She had an ulterior motive. Irena smuggled Jewish infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried. She also carried a burlap sack in the back of her truck, for larger kids. Irena kept a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.
The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking which covered the kids/infants noises.
During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. Ultimately, she was caught, however, and the Nazi’s broke both of her legs and arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she had smuggled out, in a glass jar that she buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she did her best to locate any parents that may have survived and to reunite the families
Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.
In MEMORIAM – 65 YEARS LATER
I’m doing my small part by forwarding this message. I hope you’ll consider doing the same. It is now more than 67 years since the Second World War in Europe ended. This article is a memorial chain, In memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated! Now, more than ever, with Iran , and others, claiming the HOLOCAUST to be ‘a myth’, it’s imperative to make sure the world never forgets,because there are others who would like to do it again. This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!
Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it around the world. Please send this e-mail to people you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain. Please don’t just delete it.. It will only take you a minute to pass this along.
Denise (Dede) Snyder
Granite City Abstracting
9015 Ogden Ave NE
Otsego, MN 55330
email@example.com Take care and Blessings to you and yours. Sue Anne
Everything happens for a reason and a purpose and it serves you!
Life is about to surviving the storm, and how having fun to dancing in the rain.
God and Bitcoin We Trust!
Your Thoughts, they become Words.
Your Words, they become Actions.
Your Actions, for they become Habits.
Your Habits, for they become Character.
Your Character, becomes your Destinee.”
What was only a few weeks ago, August 10, 2013, I was at a meeting Gaia’s house with Cronus, we were learning some advanced techniques for getting into rapport with other people, as we start building Titania. For those of you who don’t know, I have been involved in Titania with Cronus since 2005, when I met him at the Palm Beach County Libertarian meeting. How I got from Anthem to Boca Raton was a trip in itself. And don’t even get me started on talking about the “Trip” back to the Phoenix area. On the way, I lost the belt on my Sally Car and she was a tight squeeze, so when it went, it bent the valves. Word to the wise “when you have an interference motor, change the belt at 100k”!!!! I spent 2 weeks broke down in Fabian Texas. Now that’s a story, I taught myself how to pan, to get Sally and me back to Phoenix.
Since becoming aware of these Power Brokerage Cartels and the damage they do to humanity, (9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, Martin Luther King, JFK, Jesus Christ, the War of Northern Aggression, The Holocaust, the Decimation of the American Indians, the Spanish Inquisition etc, etc, etc) it’s become a passion of mine to completely disengage from the system, most especially the “legal” system. I don’t want to have anything to do with them, so I don’t. It’s also another reason to do the Morpheus thing. Recently I was able to travel to Dallas to hang out with my good friend Jordan Page, and even though, the trip home was a bit more hairy, courtesy of the Toothpaste Stealing Agents (TSA) still I made it there and back, without ID. But hey, that’s another story. Its another good one, so keep on coming back!
Walking Through Valley of the Shadow of Death
So there we are at the meeting and someone mentioned that Foster Gamble, the creator of the Thrive Movement was going to be at Libertopia. Cronus had already been communicating with Foster and I knew he had to press his flesh. So as soon as I heard this, my instant reaction was to say, “I will be at Libertopia, even if I have to pan handle to get there. And if I have to put Cronus in a four way to get him into my conveyance to get him there, I would do that as well.” Well, I wouldn’t really put him in a four way and I didn’t want to pan to get there either. We all have our own lives to lead, without being coerced. I just wanted to have everyone know, including myself – ‘Brother, I am going to be there’. You can make a million dollars or you can make a million excuses, you cannot do both. I’d like a million federal reserve notes please, so no excuses from me.
To me it’s all about the decision. Make it firm and know you are going to do it. Fear, doubt and worry can never even enter into your mind. I run the program backwards and then it’s just a matter of showing up and doing everything possible to make it happen. 90% of Success is just showing up. Actually I would rate it at 100% ’cause I have never sold a deal when I didn’t show up. This is where many people get hung up and allow fear, doubt and worry to take over. They come up with excuses on why they can’t do it, or why it won’t work. When I was studying the Kabbalah in Boca Raton, I was told “whatever you resist, THAT is what you need to do.”
Then it’s just a matter of putting your faith in yourself and god. That’s when the magic happens. Those who are atheists can put their faith in themselves and the god of logic. I don’t give a shit. In AA they told me you want god to be the doorknob, god is the doorknob. That was another eye opener. Wait a second…I can believe whatever I want to believe AND my beliefs do not require anyone else to believe as I do…That’s Heavy. When I came to grips with that one, it was like a heavy weight was loaded off my shoulders. You can use it too, if you like it. At least it works for me, and right now, this is my movie, not urs. The faith thing is what does it for me. I believe in Destiny, which happens to be my daughter’s name, ‘Destinee’. What works best for me, is the 23rd Psalm. I have it taped to my steering wheel. I read it several times a day. I do not profess to be a Christian, I prefer born again PAGAN.
Psalm 23 The LORD Is My Shepherd
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord FOR EVER.
Well, the week before Libertopia, I had a major epiphany: Forever is a long time right? Forever extends into infinity into the future and it also extends the same way in the PAST! That being the case, I am IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD RIGHT NOW!… Baby! So many digressions so little time, and pixels too, lol! The other one is shall, is the strongest word in law. Like thou SHALL not Kill. Ten Commandments shit. Some guy asked me a few months back, when I was at the Arizona Freedom Fest, if I was “Saved by Jesus” I told him “the LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. Tell me what more I need to know.” Shut his ass up. That’s because it is IMPOSSIBLE to want ’cause “I SHALL NOT WANT”, maybe I am just crazy.
After having the most awesome time at Libertopia and meeting all the super strong’s people there. I was giddy to have all the fantastic conversations with everyone, and you know who you are. I also had the extreme pleasure of having dinner with Mike Badnarik, Foster Gamble, Clyde Cleveland, Bob Podolsky, Bernard von NotHaus, Gaia, Mercury and Keith, not once, but TWICE. What a coup d’etat to have all these heavy weights endorsing the Titania Project! I had the extreme pleasure to introduce Clyde Cleveland, Michael Badnarik, Foster Gamble and Bob Podolsky for a panel discussion on the Titania Project. It was just plain crazy! Like Straight Up and Down! The video will be out soon. I hope you will sign up on the site and I give you permission to add the alt names on the pictures. If there is a picture that you would like or one you want me to delete, email me at M-o-r-p-h-e-u-s@titanians>.<org (no dashes). I will get it to you in higher resolution and without my watermark in it. I do take donations in BITCOIN 1DMGuMppvRjg21jj3Eo7TYmwWvuY1Dsyh4
Edward Snowden: the NSA Surveillance whistleblower
The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
Snowden will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world’s most secretive organisations – the NSA.
In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: “I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions,” but “I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant.”
Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. “I don’t want public attention because I don’t want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing.”
Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert attention from the substance of his disclosures. “I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” He added: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”
He has had “a very comfortable life” that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves. “I’m willing to sacrifice all of that because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”
‘I am not afraid, because this is the choice I’ve made’
Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last week’s series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.
He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for “a couple of weeks” in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.
As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. “That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world.”
On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because “they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent”, and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.
In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel room. “I’ve left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay,” he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.
He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.
Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.
Since the disclosures began to emerge, he has watched television and monitored the internet, hearing all the threats and vows of prosecution emanating from Washington.
And he knows only too well the sophisticated technology available to them and how easy it will be for them to find him. The NSA police and other law enforcement officers have twice visited his home in Hawaii and already contacted his girlfriend, though he believes that may have been prompted by his absence from work, and not because of suspicions of any connection to the leaks.
“All my options are bad,” he said. The US could begin extradition proceedings against him, a potentially problematic, lengthy and unpredictable course for Washington. Or the Chinese government might whisk him away for questioning, viewing him as a useful source of information. Or he might end up being grabbed and bundled into a plane bound for US territory.
“Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets,” he said.
“We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be.”
Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. “I am not afraid,” he said calmly, “because this is the choice I’ve made.”
He predicts the government will launch an investigation and “say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become”.
The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family, many of whom work for the US government. “The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won’t be able to help any more. That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said, his eyes welling up with tears.
‘You can’t wait around for someone else to act’
Snowden did not always believe the US government posed a threat to his political values. He was brought up originally in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. His family moved later to Maryland, near the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade.
By his own admission, he was not a stellar student. In order to get the credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)
In 2003, he enlisted in the US army and began a training program to join the Special Forces. Invoking the same principles that he now cites to justify his leaks, he said: “I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression”.
He recounted how his beliefs about the war’s purpose were quickly dispelled. “Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone,” he said. After he broke both his legs in a training accident, he was discharged.
After that, he got his first job in an NSA facility, working as a security guard for one of the agency’s covert facilities at the University of Maryland. From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT security. His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma.
By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.
That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw.
He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.
“Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world,” he says. “I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good.”
He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.
First, he said: “Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone”. Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.
He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he “watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in”, and as a result, “I got hardened.”
The primary lesson from this experience was that “you can’t wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act.”
Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA’s surveillance activities were, claiming “they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them”.
He described how he once viewed the internet as “the most important invention in all of human history”. As an adolescent, he spent days at a time “speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own”.
But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. “I don’t see myself as a hero,” he said, “because what I’m doing is self-interested: I don’t want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”
Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA’s surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. “What they’re doing” poses “an existential threat to democracy”, he said.
A matter of principle
As strong as those beliefs are, there still remains the question: why did he do it? Giving up his freedom and a privileged lifestyle? “There are more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very rich.”
For him, it is a matter of principle. “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to,” he said.
His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: “I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation,” reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project.
Asked by reporters to establish his authenticity to ensure he is not some fantasist, he laid bare, without hesitation, his personal details, from his social security number to his CIA ID and his expired diplomatic passport. There is no shiftiness. Ask him about anything in his personal life and he will answer.
He is quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers, he seemed happiest when talking about the technical side of surveillance, at a level of detail comprehensible probably only to fellow communication specialists. But he showed intense passion when talking about the value of privacy and how he felt it was being steadily eroded by the behaviour of the intelligence services.
His manner was calm and relaxed but he has been understandably twitchy since he went into hiding, waiting for the knock on the hotel door. A fire alarm goes off. “That has not happened before,” he said, betraying anxiety wondering if was real, a test or a CIA ploy to get him out onto the street.
Strewn about the side of his bed are his suitcase, a plate with the remains of room-service breakfast, and a copy of Angler, the biography of former vice-president Dick Cheney.
Ever since last week’s news stories began to appear in the Guardian, Snowden has vigilantly watched TV and read the internet to see the effects of his choices. He seemed satisfied that the debate he longed to provoke was finally taking place.
He lay, propped up against pillows, watching CNN’s Wolf Blitzer ask a discussion panel about government intrusion if they had any idea who the leaker was. From 8,000 miles away, the leaker looked on impassively, not even indulging in a wry smile.
Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden’s leaks began to make news.
“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” he said. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”
He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.
As for his future, he is vague. He hoped the publicity the leaks have generated will offer him some protection, making it “harder for them to get dirty”.
He views his best hope as the possibility of asylum, with Iceland – with its reputation of a champion of internet freedom – at the top of his list. He knows that may prove a wish unfulfilled.
But after the intense political controversy he has already created with just the first week’s haul of stories, “I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets.”
is a network of farmers, engineers, and supporters that for the last two years has been creating the Global Village Construction Set, an open source, low-cost, high performance technological platform that allows for the easy, DIY fabrication of the 50 different Industrial Machines that it takes to build a sustainable civilization with modern comforts. The GVCS lowers the barriers to entry into farming, building, and manufacturing and can be seen as a life-size lego-like set of modular tools that can create entire economies, whether in rural Missouri, where the project was founded, in urban redevelopment, or in the developing world.
We are an open source venture and as such we facilitate the collaboration of hundreds of online volunteers. The Development Team Wiki page is Here. If you?re a project contributor and aren?t listed, please edit the page.
FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR – MARCIN JAKUBOWSKI
Marcin came to the U.S. from Poland as a child. He graduated with honors from Princeton and earned his Ph.D. in fusion physics from the University of Wisconsin. Frustrated with the lack of relevance to pressing world issues in his education, he founded Open Source Ecology in 2003 in order to make closed-loop manufacturing a reality. Marcin has been the lead fabricator, designer, blogger, and technical curator for OSE?s prototyping thus far. His main interest is evolving to freedom by eliminating resource scarcity as the main force behind human relations – with the wise use of modern technology adapted for human service. He lives and works at OSE?s land-based facility, Factor e Farm in rural Missouri. Marcin wakes up early, practices yoga, cooks indian food, and he?s very ambitious. He has been selected as a TED 2011 Fellow. See his TED Talk on the Global Village Construction Set. Contact: opensourceecology at gmail dot com
MEDIA DIRECTOR – ISAIAH SAXON
Co-founder and Director of Encyclopedia Pictura, a creative team working in film, game design, architecture and agriculture. He has won numerous awards for his music videos, including Video of the Year from DA&D, UKVMA, Antville, and Spin Magazine. Esquire called Encyclopedia Pictura ?The Directors of the Future.? EP is currently in development on their debut feature film, DIY in 3d, which aims to be the new heroic myth of the Maker Movement in America. They are co-founding an augmented reality gaming startup as part of the DIY transmedia world. For the last two years, Isaiah has led an effort to build a unique hillside neighborhood in Aptos, California called Trout Gulch. He lives and works there along with 17 others. He is co-founder of Trout Gulch Farm. At Open Source Ecology, Isaiah directs the online information architecture, explainer videos, presentations (including this year?s TED Fellows Talk), and Kickstarter campaign. Contact: isaiah at encyclopedia pictura dot com
ADVISOR – ADRIAN HONG
Adrian Hong is Managing Director of Pegasus Strategies LLC, a strategic advisory firm working with governments, funds and NGOs.
Mr. Hong was an inaugural TED Fellow (2009) and TED Senior Fellow (2010 – 2012). He also manages Indy Incubator, an incubator and accelerator for innovative and socially-conscious businesses and non-profits.
Mr. Hong contributes regularly to national and international media, including Foreign Policy, Fox News, The International Herald Tribune, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, and has briefed and advised parliaments, ministries, diplomats and governments around the world. He is an advisor on Global Insights & Research for Brand USA, the United State’s new travel and tourism promotion initiative, a member of Delta Airlines’ Ideas In Flight advisory initiative. He is also a mentor at Spark Labs, Korea’s premier startup accelerator.
Mr. Hong currently advises or serves on the boards of several non-profit and for profit ventures, including Open Source Ecology, Lumoon Vision and Street Symphony. He is also co-founder and former Executive Director of Liberty in North Korea, an organization focused on human rights and refugee protection of North Koreans. Mr. Hong was a visitor at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy (2010 – 2011), a Visiting Lecturer teaching “America, Human Rights and Foreign Policy” at Korea’s Ewha University (2008), and was selected as a 2009 Arnold Wolfers Fellow at Yale University (2009). He was also selected to receive the the Japanese American Citizens League ‘Vision Award’ (2009).
Mr. Hong is also co-founder of the TEDxSanDiego conference, held annually since 2010, and founder/curator of the TEDxTripoli conference, founded in 2012.
WEB ADMINISTRATOR – ELIFARLEY CRUZ
Elifarley Cruz is a software engineer from Brazil who has contributed to a number of open source software projects and to the P2P Foundation as a co-editor. A long-time Linux user, he’s passionate about open source software and hardware, knowledge sharing and the commons. He believes in the abolishment of artificial limitations and unrestricted sharing of knowledge as ways to bring forth the true human potential and take society to new heights. Mr. Cruz is helping OSE with IT issues, administration of the forum and wiki, and is a True Fan. Contact: elifarley at opensourceecology dot org
BUSINESS CONSULTANT – LUIS DIAZ
With six years of progressive experience in formulation, implementation and execution of business and marketing strategies, Mr. Diaz actively participates in the organizational development and operations of OSE. As an advisor in strategic planning, he aids in ensuring that the organization?s vision is properly implemented in accordance to its governance, bylaws and mission. Previously, Mr. Diaz was engaged in launching several new ventures and provided guidance in the areas of brand design and development, financial planning, internal management systems and human resources. Contact: lad93978 at yahoo dot com
John David Garcia (March 25, 1935 – November 23, 2001) – founder of the Society for Evolutionary Ethics (SEE), taught an enlightened vision of ethics and human purpose via four books, dozens of articles, lectures, seminars and attempts to found schools based on his ideas. He did these things mainly in the US, then in Chile and Mexico.
A self-described moral protagonist and scientific generalist, he sought to advance human evolution through increased moral awareness and creativity. (Creativity = Intelligence * ethics). He viewed the evolutionary ethic as a “rational alternative to death” and devoted his life to learning, teaching and creating. He once described his main intellectual contribution as having synthesized the ethical visions of Spinoza and Teilhard de Chardin.
His first book, The Moral Society (1971), presented the fundamental theories and scientific basis for the evolutionary ethic and then detailed alternative applications, the “Moral Society” being the rational alternative to death of the species. He restructured his evolutionary ethic theories and re-applied them in his best-selling “PsychoFraud and Ethical Therapy”, a condemnation of contemporary psychotherapy based upon its failure to begin with moral purpose.
Students and admirers of Garcia generally consider his third book, Creative Transformation (1991), his finest work; a logical extrapolation of evolution in general and autopoiesis in particular. Autopoiesis process, otherwise known as Amplification, a process refined by his protégé, Bob Podolsky. After offering a review of human evolution and awareness, he offered a practical guide for those seeking to expand their creative potential. For Garcia, creativity was the measure of, the key process within, and the ultimate purpose for morality. He advocated creativity as a motivator of human action and a teachable process with the potential to increase forever (a Teilhardian idea).
Garcia believed that specialization in one area of study was a mistake; a poor compromise made because most need to maximize their employability in the short term. He preferred to earn his living filing for and licensing patents, starting companies and offering his intellectual talents.
Garcia’s formal education ended when he had earned his second master’s degree because he felt that academia generally comprises people who are too specialized and who focus more on impressing others with their own mastery and intelligence rather than helping increase the mastery and intelligence of their students.
According to Garcia, in the past people were seldom confronted by a need to choose between happiness and creativity because the environment that people found themselves in was “forgiving” enough that actions that maximized happiness tended also to increase creativity (e.g. as an unintended side-effect). As the human environment has changed (e.g. via progress in technology and communications and population growth), happiness has become less and less acceptable as a guide to human action, with the result that if most people continue to pursue happiness as their ultimate goal in life, the outcome is likely to be disaster for the human species.
Garcia’s response to this observation was to spend the last 30 years of his life trying to persuade as many people as possible to devote their lives to maximizing creativity instead of happiness. Garcia defined creativity ) as the — namely, the physical, biological and “psychosocial” (human mind and human culture) environments. In 1983 he organized the School of Experimental Ecology in Oregon and thereafter assembled various groups (favoring octets) to experiment with his creativity enhancement techniques.
Later, he subscribed to the theory that the human brain is a quantum device that can receive information from beyond spacetime, namely, from David Bohm’sImplicate Order. He designed and experimented with a “Quantum Ark” to act as an interface between mind and “higher order information systems”.
Garcia’s inventions included the “Electronic Signature Lock” (and related biometric techniques) for security applications, a real-time computer system for expedited dispatch of taxis, and an automated electronic vehicle localizer (used extensively in cities and ports). He co-founded the Teknekron Corporation.
Garcia was fluent in English, Castilian, French, Portuguese, Italian, and German. He also spoke passable Chinese and read other languages, including Hebrew
He died on November 23, 2001 in Springfield, Oregon with his wife, Bernice, and daughter, Miriam, at his bedside. The majority of his extended family was in his house for thanksgiving at the time, he had been battling illness for several years previously.
Garcia’s ethical beliefs have been summarised as follows:-
Whenever one must choose between happiness and creativity, one should choose creativity where creativity is defined as the ability to predict and control one’s environment.
An alternate definition of creativity: creativity is whatever qualities of the human mind that enable people to discover new scientific laws, invent new machines or create new works of great art or assist others in doing those things.
An ethical act is any act that increases the creativity of at least one person without decreasing the creativity of any person.
No person has a right to any part of another person’s life or property, except, possibly, by prior mutual, voluntary contract.
Although many aspects of the U.S. Constitution and many of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, proved a great success, Majority Rule proved a failure. No electoral majority in any existing country can be trusted to make creative or ethical decisions.
Garcia published 15 works in 18 publications and in 2 languages.
This Wikipedia is the article page on John David Garcia that was taken down and I found on http://Waybackmachine.org and posted here. Not sure how to get it up on Wikipedia however I dont have the time or extra energy to figure out how to do this. Let me know if you do and want to help putting back up.
Since the dawn of recorded history, humanity has craved and dreamed for the advent of a just, verdant, and peaceful social order. A society that is truly thriving and most individuals would have rich, full, creative lives. A society where all men and women are truly EQUAL. Some people might have more responsibility than others; no one or no group would be able to coerce another person or group using fraud or force! A society where peace is the norm, crime was non-existent and all people have easy access to healthy food, clean water and non chem-trail laced skies. A society where humans lived in harmony with each other with the earth and all its creatures. Such a society is hard to describe because such it would be everything that the society of the 21st century earth is NOT! Are we closer to that kind of society today than we were EIGHT THOUSAND years ago – when government, as we know it, was invented? I think not.
The Great Question
For about the past twenty years I have sought the answer to one Great Question: What has to happen for such a desirable world to be manifest? To find an answer to this question I have applied a wide variety of intellectual tools, including:
The Scientific Method
The operational point of view
Formal systems analysis
The exciting upshot of this lengthy search is a potentially valid answer to the Great Question. It may not be the only answer – but it is very likely a good answer – certainly, an answer worthy of your serious consideration.
The Big Problem
In order to understand my answer to the Great Question, it is necessary to grasp the nature of the Big Problem – the obstacle that has kept our species from really thriving since we emerged from the forests and caves millennia ago. My analysis reveals that such evils as war, terrorism, hunger, poverty, genocide, race-hatred, widespread addiction, inter-personal violence, and the like, are actually all symptoms of the same phenomenon – namely: Inadequate Socio-cultural Evolution.
Unlike genetic evolution that has thus far been beyond human capability to control, or even influence, socio-cultural evolution is extra-genetic – and therefore susceptible to human choices and decisions. Unlike the tremendous advances of technological evolution (which is also extra-genetic), our socio-cultural evolution hasn’t advanced significantly since feudal times. While the names of our institutions have changed, the basic methods by which they operate, and the principles underlying those methods, haven’t changed at all in at least eight thousand years – and possibly much longer. In a nutshell, our species’ institutions continue to make very unethical decisions on the same basis that they always have in the past.
Of special interest in the field of socio-cultural evolution is our grasp of ethics. The general lack of understanding of the most basic principles of ethics is manifest in almost all our institutions – particularly big businesses, organized religions, and governments. The result is that law-makers routinely enact laws that coerce us into obeying laws that forbid us to act ethically – or what is worse, require us to engage in acts that are unethical. Governments (all of them) are thus reduced to mere power-brokerage cartels that benefit a very small number of individuals at the expense of billions of others. In the analysis that follows I explore the fundamental ethical principles that drive our societal development, the effect our ethics have on our laws, and how our laws serve the hidden purposes that underlie the way our governments and other institutions function. Following this analysis, I propose a Grand Experiment (for which I am asking your support) that could potentially alter the course of extra-genetic human evolution in a most desirable way – and I provide evidence supporting the decision to proceed.
The “Comforting Lies” or “Pernicious Fallacies” created by the BORG and handed down from generation to generation from parents to children, from teachers to students, from politicians to their constituents, and from employers to employees. Most of the people who repeat these lies don’t even know that they are lies – though some in the BORG certainly do.
All twelve of the foregoing statements are false. This is a fact, not merely an opinion. Those who believe in the truth of even one of the above statements, are an unwitting slave of the BORG. The BORG is a parasite. It is run by a powerful psychopaths who will stop at nothing to steal your money, steal your freedom, steal your autonomy, and steal your self-respect, in their efforts to control you. As your enemy it is implacable, ruthless, and unforgiving. In the furtherance of its ends, all other priorities are rescinded. It will stop at nothing in its mission to rule the world. If you doubt these claims, comment here. They will be answered. To understand the situation more clearly, we need to understand the subject of ethics.
By Robert E. Podolsky
I distinguish here four categories of unethical acts and note that the most harmful in our society are those in which the decision to act unethically is the result of ignorance or misunderstanding concerning basic ethical principles. In particular I examine the most harmful and widespread fallacy that ethical ends can be attained by unethical means. This simple mistaken notion is arguably the single greatest source of evil in the world today. When this fact is generally understood the world of humanity will be a far better place in which to live.
Types of “Sins”
At any given time a person wishing to act ethically must choose a particular action over other possibilities knowing that the information on which the decision to act is based is incomplete. Therefore the individual making the choice must estimate the probabilities of various consequences that are foreseen as possible results of the choices available knowing that unimagined consequences are possible and that yet-to-be-imagined choices may exist with still more unforeseen consequences. Sometimes the moral individual makes these choices in full awareness of their personal limitations and sometimes not. But no one can know with certainty all the outcomes of their acts, not even after the action has taken place.
For the reasons given above, we all make mistakes in choosing our actions; and sometimes our actions, made in moral good faith, have results that we deem unethical. Knowing this is humbling to us all. When it happens we say, “Oh, if only I had known; I would have acted differently”. For lack of a better name, let me call these unintended lapses “Type One Sins” or T-1s for short. Such moral lapses are literally unavoidable no matter how committed we are to acting as ethically as possible. They are made with the least possible awareness that the outcome will be unethical.
Now let us consider unethical acts undertaken with more awareness on the part of the one acting that the action will have destructive results. At the other end of the spectrum from the T-1s are actions that are taken knowing full well that they are hurtful and destructive; yet they are taken nonetheless; the actor often enjoying the knowledge that someone is being hurt. Such actions are sadistic at best and unmitigatedly evil in their more extreme manifestations. Let us call such actions “Type Four Sins” or T-4s for short.
Enacted in the absence of malice are those hurtful actions taken with regret on the part of the one acting; believing that circumstances render it the most ethical choice available. For instance, consider the medic who administers an emergency tracheotomy to save the life of a person choking to death in spite of the fact that there is some pain inflicted in the process. The medic takes no pleasure in the infliction of this pain; recognizes that the infliction of pain is unethical and does so anyway seeing no other way to save the patient’s life. Let us call unethical acts of this variety “Type Three Sins” or T-3s for short.
And finally I come to the subject of this article; namely those moral lapses that result in unethical outcomes because the person acting lacks a fundamental understanding of ethics. This category, which I shall call “Type Two Sins” or T-2s for short, is, as we shall see, the most serious challenge on the planet to humanity’s long-range survival.
How so? Consider the following.T-1s are unavoidable; but are never carried out systematically and are never institutionalized.T-4s are only committed by psychopaths, sociopaths, and other persons who are devoid of conscience. Such people are in a very small minority, are easily identified, and are rarely tolerated in human society, the majority finding their way into our “corrections” systems at a fairly early age.
T-3s are usually mitigated in their harmfulness by the thoughtfulness and reluctance of the person acting.
But T-2s are another story altogether. As we shall see, their destructive scope can be systemic; they have the potential to make humanity extinct; and, what is more, they are often institutionalized by governments, businesses, religions, and other powerful interest groups whose resources make them far more destructive than T-1s, T-3s, and T4s together.
Defining the Good Act
For an in depth discussion of ethical principles the reader is referred to EPILOGUE:The Bloodless Revolution that begins on page 53, and the Bill of Ethics given in Appendix A preceding. Most of us have no problem understanding that an act or behavior that benefits someone and harms no one is clearly ethical. Similarly we understand intuitively that an act or behavior that harms someone and benefits no one is clearly unethical. Our difficulties with ethical concepts begin when we contemplate an act or behavior that has both beneficial and harmful consequences. So, for purposes of the present discussion, consider the following two definitions as candidates for the foundation of a system of ethics.
1. An ethical act is one that benefits at least one person (even if only the person acting) while harming no one (including the person acting).
2. An ethical act is one that causes more benefits to people than it does harm.
For the present I put aside the task of defining what constitutes a “benefit” or” “harm”. That part is comparatively easy. Just assume for the moment that adequate definitions of these terms are in fact available. The hard part is the choice between the two definitions. The first definition asserts that to be ethical an act must harm no one; and that therefore an act that harms someone is unethical. This definition therefore forbids the achievement of ethical ends by unethical means.
The second definition, however, allows the use of unethical (harmful) means if the act does more benefit than harm. Let’s assume for the moment that it is possible to quantify benefits and harms (this can in fact be done) and notice that this definition would lead us to believe that ethical ends can be achieved by unethical means. This has in fact been the ethic, which most human societies have adopted. Opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the preferred choice of governments, corporations, and religious institutions worldwide. It is historically what we have actually done.
As similar as these definitions seem, the outcomes produced by the choice of one or the other are as different as night and day. One choice leads to the maximization of peace, love, and prosperity and the other leads to wars, genocide, poverty, cruelty, exploitation and slavery. There are at least three distinct and essentially independent proofs of the preceding assertion. I call these the “Historical Proof”, the “Golden Rule Proof”, and the “Logical Proof”. These are presented in the following.
THE HISTORICAL PROOF
Values and Beliefs
To help understand the distinction between the two definitions of a good act and its significance I review the concepts of values and beliefs. I have personally interviewed over a thousand people asking questions about what they want more of in life; what they really value. The similarity between people’s answers is pretty amazing. Health, basic comforts, spiritual peace of mind, love, freedom, mobility, good relationships and time to enjoy them; access to truth; mental stimulation, work that feels meaningful, growth stimuli, pleasure, happiness, and opportunities to enhance the lives of others are among those frequently mentioned. It is not hard for most of us to agree on what is “good”; what we value. In this respect humanity is pretty homogeneous. We have little disagreement about our basic values.
Far more difficult it is to reach any kind of agreement on what will actually bring us what we value. What we believe is needed in order to attain what we want we refer to as our individual belief system. All living things have values and belief systems. Even a plant that has just enough awareness to value sunlight may turn its leaves perpendicular to the rays of the sun in the belief that this will increase its access to that which it values.
When it comes to belief systems we tend to lose our objectivity; to trust faith over truth even though reality consistently demonstrates the fact that objective truth is repeatable, verifiable, and pragmatically irrefutable. In other words we tend to believe what we want to believe even if our collective experience contradicts us.
Let’s go back to the example of the plant that turns its leaves perpendicular to the rays of the sun. In situations where plants compete for sunlight those that have this awareness, belief, and ability enjoy a competitive advantage. Other things being equal, they do get more sun than their less phototropic counterparts. This fact has been thoroughly established by many experiments by many different experimenters using a wide range of techniques. So in the plant’s case the belief that phototropism maximizes sunlight reception is correct. One might say that plants that believe otherwise are wrong and that many of them suffer for lack of the correct belief. In fact, some have probably become extinct for lack of the correct belief.
Similarly when we choose the basic definition of our ethics, that which we define as a good act, we may or may not choose correctly that which will optimize our chances of getting what we most value in life. If we choose incorrectly we too may become extinct for lack of the correct belief system. In this way we can compare the values of various belief systems. Definitions, like other statements are composed of information that can either be “true” or “false”. True information is that which when believed increases the intelligence of the believer. “Intelligence” in this context is the ability to predict and control events in the observable universe, or equivalently to initiate and sustain causal relationships between such events. This definition of true information is the basis of science and in many ways can be seen as defining science. That is to say any discipline that uses this definition of truth may be said to be a science.
Now let’s review the two definitions stated previously which I from now on refer to as E1 (Ethic 1) and E2 (Ethic 2) respectively:
1. An ethical act is one that benefits at least one person (even if only the person acting) while harming no one (including the person acting).
2. An ethical act is one that causes more benefits to people than it does harm.
These two definitions are similar in that both value “benefits” while seeking to avoid “harms”. But each of these definitions, when accepted, yields a dramatically different belief system. In other words while sharing the fundamental values inherent in each definition, people adopting one or the other of these definitions as the basis for their behavior will behave very differently. As in the case of plant phototropism, there have been enough “experiments” with these two definitions for us to know how individuals and groups develop when one or the other of these two ethics is adopted. One of these definitions is “true” and yields a belief system that maximizes the intelligence of the believer; and the other is “false” because it substantially diminishes the intelligence of its believer.
The true definition is the first: “An ethical act is one that benefits at least one person (even if only the person acting) while harming no one (including the person acting).” Individuals and groups adopting this definition are universally better off than those who don’t. We’ll have more to say about this later.
The second definition turns out to be one of humanity’s greatest stumbling blocks. It often seduces us into forgetting that the choice of the “lesser evil” is still a choice of evil. Governments, corporations, and religious bureaucracies throughout the world have long given in to the temptation to adopt this definition and the belief systems that result from its adoption. The unacknowledged prioritization of the desires for power, money, and self-righteousness lead the adopters of this definition to think that if they benefit from their decisions, that harm done to others is acceptable. It is easy for such people to see that they benefit more than they are harmed by this ethic (at least on a short-term basis); and therefore not so easy to see that the ethic itself is flawed and that it causes them and others enormous harm on a long-term basis.
Let’s examine some of the historical consequences of this false belief system. One common theme that results from the adoption and institutionalization of E2 is the idea that the well being of some people (sometimes referred to as “the few”) must be sacrificed for the well being of others (sometimes called “the many”). Hence:
All instances of slavery throughout history are based on this premise, resulting in the suffering and annihilation of millions of people.
Religions that condoned or required human sacrifice were based on this premise; which is part of the reason that most such religions are essentially extinct today.
Marxist-Leninist regimes have always been based on this premise, resulting in near-universal poverty for those living in such countries.
The government practice of taxation is based on this belief, resulting in the financial enslavement of billions of people today. I would go so far as to assert (Podolsky’s theorem) that every time a government seeks to solve a societal problem by levying a tax that in the long run the society is harmed far more than it benefits.
The rise of corporate power and its concomitant partnership with government is the result of this belief; and results in the disenfranchisement of billions of people worldwide.
The power-ascendancy of religious organizations is the result of this misconception, and has been the basis of pogroms, jihads, crusades, holy wars, inquisitions and similar large-scale atrocities for thousands of years.
Many activities seen as normal components of war are based on this idea; not the least of which is the concept that civilian casualties are an acceptable price to pay to win a war.
These are just a few examples of institutionalized T-2 sins as I have defined them here. Each and every one of them has at one time or another been justified by adoption of E2 as the prevailing ethic. This historical perspective tells us that these evils occur in spite of our wish to cause more good than harm; and in fact happen in large measure because we chose to define a good or ethical act as one that creates more benefits than harms without placing a limit on the amount of harm that is permissible. How can this be?
To answer this question let’s go back and take a closer look at the consequences of Ethics Definition Number 1. It states: An ethical act is one that benefits at least one person (even if only the person acting) while harming no one (including the person acting). Note that this definition logically implies that any act that is harmful to someone is unethical…by definition. Acceptance of this definition precludes all the harmful consequences listed above as resulting from Definition 2. It means it is not acceptable to sacrifice the one for the benefit of the many. It is not acceptable to take away people’s resources by force no matter who benefits; so only voluntary “taxes” are ethical and Marx’s redistribution of wealth is unethical. Control of government by institutions that place a highest value on power or profits is unethical; so public disempowerment by corporations and organized religions is necessarily unacceptable. And of course, warfare that harms non-combatants is also unethical, as are business practices that degrade the environment.
To put it bluntly, our society is in a mess today because we don’t have an institutionalized understanding that ethical ends cannot be achieved by unethical means. If our institutions incorporated this awareness and committed themselves to Ethics Definition 1 (E1) all the aforesaid T-2 sins would be abolished and a far more successful society would have a chance to evolve. This is the most important issue that humanity faces today; yet here in the United States, one of the most successful and enlightened countries in the world, we don’t address this issue publicly; our presidential candidates give no hint of being aware of it; and the media for all their investigative expertise are oblivious to it.
At this point I have one unfinished item to deal with. How are we to recognize “benefits” and “harms”? The best definition I have seen is that an act is beneficial if it increases someone’s creativityorany of its logical equivalents. A resource is a logical equivalent of creativity if the increase or decrease of that resource necessitates a corresponding increase or decrease in creativity and vice versa. Some examples of creativity’s logical equivalents are awareness, love, objective truth, personal growth, and evolution. Similarly, an act is harmful if it limits or diminishes creativity or any of its logical equivalents for anyone. It should also be noted that creativity might be thought of as the product of ethical awareness and intelligence as symbolized by the equation C=EI, where C can be positive or negative; and negative creativity is the equivalent of destructiveness or entropy maximization. In this sense “evolution” and “entropy” are logical equivalents of “good” and “evil”.
In the first paragraph of this chapter I said that the single greatest source of evil in the world today is the idea that ethical ends can be achieved by unethical means. Subsequently I have shown that this mistaken notion historically generates unethical deeds of the T-2 variety and that such misdeeds are widely institutionalized and wreak great harm on all humanity. One of these Type Two sins I have not yet mentioned; and it is arguably the most destructive. It is called “bureaucracy”. “Bureaucracy” is often thought to be a synonym for “organization”; but it is not. It is not even a logical equivalent of organization. As John David Garcia first pointed out to me, bureaucracy is the systematic elimination of corrective feedback; and at its worst is the elimination of feedback concerning ethics. It is this phenomenon that brought down the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire and many other regimes throughout history. It is gradually destroying the United States and its allies even now. Unless we reverse this entropy-increasing trend we too will go the way of earlier fallen regimes and quite possibly we may destroy all humanity in the process.
When employees the world over can go to their “superiors” and criticize their employers’ ethics without fear of reprisals, bureaucracy will no longer be a major problem for humanity. When those same employees can reveal their challenges to those same “superiors” and receive helpful feedback that makes them better at their jobs we will have little to fear from the depredations of bureaucracy. Until that day the insistence by so many that ethical ends can be achieved by unethical means will continue to eat away at our species’ potential. Which force will dominate our lives in this new century; evolution or entropy?
One obvious implication of the Golden Rule is the admonition, “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” This is a corollary of the Golden Rule, as it follows from it by logic alone. Of course both admonitions could be contained in one by stating the rule: “Do unto others only as you would have them do unto you.”
Now consider what happens when one takes an action that is constrained only by the E2 ethic. In general such an action has consequences that produce both beneficial and harmful effects where the harms are constrained to be less than the benefits. In some instances the benefits and harms will be sustained by the same individual; but in general the benefits and harms are permitted to apply to separate people, whereby one or more persons are benefited and one or more are harmed. Now I ask, “Did the people harmed volunteer to be harmed? Did we do unto them as we would have them do unto us?” In all honesty we can only answer “NO, OF COURSE NOT” to these questions. Therefore the E2 ethic is an insufficient constraint to prevent its adherents from doing unto others as they would NOT have others do unto themselves. The E2 ethic therefore unequivocally violates the Golden Rule and should be unacceptable to anyone who esteems the Golden Rule as their highest ethic.
THE LOGICAL PROOF
In this section I shall prove by logic alone that the E2 ethic is unacceptable if we are ever to have universal peace and prosperity. I do this because some of us do not give any special credence to ethics such as the Golden Rule because it derives from biblical lore. No matter. We can show in effect that the E2 ethic contains its own contradiction; that an act sanctioned by E2 must be unethical if it is not also sanctioned by E1.
To understand this proof one must first consider the fact that in general an act sanctioned by E2, unless also sanctioned by E1, will have as consequences both beneficial and harmful effects. Observing those effects we recognize a principle of separability: An act or behavior, which has both beneficial and harmful effects, is logically and ethically indistinguishable from two acts, one having beneficial consequences and the other having harmful consequences. This fact is apparent when you consider that after the consequences have been manifested you cannot tell whether the cause of those consequences was one act or two.
Now I go back to an earlier statement. An act that has only beneficial consequences is clearly ethical; and an act that has only harmful consequence is clearly unethical. From this we deduce that in general an E2 sanctioned behavior is the logical and ethical equivalent of two acts, one of which is ethical and the other unethical. But a behavior cannot be both ethical and unethical. Any behavior that encompasses an unethical act must be unethical. Therefore I conclude that any act sanctioned by E2 that is not also sanctioned by E1 must be unethical. Therefore adoption of E2 must lead to unethical behavior. This is how the institutionalization of E2 causes so many serious societal problems (T-2 sins). If we have any hope of success as a species, humanity must come to grips with this issue by institutionalizing E1 in place of E2.
The choice of an ethic determines the quality of the values and belief systems that derive therefrom. As we have seen, the ethical definition that leads to a healthier society is the E1 ethic that defines an ethical act as one that benefits someone without harming anyone. I believe I have proven unequivocally that adoption of the E2 ethic (which defines as ethical any act that results in more benefit than harm) must lead to unethical outcomes; and in particular has led to wholesale evils through the attempt to achieve ethical ends by unethical means. The “Historical Proof” shows that human experience is a clear demonstration of the failure of E2 to limit the harms done in the name of benefits for the many. The “Golden Rule Proof” validates this empirical observation by showing that the E2 ethic violates the Golden Rule. And finally the “Logical Proof” shows that E2 contains its own contradiction; so that any institution defining its ethics by adoption of E2 is likely to create more harms than benefits in spite of its intention to do otherwise.
Based on the above, one might well ask how the E1 Ethic is adopted by Titania. So lets talk a bit about Titanian Organization.