snitches get stitches?
Math is the ultimate snitch.
Act hard as the hardest variable?
The simplest equation exposes every bitch.
Previously, it was a generation reminding fathers to take care of their sons.
Now, the family is chopped up. That is the new Norm. Divorce is the new Norm. Single Motherhood is the new Norm. Prison is the new Norm. The connection between mother and baby, between parent and child, between Father and Son, has been severed. The evidence doesn’t matter. The Truth no longer matters. The math no longer matters.
This is the sad state Society has fallen into—a nation that shuns math. A nation that believes in communication just as long as everyone promises to put their fingers in their ears. That’s what life is like when calculation is outlawed. When scrutiny is denied. When Technology is worshipped in place of Purpose. When Ideal is spelled s-e-t-t-l-e.
This is why “snitches get stitches” is one of the infamous mantras demonstrating the proudly unaccountable ethical tenants of this generation.
But you must realize that snitches can only gets stitches if shame controls the game. Meaning, snitches get stitches, yet facts get raps because snitches name individuals while raps reveal the math behind criminals.
People will pay for the Truth because it implicates design; you can’t experience shame if you’re predestined for crime. You can’t shoulder blame if you came straight off the factory line.
Even jungles have their laws–it’s really the the truth pressing pause on the effect that hides the cause.
SECRECY vs. PUBLIC SCRUTINY
“The only real secret is shame”—Bentali
we’re all afraid of public scrutiny because we’re worried about our lies being exposed, our faults being discovered, our mistakes being criticized, our crimes being penalized, our immorality being shamed, our lives being ruined. but without criticism, it’s impossible for any man to find the root of all these problems. to help you out of your miserable condition, we must figure out what’s causing it. we need to get to the Truth of the matter. criticism is required to remove all the bullshit covering up the Truth. criticism is like fire applied to raw ore. it burns away all the impurities to uncover the gold. the Truth isn’t afraid of the heat of criticism. the only thing that’s afraid of criticism is bullshit. what type of criticism could possibly threaten the Truth?
the Truth isn’t something you create or produce. it can’t possibly be bothered by anything we make. before people were created inside the restriction of time, Truth must first exist as the boundary. it is the limitation that confines and defines time. there must be a truth which is above the reproach of ethical elites, impervious to the unfiltered accusations of poorly spoken men, safe from inward defect, without the possibility of fault, past the reach of merited blame, outside of the known and experienced boundary of our existence, beyond the shifting patterns of a dynamically changing space there is the fixed, unapproachable, untouchable, unstainable, untaintable, unbreakable, uninfluenceable, unthinkable, unreachable beacon of Truth.
and just as the invisible phenomenon of Gravity can’t be seen or touch, we can still deduce its existence from our experience of its common effects on the earth. similarly, although we may not have direct experience of the Truth, we can see how it affects the universe by observing its closest known relative—Principle.
regardless of whether it’s a decision that affects our families or a policy that determines national security, public scrutiny is necessary to expose the dysfunction in our relationships and bring the Truth of our real condition to light. what we discover through our daily experience of dealing with people must be viewed through the illumination of Principle to understand its effects on our lives.
e.g., even in the business world, many rely on crowdsourcing to help them quickly identify errors; when a product or service relies on an unlimited number of individual eyes to check its results, it dramatically improves the efficacy of the project. as the old saying goes: two heads are better than one.
your own resources are no match for the knowledge, experience, and skills afforded by millions of people. by allowing unrestricted examination of your decision-making ability by both supporters and critics, you inspire trust from those under your care. all aspects of your leadership—your attitude, the efficacy of your daily agenda and long term goals, the specificity of your message, how you speak, how you execute your ideas, how you manage money, what you’ve accomplished, the mistakes you’ve made, the damage you’ve caused, the responsibilities you’ve neglected, and your character flaws—must all be exposed. as merciless judgements both confirm your strategy and expose your mistakes, your leadership is safeguarded from devolving into unaccountable tyranny. thus, you’re able to produce an efficient, functional relationship with all those governed by your authority.
however, since all your relationships are presently competitive in nature, you neglect such scrutiny. and you justify its absence by pointing to first world countries like America that also avoid public scrutiny. if America can succeed “by any means necessary”, then why can’t you?
except you’ve misjudged the reason why America is so successful when compared to the rest of the world. you point to the benefits of living in the United States as proof of competition’s efficacy, but like all proponents of Capitalism, you fail to understand how public scrutiny prevents society from collapsing.
our current governing system was originally divided into three separate branches as a direct result of our Founding Father’s firsthand battles against British tyranny. suffering under British rule has taught us that an unaccountable consolidation of power—either through political or economic monopoly—is dangerous to society. governing behind closed doors not only generates distrust in the people being governed but it also allows many abuses to take place under the ruse of national security. to prevent history from repeating itself, we removed the individual throne of authority and replaced it with 3 separate heads. this structured division of power would force each branch to cooperate with the other two branches to get anything done. accountability was built into the system to answer the terror everybody experienced under British rule. one branch would always have the ability to vet the work of the other branches. this allowed any one branch to step in and prevent the others from abusing their authority. now, the people being governed could be assured that its leaders would have to remain accountable to its citizens when serving them.
in other words, the success you’ve attributed to the dynamic of competing is actually the work of public scrutiny. it mimics the way competition weeds out lesser products and services but without the side effects of abusing power, hoarding resources, and creating enemies. this is only possible when everyone is allowed to vet each other’s work. efficiency is the natural byproduct of this cooperative relationship structure.
but just like any other tool, public scrutiny’s effectiveness depends on the person employing it. in competitive relationships, criticism is employed as a weapon to attack your opponent’s self-esteem, so you can raise yours. i.e., the scrutiny isn’t public. it’s personal in nature and therefore its scope is relegated to legalistic details and pedantic fussing over rules. if the results of such criticism were made public, we’d quickly find out how deceptive the results really are.
whenever you compare yourself to others, only one person can benefit. that’s why this type of criticism doesn’t really expose genuine problems as much as it condemns your opposition. because its not being employed to uncover the Truth. it’s only used to gain a competitive advantage in the relationship. we may even moralize about our criticism by awarding someone a second place trophy to demonstrate our altruistic concern for our fellow man. but in the back of our competitive minds, 2nd place still equals first loser.
to escape this cycle, you must employ criticism for the sake of necessity and necessity alone. because you’re only motivated to meet other people’s needs when your needs are met first. and the good news is, unlike competitive relationships, everyone gets to share in the benefits.
whenever a behavior negatively affects one member of a relationship, all members are robbed of their necessary companionship. e.g., when a child throws a tantrum at dinner, all members of the family suffer. however, there are 2 ways to address this problem.
the first way is to compete against the offender. usually the parents compare the problem child’s behavior to a well behaved sibling (“why can’t you be a good boy like your brother, Michael??!”, or the well behaved sibling volunteers the comparison himself to try lower the disobedient child’s self-esteem (“you’re such a little baby! i don’t throw tantrums in public like you do”). but such comparisons will only lead to resentment and distrust because the child being competitively criticized will always measure his behavior by the standard of his brother’s behavior. now, instead of working towards creating a happy family that benefits everyone, the child will solely be working towards beating the person competing against him. this will create happiness for the winner. however, everyone else will suffer. and since there can only be one winner in a competition, the family will never reach a harmonious condition. this is what happens when criticism is used as a weapon to compete better.
the other way to criticize the problem child is to uphold the functional standard of Necessity—the behavior that’s expected of everyone. now, instead of the winner being the sole beneficiary of the limited self-esteem points available during a competition, everyone has an opportunity to be succeed with this cooperative approach to criticism. and because there is no winner setting the standard, the motivation to resent anyone’s success is removed. once the problem has been identified via public scrutiny, the only thing left to do is train the child to meet the demands of the functional standard. and when all have reached the standard, the entire family has cause to celebrate the restoration of order.
i.e., in order for public scrutiny to work, it must do 2 things: first, it must identify and remove the problem. then it must focus on what you need instead. if only the problem is identified but the solution is neglected, then the so-called public scrutiny is really just competitive criticism in disguise. this type of criticism may solve individual situations, but it eventually destroys the relationship.
like most people, you make the mistake of only offering criticism when you’re experiencing a problem. you wait until frustration builds up over a flippant comment i chronically make about your appearance or some bad habit i always repeat. then you explode with anger and criticize the fuck out of me—but you never offer me an alternative. you never guide me as to what i should do instead. you only focus on what bothers you because you’ve never been trained to be accountable to your own desires.
complaining about a poorly seasoned bowl of is easy. making a good bowl of soup yourself, from scratch, is hard. getting pissed off about my bad behavior requires no effort. but teaching me to do what you want requires you to declare your desires to me in a palatable format that i can relate to. that’s much harder to do, especially if you have zero training. no wonder you have no idea how to govern my behavior to get what you want out of me.
just like my parents failed me teach me how to cooperate, your parents only taught you how to compare what you have with what everyone else has. just like my parents only focused on the things i did that bothered them, your parents took the same unaccountable approach to life. and just like my parents failed to teach me how to make people happy, your parents also had no idea how to satisfy others to get what they needed. so you’ve had no other option but to compete get what you wanted. just like me.
this is why, as an adult, you have so many holes in your behavior, so many gaps in your understanding of how to socialize. this is why today you don’t understand how to get people to like you. once again, your parents failed to be accountable to their duty in raising you. they assumed that “parenting” meant acting like a human No Smoking sign and their job was done. good enough. but the forgot the most important job of all: telling you what you should be do instead! their lifetime shaming strategy only set you up for eventual failure. and so the cycle of neglecting accountability repeats itself with you.
public scrutiny is necessary to expose competitive behavior for the culprit it really is in your relationships. if you want efficiency, public scrutiny is your only option. if you want to be stop repeating your past mistakes, then you first must correctly identify the problem. in short, if we had an unlimited amount of time to spend and if everyone kept scrutinizing the miserable results of their competitive relationships, then cooperation would eventually be the only option left on the table. you don’t even have to care about or understand cooperation, but with enough scrutiny, at least you’d know it’s one of the options you haven’t yet tried. and once you saw how productive your communication became, how efficiently your resources were spent, how happy everyone was, you’d wonder why nobody ever bothered to teach you how to cooperate sooner.. or why society isn’t already based on some type of cooperative model.
allowing public scrutiny quickly exposes those causing the problem and aids in correcting the behavior. that’s why the mechanism of public scrutiny always produces cooperative relationships.
conversely, if cooperation isn’t being achieved by all, you will automatically know that public scrutiny is missing or being actively discouraged somewhere in the relationship.
proponents of competitive relationships, however, often mistakenly attribute America’s success to the dog-eat-dog mentality they were raised under. it’s the same dynamic that allows MMA fighters to literally smash in each other’s faces—just as long as they are of equal weight. although the fight may be ‘fair’, both competitors are still motivated by the competition to hurt each other.
likewise, while our Capitalist economy is designed to give everyone a fair chance to succeed, its competitive nature ensures that few will. only a small minority of winners will rise to the top of the food chain. the rest of us remain prey for those with better skills.
legal vs. ethical
to be ethical means to be accountable to one’s behavior. to be legal means to try to find ways to excuse one’s behavior. specificity is ethical because its goal is to remove all the details that are covering the Truth whereas pedantry’s goal is to add as many details as possible to obfuscate the Truth. one removes hiding places while the other creates them. both are permitted but only one is moral. both are employed but only one is necessary.
being ethical identifies the standard whereas being legalistic hides the standard. this is why police investigations require specific evidence to identify the guilty while courtroom legal proceedings dwell on legalistic arguments to absolve the shame of guilt. this is why IRS audits look for specific receipts to find out what you owe the government while accountants look for legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes. this is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is specifically designed to protect free speech while monopolies like Google, Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook use their legalistic “Terms of Service” to silence free speech. this is why true skeptics demand specific evidence of God while atheists employ sophistry to avoid being held accountable to their own hypocritical karma-based superstitions. this is why men argue according to what the facts dictate while women focus on the legalism of ad hominems. this is why uncensored debates reveal solutions while moderated arguments produce “diversity of opinion”.
even our legal system—society’s only contingency plan for bad parenting—is based on the competitive standard of fairness. its goal is to replace the function of our parents but with one major caveat; instead of actively restricting our behavior to teach us accountability, it tries to guilt us into accountability. instead of discipline, we get shame. instead of guidance, we get options. instead of motivation, we get moralizing. in other words, instead of responsible parents who teach us how to function, we get irresponsible Single Mothers who cause us to malfunction. no wonder we have such little respect for our legal system.
just like the self-serving moral outrage from Single Mothers creates resentment in their children, the undeserved burden of shame created by the legal system only produces rebellion in its citizens. it can’t actually teach you how to commit to your beliefs, nor can it guide you to meet your needs. what good is criticizing your failures if your parents neglect to teach you how to succeed.
NOBODY on planet earth can restrict themselves by themselves. nobody has the power to be self-accountable without someone to teach them, not only the concept of restriction, but to ACTIVELY DEMONSTRATE IT IN THEIR LIVES. this is what’s lacking! right now, there is not ONE active demonstration of proper restriction that i can think of. NOT ONE! i can’t think of any friend, relative, or parent (especially parent!) who can restrict themselves.
i never would’ve known this maybe 5 years ago… but with all the consequences i suffered because of a lack of restriction, i definitely understand why so many people’s lives feel so hopeless. they are on autopilot for YEARS. that’s how little hope they have of ever altering the course of their lives. it’s fucking bleak for them. it’s pointless. since they have no reason to live, all their motivation for restricting themselves also IMMEDIATELY GOES OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW! as the burden of shame increases without any practical way to address it, you become a ticking time bomb of suppressed frustration. if you don’t know how to govern your own behavior, you will eventually give up trying to restrict your impulses because there’s no point in trying to control a lion that nobody has taught you how to tame.
this is the same reason women condemn you for staring at their tits without giving you a remedy to address your need for sex. by wearing clothing designed to grab your attention and then becoming indignant when they get it, women are essentially blaming you for the problems they create. just like the legal system demands moral behavior from the people it condemns under its immoral standard of fairness, women likewise demand equal respect while refusing equal responsibility. in their minds, how they dress is your problem, their children’s violent behavior is your concern, and their inability to provide companionship is your fault. if women are allowed to decide the rules of society, why would they ever bother to penalize themselves? they’ve already conditioned men, from childhood, to accept the blame for everything women do. if a woman’s choice is between hiding her guilt or solving the problems caused by her own behavior, she’s going to pick fairness over Justice every single time.
this is why the legal system is completely inefficient in both operation and outcome. instead of depending on an accountable, universal standard—Justice—we settle for an unaccountable, individual, ever-shifting, unstable standard—’fairness’. instead of aiming for a universally moral outcome that benefits all of society, we’re held hostage to every professional victim’s quest for self-esteem. thus, ethical treatment is replaced by fair treatment. accountability is replaced by equality.
when women ask themselves, “if a man doesn’t have to wear a shirt at the beach, why should i??!”, they’re really just agreeing with the competitive standard of fairness already sanctioned by society. that’s why we spend most of our time still arguing in circles, regardless of the outcome. nothing is ever decided. nothing is ever agreed upon. when we’re stuck competing in a zero sum game, everyone is motivated to debate every rule and procedure, forever. because every win comes at the expense of someone else’s loss. there is no harmony possible in such a competitive environment.
in theory, our goal is to hold everyone accountable to their behavior because we all desire an orderly society that brings us security. we would love nothing better than to live in a world where everyone has been trained to honor their own commitments. but in actual practice we merely repeat our childhood tradition of comparing our behavior to everybody else’s. i.e., if we don’t learn to commit, we will be left with no other option but to compete.
as mentioned previously, when we compare men to women, we find that men come out on top in both strength and intelligence. but since both genders are now competing, we are no longer interested in the different functions each gender is responsible for performing. we’re no longer concerned with male intelligence for planning or female nurturing of children. accountability goes out the window and equality becomes our new focus.
so to make both genders equal, we must homogenize them—make them the same. to accomplish this, we must empower women by removing blame from their actions while rewarding them with things they didn’t earn. then we must burden men with responsibilities that aren’t theirs, all for the sake of equality. this is why we award women with artificial advantages like affirmative action and why alcohol-fueled sex is strictly a male’s responsibility in a court of law. this is why burdening men with the responsibility for both genders reduces them to submissive cucks and why absolving women of their responsibilities while simultaneously rewarding them for their bad behavior mutates them into aggressive cunts.
now you understand why women use the legal system as a steroid to strengthen their power while men shun the legal system like kryptonite before it completely weakens them with shame. but this is exactly what competition motivates us to do. when we don’t know how to make ourselves happy through cooperation, we end up trying to competitively steal what others have to make up for our loss.
unlike fairness—which only requires measuring outcomes and results—judging by Principle requires us to become accountable for other people’s behavior. which requires us to learn how to mold and motivate people to behave in a specific way. which means we need to learn how to say what we believe, why we believe it, and we need to commit to our own beliefs (we’ll cover this shortly). if we faithfully do these 3 things every time we open our mouths, people will have no choice but to like us! because we have met their highest need!—their need for companionship. and because they love us, they will trust us. then they will be more than happy to meet our needs in return. not because we’re ugly dictators to them, but because we’ve satisfied them. we are like Google’s search engine; if we give them what they actually need, in turn, they are motivated to live by what we say. thus, if we give them the motivating opinion they require, they are more than willing to give companionship in return.
our parents failed to teach us this motivating skill, so we must solicit the help of other people to learn it. we must rely on their criticism to identify our hypocritical behavior because we are blind to it. that’s exactly what makes us hypocrites—our blindness. if we don’t rely on our critics, our competitive quest to boost our self-esteem will end up ruining our relationships. we’ll insulate ourselves from reality just to keep away the shame. we would all rather rely on our legalistic childhood philosophy of fairness than acknowledge our own immorality. this is why criticism needs to be specific—specificity removes hiding places. we all need our immoral hiding places uncovered. we need all our painful shame removed, or we’ll never experience the freedom of being comfortable in our own skin. only specific criticism is effective in chipping away such shame.
but this is exactly why the legal system is so complex. because our parents refused to hold us accountable as children, we’re stuck paying the bill as adults. i.e., the more we desire to escape accountability for our behavior, the more we require contingency plans in the form of complex laws to accomplish the task, to hide the shame.
yes, you heard that correctly: THE LEGAL SYSTEM HIDES OUR SHAME. it’s complex by design because its inefficiency is necessary to mask our humiliating condition. it must hide every single fault we have that lowers our self-esteem. so instead of the law functioning to bring us relief, it malfunctions to frustrate us. that’s why it’s full of doublespeak, innuendo, implication, formality, tradition, partiality, and pedantry—basically every single facet of unaccountable behavior we already practice in society today. this is just the official version of our competitive attitude written down in legally binding form.
this is why we’ve had to change slavery laws once we realized they wouldn’t hide our unjust attitudes towards other human beings.
this is why we’ve flip flopped on abortion laws. we want to appear as moral people who care about human life……and we want the freedom to end the life we must now be accountable to taking care of for 18 years straight. to an accountable adult, those are 18 years of growth and joy. but to an unaccountable child, that’s 18 years of prison—trapped by a forced obligation.
this is why we have to rewrite our immigration laws. because we want to feel good about being “being nice” to people while hiding our theft of American resources that somebody else had to sacrifice their lives to produce.
this is why we’re always rewriting our economic laws. because we love Capitalism when it works for us. but we hate it when it works for other people who are smart enough to build giant corporations like Apple, Facebook, and Google.
bottom line: we don’t want our hypocritical views or our poor competitive skills exposed.
competition will always produce cheaters. deception and secrecy is inevitable in a competitive environment. people want to feel good at any cost because what amount of money even matters if you’re miserable? you’ll do anything to escape pain. who wouldn’t?
people don’t compete out of some noble sense of integrity. competition is already structured as a one-sided, unethical, immoral relationship; you must hurt your opponent to feel better. that is the immoral dynamic of competition. many people must suffer loss in order for ONE PERSON to gain. this unaccountable attitude to life produces the opposite of integrity. it produces people who will try to win at any costs since loss only brings suffering. loss only brings the removal of self-esteem points. there is nothing satisfying about losing in a competition. there is only embarrassment and humiliation. this is why people will do anything to avoid it. even cheat the rules. what other choice do they have? it’s either win and feel good …or lose and suffer for the rest of your life. there is no hope to look forward to in a competition other than to beat everyone before they beat you.
the legal system only reflects our competitive dishonesty and tries to hide the fact that we’ve been shameful con artists all along. thus, the more we focus on achieving legal fairness, the more we sacrifice our practical need to function.
today, if we experience a problem with someone in our relationships, it may end up costing us thousands of dollars in legal fees to resolve. instead of relying on the adult ability to be accountable for our mistakes, we’re forced to behave as children once again and let our new parents—the attorneys who have dedicated their lives to studying fairness—settle matters in court on our behalf.
this is why it’s impossible to produce an orderly society when our goals are in conflict with our desires. equality and accountability are opposing forces. it’s delusional to expect the former to produce the latter just like it’s impossible to build a bridge while ignoring gravity. trading necessity for fairness only robs everyone of the stability afforded by the Principle of Justice.
moral judgments are always right, regardless of the time period, regardless of the parties involved. but our justice system doesn’t depend on such a standard. instead, it relies on tradition, case precedent, and society’s feelings. all these are weighed into the final decision of fairness. so instead of what’s Just for all—what everybody needs—we get what’s permissible by law—the loophole that competitive parties demand. thus, the pride that people mistakenly attribute to Capitalism’s supposedly harmonious Yin & Yang system of governance is really just a misguided Beavis & Butthead tug-o-war hiding the cancerous source of our misery—competition.
yet because we’ve enshrined the competitive mindset into our heroes and made its damaging tenets the basis of our culture, we end up hating the very public scrutiny required to save us from our own shame (and all the anxiety, worry, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depression, neuroticism, and loneliness that comes with it). we’re terrified of being tested. and because we live in a competitive environment, we’re already familiar with the consequences of having our faults and defects exposed to the world. but unlike cooperative relationships, our competitive mistakes are used against us. our errors are penalized instead of corrected. our embarrassment is highlighted and mocked instead of sympathized with and removed.
public scrutiny only matters if the leader realizes that companionship, not comparison, results in a happy life. on the other hand, if your leader believes that protecting his self-esteem aka covering his ass is more important than making sure things work, he’ll choose secrecy—an advantage employed exclusively in competitive environments.
since America competes against many countries, it must keep its superior technology and advanced weaponry secret to maintain its leading position. but there’s a price to pay for hiding any agenda. protecting the United States from competing governments through secrecy will eventually cause the exploitation of its own citizens.
take Donald Trump for example. he prides himself on being “unpredictable.” by keeping his governing strategy a secret, he hopes to protect America’s global economic and military advantages over competing countries. but his unwillingness to specify his desires also causes American citizens to distrust his motives and rebel against his governing authority. without trust, relationships quickly become unstable. when unaddressed resentment festers, enemies are created from within your own ranks.
worst of all, competition produces optional people. these are the losers who get left by the wayside after the winners defeat them. while everyone focuses on the tiny fraction of individuals who succeed and advance to the top, those who fail are left to fend for themselves without the competitive skills to survive. they don’t have the natural capacity to earn respect through competing and nobody is motivated to teach them how to merit it through cooperation. thus, it’s impossible for an optional person to satisfy anyone.
faulty leadership aka shitty parenting always produces optional people. whenever a child’s life or death becomes an optional statistic instead of the significant or grave event it should rightly be, the parents are to blame. their lack of accountability to their own children results in producing immature adults who are likewise unable to account for their own beliefs.
essential people, on the other hand, stand behind their own opinions, right or wrong, stupid or profound, embarrassing or cool. their commitment to their own beliefs automatically causes you to trust them because, like all people, deep down you want to commit to your beliefs as well. you want permission to say what you’re thinking at all times. this would bring you great relief from the pent up anxiety trapped in your body—the constant pressure you feel from daily suppressing your real opinions about the people around you.
again, the culprit is POOR PARENTING aka UNACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP resulting from A LACK OF PUBLIC SCRUTINY aka secrecy.
this is why competitive governments are full of them. this is why Mexico’s government is full of secrets. this is why Russia’s government is full of secrets. this is china’s government is full of secrets. this is why America’s government is full of secrets.
accountability and tyranny are like light and darkness—if you remove one, you always get the other. when you remove accountability from those who govern, secrets are the inevitable outcome.
families, on the other hand, have no secrets. if your ‘family’ has secrets then your family is broken. something has gone wrong if secrecy is required between people who are supposed to be essential to each other.
a cooperative relationship can never function with a secret blocking its growth. when one person gains, everybody must share the result. when one person achieves, everybody must reap the benefit. and when one person experiences loss, everybody must bear the suffering. when one person suffers shame, all should feel ashamed of what they didn’t do to prevent it.
cooperative governments operate like families. and just like families, they are much harder to produce because they require all involved to develop the necessary skill to be accountable for their own beliefs and resulting behavior.
saying what you believe, and more importantly why you believe it, may sound like a ridiculously simple concept in theory, but it takes years of practice to execute correctly. this is why people have such high appreciation for those who can demonstrate life’s most valuable skill. when you can turn optional people into necessary members of your family, you’ve essentially learned how to change water into wine, straw into gold. this provides the one thing that competitive governance can’t—satisfaction
if one person is lacking in satisfaction, then it’s an indication that everyone has failed to do their duty. a cooperative government cannot depend on optional people to run it. everybody must matter, which means that everybody is required to speak their mind. every opinion is required. if an opinion is missing, then the others have not been accountable enough to demand it. an injured body member should be CONSPICUOUS to every healthy member of the relationship. if someone is unaware of suffering or tragedy in a family, the parents governing that family should be condemned for child abuse or child neglect. thus, if a child is convicted of a crime against society, the parents are the real culprits because they have neglected their duty first; if we really serious about solving the problem of crime in society, all we’d have to do is give the parents of the criminal the exact same sentence. this would address the source of the problem. crime statistics would take a dramatic nosedive.
accountability isn’t an option. it’s the glue required to hold relationships together. if you’re not accountable to your side of the relationship, cooperation becomes impossible. if a man is unaware of an injury, hardship, failure, or embarrassment suffered by one of his family members, he is not accountable to his family. this means that not only does he keep secrets, but he allows secrets to be kept from him. he does not require his family members to declare their beliefs because he refuses to state his own beliefs. he is the cause that motivates the vicious cycle of competition to continue.
an accountable man, on the other hand, governs with his beliefs on the table because he is committed to them. he says and does exactly what his beliefs dictate. this is proof he is committed to them.
e.g., if you believe people should have the right to speak freely, you will react if this belief is violated. this proves you are accountable to your beliefs. such men are qualified to govern because they are accountable to their side of the relationship.
if, however, you refuse to act, it’s proof that you are not committed to your beliefs but to someone else’s belief. this means you’re not accountable to your relationships. your government will end up being competitive by default because when beliefs are not enforced, the relationship has no standards. this makes it unstable. when there is no standard, there is no possibility of stability. and when there’s no stability, there is no motivation to trust the relationship. cooperation, even if it exists in the beginning, will quickly devolve into competition as everybody’s focus shifts to the resources they need instead of the depending on the untrustworthy people responsible for providing them.
refusing to be accountable to your beliefs creates competitive relationships. and in turn, the resulting competitive atmosphere will drive all those within the sphere of the competition to keep even more secrets to protect their own interests since nobody is cooperating with them to meet their needs.
it’s this constant threat of loss when competing for limited resources that drives men to hide their advantages. but secrecy can never safeguard a society because it also has the unwanted side effect of hiding the excuses leaders rely on to break the law—violating the lowest standard for maintaining the relationship.
for something to warrant secrecy, a problem must exist. something must be broken. something must be in an unstable condition. something must be untrue. something must be masquerading as a principle. to avoid embarrassment, the shame must be hidden from examination. to avoid loss of resources and life, the information must be withheld. someone must be afraid to test their theory because it’s too fragile to stand on its own. someone must fear the other party’s behavior in the relationship to the extent that they’re motivated to withhold knowledge from them. in other words, secrets can’t be trusted. a secret reveals that something is either poorly designed or poorly constructed. secrecy is an admission of confusion, an admission of guilt, an admission of irresponsibility in the relationship’s creation. that’s why secrecy is hiding at the heart of every crime scene. secrecy represent a confession of rebellion against the universal moral standard expressed in Newton’s third law of physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Philosophers and common sense adherents will recognize this as The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
no doubt you’ve already been advised to “keep your word” growing up. this is almost a throwaway sentiment by now because, the older you get, the sooner you realize it’s impossible to avoid being a hypocrite. it’s impossible to tell the truth consistently. it’s impossible to stop lying indefinitely. ‘we’re only human!’ is one of our core realizations as a civilization. we’ve always had problems practicing what we preach. but the problem isn’t with the ideal, it’s the practice that’s at fault. it’s not the standard, it’s the poor execution we can’t overcome. and that’s because in competitive relationships, we’re forced to be accountable for ourselves. this has always been a recipe for disaster throughout all of history. at no time during mankind’s existence has he been able to keep himself accountable. but this is exactly why cooperative relationships are a necessity!
i can’t hold myself accountable. i have hidden shame, embarrassing problems, humiliating shortcomings, and a resulting deceptive agenda.
you can’t hold yourself accountable for the exact same reasons.
…but we can hold each other accountable because i have no personal investment in you and you have no personal investment in me. i don’t give a fuck about your life, nor do you care about mine. we are essentially strangers. but that’s the beauty of accountability. we’re not required to know or care about each other. all we have to do is keep each other accountable. by holding a stranger like you, accountable to your word, you in turn are motivated to hold me accountable to mine. this will eventually produce a cooperative relationship.
EXCEPT for the fact that it won’t! because we’re not really giving each other public scrutiny yet. we’re still just loitering in the realm of competition, which is still unaccountable. when only 2 people are involved, we still have secrecy. this creates a problem. if at some point our differing opinions come into conflict, there’s no way to resolve it; my opinion cancels out yours and your opinion cancels out mine. we’re stuck in a Mexican standoff where nobody is willing to budge.
this is why we require a third party—a judge. this is why 3 is the principle of accountability. we can’t form a cooperative relationship without at least 3 people holding each other accountable. 2 isn’t good enough. 2 won’t work. 2 is just a symbolic gesture of good faith. but without the third party involved, all you have are empty claims and good intentions. if you want true accountability, you must always rely on at least 3 people to achieve it. anything less than 3 is wishful thinking. anything less than 3 parties will not allow you to successfully vet anyone’s beliefs.
…..whenever we check another person’s beliefs, we are testing to see whether or not they’ll move. we are testing for authenticity. we are testing for the Principle, the Absolute—always. whether we admit it or not, we’ve never stopped testing for the existence of the Truth, for the unshakeable law that brings harmonious order with it. we are forever in search of The Standard, The Boundary, The Limitation, The Principle, The Author, The Governor—what religious people refer to as God and what secular people refer to as Math.
time is the record of entropy’s history. everything that has worn down has passed through time. and when the process of erosion has finally run its course, time will no longer be required because time is only relevant to change. eventually, all change will cease, and the only thing left will be eternity—no beginning, no end, no defect, no loss or gain, no more competition and no more secrets.. the things that are kept secret will finally be revealed as dysfunctional leadership and its resulting relationship failures will die the death of obsolescence. as tough as it is to find the Truth now in time, the only thing left in eternity will be the absolute immovable, immutable, indissoluble, efficient, functional, mathematical, bare Truth.
always trust the math
Math, with its emphasis on specificity aka Principle, is the polar opposite of secrecy. whereas academics use english to mask the smugness of their emotion, math can’t avoid revealing the absolute strictness of The Principle. nothing is kept secret in the math world because every number correlates to a relationship with another number. their relationship is defined and exact. always. and forever.
in Math, you don’t make relationships with number. you can only discover the number relationships that already exist; you don’t add 1+1 to form the relationship known as ‘2’. 1+1 has always equaled 2 for all of eternity. you didn’t create this relationship between numbers. you were informed of its existence by your math teacher who discovered it somewhere in the world.
specificity is the only currency accepted in the math world. there’s no room for casual mistakes or hidden agendas. those defects quickly get sussed out by comparing exact positions and pre-defined relationship standards. that’s why people respect numbers more than words. secrecy perishes the longer you examine it. math, on the other hand, depends on public scrutiny, and the specificity it produces, to function. without it, bridges will collapse, computers won’t work, and relationships will eventually die. yes, math governs both living and nonliving systems alike.
language can change meaning just by intonation alone. math prevents change by clarifying meaning; you can hide intentions in words, but not in numbers. sentences can double back on themselves and easily hide contradictions. however, numbers must be in the correct Sudoku spot from the beginning or the error will be revealed once the point of competition is discovered.
words, just like human relationships, often compete without an exact standard to judge them. but it’s impossible for numbers to compete because numbers are specific, thus accountable. if you want to be accountable as a human, you must become as specific as a number. you must be that exact in your words and behavior…. but of course, we both know it’s impossible to be as strict as a number. just like you, numbers themselves don’t mean anything. they only mean something when they gather together. then you can then see and understand the relationships between them by how they’re supposed to fit together. where meaning is lost in words, it is gained through numbers defining relationships. where answers are sacrificed by elaborate theories, they’re exposed when the minimum amount of numbers—THREE—finally reveal the relationship standard. when you’re not motivated to keep your word, the accountability of 2 other people is required to hold it in place. when you’re not able to get what you need, 2 other people must help you bear your burden to succeed.
if you want to be revealed, 3 people are required. do the math.
if something isn’t explained clearly, it’s wrong. it will change. solid explanations are bold because they’ve acquired the courage afforded from merciless, unrestricted criticism. this is why all mathematical relationships are functional aka perfect.
Commitment motivates, but it can lie to you if you’re not anchored to Principle. i know it’s tempting to trust those who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for what they believe to be true, but this is a grave mistake! NEVER believe commitment first. Always believe the math first. The Principle never moves. Ever.
……………..Commitment, on the other hand, requires growth. it is a byproduct of discovering necessity for the first time. it is result of becoming proficient in knowing where the relationship numbers belong. you no longer see any other options. you only see one direction. that is how commitment forms. when hunger becomes real, when desire becomes full, when relationships become necessary, commitment blossoms.
“Georg Cantor is the reason most people are too fucking stupid to understand how math works today. He proves the point—like father, like son.” —Math