argument, they will be able to come up with insightful ideas on how it would be possible to ameliorate the dysfunctionalities of our system, reduce our society's obscene inequality and, most importantly, re-establish a reasonable balance of opportunities. In other words, once the upper class loses its monopoly on the most privileged expert knowledge and information, it follows it will automatically likewise lose the control of the rest of the population, and so there are all reasons to think, the diabolical 1984 highway to Hell will be utterly shattered.