Author: josuter

Prisoners of The Story – Or Not?

Posted on by josuter

Prisoners of The Story – Or Not?

Two thousand years ago maybe the Story “worked” but now it needs to be updated because the world has changed.  Opponents now have all the modern warfare technology.   We are not a few hundred people in a tribe fighting over hunting grounds or grazing lands.  

If Donald Trump becomes the next president, Biden may, in his remaining two months, let loose the dogs of war in order to make things more challenging for Trump.  Two of those dogs, B&S, are headed for jail if justice is to be served. They may stop at nothing, pulling us all down.

The Story can be changed if we look at other options.  B&S may never have thought of a Dynamic Democracy model, but it might be the only way forward when neither side wants a two-state solution (and which would allow continued lobbing of missiles to the other side).  

Having a liberal democracy with one-person-one-vote is a key part of the Zionist dream of having a homeland. Yet there are other options, including a Dynamic Democracy that chooses leaders by group methods. It can create dynamic feedback from groups instead of from individuals.  Specific groups may be required on some issues while other times randomly picked groups will work.  If constructed properly, social feedback can even control weapons of mass destruction on the international level.  This Dynamic Democracy model can work if leaders on both sides agree.  It also allows Jews as a minority to still play a prominent role in self-government of a homeland.  

You and I might not know how to move this model of Dynamic Democracy to B&S, but with only 6 degrees of separation between any two people on earth, there must be a pathway.  One can start locally, challenging people around you to consider how to move this model forward.  Results of the first round may give hints. Quickly follow the first round with a remixing of groups or introduction of new players.  This can be done every hour or two until a pathway opens up.  

If Israel only has a minority, then pushing for a liberal Democracy with one-person-one-vote could be the end of Israel.  A Dynamic Democracy as an alternative model could lead the way to finding solutions.

Challenge US Kamela

Posted on by josuter

Kamela’s Race

Kamela Harris (KH) should not run to be president.   She should run to challenge the American people.  (And be honest about what she is doing.)  

She should challenge mixed groups to create a Division of Labor for Finding and Filtering Useful Information.   These groups can be self-dividing OR they will be divided by KH.  They must be balanced bias and re-mix frequently.  They must cross party lines, cross age, gender, race, religion, and economic status.  The issues can be local, national, or international.  We are an army of people who can use each other to find better ideas and information – if we have the right tools and a leader who is willing to challenge us. 

This is not JFK’s “Ask Not . . .” speech.  That was too general.  This is a time to give specific challenges and to search and find specific ideas, then debate these ideas among each group before presenting the results to KH or her staff.  She can say “Do you want a president who challenges you?  (vote for KH) – or – “Do you want a president who simply tries to make you feel good?” (vote for DT). 

EXAMPLE:  KH will push people to reach outside their own world and explore.  At the end of a speaking event she may ask for a mixed group of people over 60 to mix with the under 20 crowd to find important and relevant points of European History.  KH or a staff member will follow up with that specific group in two weeks.  “What have you discovered?”  KH may ask another mixed group ages 30-60 to think about the Abortion issue and report their findings.   

KH should slow things down and sound more presidential.  Slow down the tempo of speaking.  Do not let social media set the agenda.  Do not talk about or attack DT or JD except maybe once a week, and then hit her opponents hard with the gathered facts.   

Ask real, not rhetorical questions of news reporters and be genuinely interested in their answer.  But don’t let them off the hook either.  “Reach outside your box.”   

KH is not simply running to be president.  She can be a leader who changes the way Americans see and listen to each other.  There is no way she can lose. 

JPSuter

jsuter@sbcglobal.net

Notes on the Nation-State

Posted on by josuter

Notes on the Evolution of the Nation-State (NS) – see previous entries NS – A, B, C

The ship of state can be changed without resorting to violence or revolution if we use Small Groups (SG) for Feedback (FB) to decision makers (DM) and others. This process finds and filters Useful Information (UI) creating additional feedback from outside the established power structures and is a type of Information Power.

Good FB can be independent of the type of government or style of leadership.  With a series of self-generated Questions, an SG creates organization from within and creates a Division of labor for Information Gathering (DIG).  Each SG can be 3-5 people.  Incentives or gradients can be created to engage more people.  A rapid series of SG’s define the problem and offer serious solutions.  Other SG’s will be used to judge the best ideas.

Throwing money at many social and political problems will not be sufficient.  People need organization to find and filter UI.  People avoid making tough choices.  There is a natural resistance to change, even at the grass roots.  Some may not see the need to change.  They may fear looking ignorant or losing respect, so the SG process must offer some privacy.    We can put people in situations where they can make choices without too much stress. 

Many “bad decisions” are never really explicit decisions at all, but are mistakes made by people looking to others on their left and right and, being unable to read clear signals, become afraid and then make a move based on a Story that did not fit.  This does not mean we should ignore those to the left or right but we must expect them to do better in gathering and communicating information.  Give them the tools.  SG groups can then be used to counter the mis-information by public officials or by mainstream media in a timely manner.   

The question remains: “Will grassroots citizens be willing to participate in efforts to change the course of the Nation-State?”  Not if it requires endless sacrifice.  The game-competition model is more likely to succeed.  Can we use people who have low self-confidence?  Of course!  SG team privacy helps to elicit information and ideas from anyone and provides a platform for further growth. 

Mountain climbing is a useful metaphor since most of us have instincts to gain a better position or at least hold our place and push others down.  In many ways, however, we now recognize a slope that is steeper and we are tied to other people.  We can only get to the top if we point out footholds to others and Push them UpHill (PUH).  The results can benefit the larger community.

Gradients and incentives may be needed to start the process.  Like any sport, these incentives can be positive or mildly negative.   If Target Learners (TL) are used, they are chosen by the SG, but prize money is only for SG participants, not the TL.  Yet TL’s have their own power since they will lead a team in the search to find answers to some specific question or grow in a new direction.  Winning will require good communication efforts. 

Questions addressed by any SG can be either an Issue Question or a Process Question.  Push the SG Process too and create more SG’s in other places.  SG’s can push other people to make decisions – or the SG can make decisions for them.  Whether or not those decisions are accepted, the ideas get out there and create a starting point.  

International issues such as Beyond The Border (BTB) can still be started locally with a goal of finding or creating safe zones in the other country, thereby decreasing immigration pressure.  After some initial ideas by a local SG the next questions will center around finding an individual outside the SG who will be willing and able to travel to the foreign country as an unofficial liaison. 

Starter questions can be Big Questions around some national or international issue, or smaller Local Questions such as how to improve test scores of students on some specific subject.  Grassroots people can challenge and be challenged by other grassroots people, both near and far.   The SG process allows engagement of people who may not like each other but recognize that instability of the other group will drag us all down.

Local Issues can include in Education, Catch-up Classes, Healthcare, and Addiction.  International issues for application of SG seed groups include Haiti, Israel-Palestine, Ukraine among others.  The violence in these places seem overwhelming but seeds of new solutions can start anywhere.  If one can gather a dozen people and create several SG’s to debate the homeless issue, for example, then big problems start to look not so big.  There will be discovery of new ways to approach it. 

Evolution or End of the Nation-State?, Part C – Principles of Design for Change

Posted on by josuter

Evolution or End of the Nation-State?                                         J. Suter

PART C – Principles of Design for Change

General Principles:

  1. FB is Key

  2. Structures influence the FUI

  3. SG + Gradient create UI for FB

  4. FComp creates Gradients + Increased Interaction

  5. PUH + BTB

  *DIG Tools (# 2,3,4))

(FB=Feedback, FUI=Flow of Useful Information, SG=Small Groups, UI=Useful Information, PUH=Push Uphill, DM=Decision Maker, BTB=Beyond the Border, DIG=Division for Information Gathering, TL=Target Learner)

General Principles

What are the General principles for moving the Nation-State to the next level?  Providing Useful Information (UI) as feedback to Decision Makers (DM) is key.  We know that structures of any kind can affect the flow of useful information, so using small groups as a division of labor can help find and filter useful information. Competition can create gradients or incentives, resulting in more interaction.  Contrary to historical practices, we must push others uphill to create sustainable communities, both here and in other countries.  It may be the only way out.

Can we see ahead enough to survive?  How will we organize if there is no nation? What forces will provide a gradient if we give up the gun? (Don’t give it up!)  Who will give us a clear vision and a goal? (We do!).  If we want real change, the attitude that we can defeat other countries must be turned upside down.  We do not want our opponents to feel insecure.  We must push them uphill toward a sustainable existence, town by town, village by village. 

Milton Friedman described change: “Only a crisis produces real change . . . and actions depend on the ideas lying around.”   Yes, but that is change from the top when leaders feel the ground shifting.  Long term change is more like the biological change that happens within our cells every day.  That level of change is what creates and adult from two cells that just happen to meet during conception.  That’s change!

How and Who? – Personal Stuff

Creating change can be very personal, so a few personal suggestions are in order: Do not be surprised that average citizen does not want to talk about important issues when they have no tools to talk.  Who would listen to them anyhow? Look for creative applications, from small local issues up to the level of international affairs such as use of Dynamic Democracy for the Israel-Palestine Solution.  (see “Israel-Palestine Solution” at <  JoDa dot substack dot com  >)

In creating public conversations, grassroots people mostly do not have 1. A task or goal,  2. Time to Talk, Listen, Think, Decide (TLTD)  – at least not in public forums.  3. Small Groups (SG) with which to bounce off ideas and information.  They must create these themselves because no one else will. 

Resistance to this process may arise from any level.  There may be more resistance at the grassroots until they understand the process.  Try lighthearted issues to start. If resistance comes from leaders, then incorporate them into the process as players. Should feedback be anonymous?  Think about it yourself or ask your SG.

Some issues may require Privacy and Deniability as part of the information and feedback process.  Drop the cynics.  Confront and challenge detractors.  Postpone meeting with those who are angry and move on if there is no progress.  This is not a social club. 

Many will wonder, “Why should I push others up the hill?  It’s not my town.”  People with no direct skin in the game can be neutral observers yet create their own game with whatever goals they choose, just for fun or a challenge.   With this attitude, they may be able to work around the existing resistance within some local hierarchy or work around resistance from BOG-power alone.  This can benefit everyone.  (see Examples and Possible Applications below)

Connect people to each other

We cannot force a Western-style democracy on every country in the world, but we can still push people in other countries to listen to each other.  Find a specific individual in other country as a touch point and to start the process.  “Is someone stealing from them?”  With modern communication technology, this information can be found and passed on to other people of that country.  Connect people to people.

One example in the developing world is the building sanitary plumbing for a community.  This is an under-appreciated factor in the creation of a stable society since it helps to minimize disease-borne vectors.  This is also something that local people can do themselves if they have tools of organization and communication.

1. Feedback is Key

Why were European leaders stunned from recent election results?  They had different sources of information and were surrounded by advisors, each of whom had their own agenda.  i.e. They obviously did not have good feedback during their time in office and used only information sources that reinforced their position. 

As noted before, Feedback (FB) is good, useful information at the right place and right time.  Those who do not recognize the value of FB mechanisms are under the spell of the BOG-only force behind the social hierarchy.  For public policy or legislation, FB can be given from people on the outside and after a policy in place.  If leaders do not listen, then grow the number of SG’s and repeat.  Remember too that SG to provide FB can be comprised of a mix of people across national boundaries.  

2. Structures influence Flow of Useful Information

Physical structures, social structures, real or metaphorical structures – any structure where tension can be applied for discovery of ideas and information.  Many structures will be temporary.  People do not want change that comes too fast, so the best option is to make people part of the change process and part of the feedback loops.  Teach others to push even farther into their community or other communities to create secondary and tertiary effects.  This process can start at all levels but may also leapfrog levels of the local or larger hierarchy in order to Focus on a Few individuals (FOF), DM’s, or communities. 

Taiwan Perimeter – A Structural Solution

Looking at the situation in Taiwan from the Taiwan perspective, one can understand the mixed feelings since Taiwanese are ethnically and culturally very close to the Chinese.  Yet they have their own country independent of China and do not want to be given promises, then swallowed up like Hong Kong.  A structural solution might be beneficial.  Taiwan could invite a number of friendly countries to create settlements along their coast, each allowed approximately one square kilometer with access to the sea.  A wall or barrier controlled by Taiwan might surround that square kilometer (on 3 sides) so that the invited country remains separate.  From the air it would look like a square-tooth saw.  If China invades Taiwan they will have to get past these many teeth.  This increases the perimeter length of Taiwan just a bit and, on the positive side, may allow for more trade if that is what the various parties agree to.  Rather than become more isolated, the future nation-state may be more intermingled with its neighbors, bringing both enemies and friends closer.

Focus on a Few (FOF)

Creating good feedback is key for any kind of government.  But how does one start the change process with feedback to the decision makers, to neighborhood communities, or other grassroots people?   Use friendly competition to give feedback from many individuals or SG’s to one DM using the upside-down pyramid power.  The metaphor here is that of a magnifying glass focusing the sun’s rays on one spot.  This requires some coordination, but it can push for change.  

FOF can be positive or negative.  It can also be used in a positive way to push individuals uphill into a professional role (though it cannot guarantee a professional degree).  Maybe push someone to learn a foreign language to expand their capacity to communicate.  Focus many on one or two people, one or two DM’s.

We can challenge others, even those outside our own country.  People can be invited or challenged to play a game like baseball, but in which they make decisions for other people in other communities.  Even if there is no acceptance of the SG’s ideas, their world has been enlarged a bit.  Another strategy – After a round or two invite (you pick) and challenge others from those communities to be part of an SG. 

OPOV versus Dynamic Democracy?

What of the one-person-one-vote (OPOV) democracy?  Is this the best we can do?  Is it nimble or flexible enough to survive a changing environment?  A better solution for a faster changing environment is the Dynamic Democracy such as the one suggested as a solution for Israel-Palestine.  No matter what their percent of the voting public, secular Jews can control the military and national security because of outside threats, but other government functions can be headed by various other groups.  Like the Treaty of Westphalia, it can work if there is an agreement by the leaders or the people who sign an agreement.

Dynamic Democracy goes beyond majority rule to incorporate specific feedback loops.   An example might be some specific question about the federal debt given to the voters with a January birthday.  They may not have special voting rights but can provide useful information as FB, both to other voters and politicians. There is a need for specific FB on many issues, but especially in conflict areas SG may have to incorporate people with knowledge of the situation such as the conflict in Haiti.  Bringing in outside militia to Haiti may be a temporary solution but it is also top-down and susceptible to misinformation by the people taking control.  

If money warps useful information, Move the Money (MTM). 

Instead of supporting specific political parties or interest groups, we can pay each other to gather and filter information.  If necessary, currency can be created among small groups where accountability can be done on a frequent basis.  Create a Division of Labor for gathering and filtering information (DIG) on the many issues that need attention.  Divide by the day and month of birth, Age, Gender, Race, Religion.  Almost any division will work since other filters may also be added later. 

Intermediate (time, position) Goals are set locally. Push to make decisions.

Goals can be intermediate in time, place.  Push all directions.  Push-Pull others to make decisions, both small and large.  Share UI if possible.  Push discovery and tools of communication.  This does not require salesmanship.  Instead challenge others to search and discover.  Make the enemy more stable?  Yes.  Who has the most powerful God, the God who takes care of everyone?  Make this your Story. 

3. Use Small Groups (SG) and Gradients to find and filter Useful Information. 

    Then use this UI as FB for Decision Makers and others.

Moving Useful Information (MUI) is Not the same as surveillance.  Do Not get rid of privacy.  In fact, privacy is part of the SG process and essential to finding UI.  We do not need to make everything transparent. 

Increase interaction, not isolation.  Develop and discover good Questions – another role for SG.  Ask both general and specific questions.  Finding a workaround for a specific Decision Maker or Politician who will not or cannot listen. 

SG tasks include the gathering and filtering of information.  SG can meet online or face-to-face.  Participants can use any source of information and share the best sources with others.  To extend the example given above – the Division of IG among SG’s might be a division by birth month: January BD – an economic question; February BD –a defense issue;  March BD – a social issue.  

Work to make the process efficient.  Leaders with little time and strained resources will make people wait in line with petitions or requests, then make them go to the back of the line again.  We need a workaround.  If only BOG-power is used, then it becomes difficult to Move Useful Information (MUI) up the ladder.

Specific issues can start anywhere on any level.  Start with a Question or an Idea.  Then fin a Small Group.  Create gradients.  Do several rounds of Small Group work before approaching a Decision Maker with Feedback.  Some issues may require privacy and deniability.

4. Use of Friendly Competition to create gradients and increase interaction. 

Better input creates better output for DM’s and for us all.  This includes having good mental models and group processes.  To use friendly competition for creating gradients or incentives, each participant could bring few dollars for a prize.  Set up places and processes for people to talk, even about difficult issues and with people they don’t know or like much.  Push others just beyond their reach and to make decisions.  Results can be tested by other SG’s.

Gradients can be created to decrease Negative Tension that leads to conflict.  Crowd funding can create a gradient and a general direction, but more specific information filters are needed to move a community toward stability and sustainability.  When gradients are created to decrease negative tensions we should expect something from both sides of the conflict.  who

5. Push Uphill (PUH) and Beyond the Border (BTB)

Immigration issues have shown that borders are important.  We can go beyond the borders to create safe zones in other countries using these processes and decrease the pressure of immigration.  How do we do that?  Find someone who knows someone else who can contact or travel to the target town.  Being a “Target Town” (like “Target Learner”) is mostly a positive thing since it implies expectations and a willingness for outsiders to invest time and resources to push them onto a sustainable path.  Invest at least several days or weeks (months at the most) before moving on.  The time period should be similar to how much time it takes to show people how to play baseball or any new game they have never seen before. 

Examples and Possible Applications for Small Group feedback: 

Health Care and Education; Catch up on school lost because of Covid.  This could be specific grade-level work.  Teachers might help as consultants but if no teachers are available, then SG’s can do it alone.  Health Care – diabetes, obesity, competition to decrease fentanyl abuse and other addictions.  Use hypothetical cases if real cases are unavailable.  Domestic violence, inner city violence, or violence Beyond The Border (BTB) are possible applications; Sanitation projects; Homelessness is a current political football in major US cities.  Many of the Homeless can be participants and make decisions as part of a SG team and may offer insights to the right Questions or even to help to discover what the right Questions should be.  In all of these, we may find that current governments have no time or resources.  Yet fundamental changes can happen with good information gathering.  

OBOR – Structures and Small Groups for the International Arena

Another example might be the One Belt One Road (OBOR) that China is pursuing. China is not doing this simply for the benefit of other countries but also to expand China’s hegemony to a larger part of the world.   Taking out a few links from the belt is one strategy to counteract the process but this cannot be done at the leadership level alone.  We can push the target link country to become self-sufficient so that they don’t need China.  Traditional foreign aid that starts with leader-to-leader talks may be inadequate.  That type of structure lends itself to corruption that creeps in and money disappears.  Targeting these link countries must include all levels of society: teachers in one country working with teachers in the target country, farmers with farmers, business people with business people.  Make the projects small, quick and efficient.  The goal is not simply getting acquainted with other people but rather pushing and pulling people to make decisions. Start with FOF.

Parallel Information Sources and The Deep State

The NS might need an enemy, but does it need a Deep State also?  Probably not.  The function of Intelligence will still be needed to provide useful information for Legislators and the Executive Branch to make better decisions.  However, a Deep State that is not accountable is a problem.  It may be difficult to de-construct the agencies and then re-build them.  Here a mental model of a parallel bridge structure can help, not unlike the parallel bridge built in San Francisco after the earthquake.  Take the 195 (approx. 200) countries existing around the world and divide them among the 50 states so that each state is responsible for about 4 countries.  Each state can use any process to gather what they believe is useful information on their 4 countries and present it to Congress and the Executive Branch who can then compare that information with what they get from the current Intel Services.  Discrepancies should be explored, but it would provide a bridge to Intel agencies who are truly accountable to Congress and the President.  This is a task-specific project that can be done by the 50 States or by a private-public combination. 

Local or Regional Decisions on AI

One of the best uses of Artificial Intelligence is to increase the Real Intelligence of people learning anything new.  The downside of AI is becoming evident when nation-states use both AI and drones for surveillance.  At the present time, AI is also being used to target civilians in war-like situations.  If the community is the basis for morality, then any use of AI or drones should be cleared by each community who must concomitantly take responsibility for creating a safe place to live. 

Unless there is a visionary leader, one cannot start at the top.  And because they are busy with other things, grassroots people are not usually organized until they have a task, some tools, a structure, and possibly an incentive or gradient. 

Starting a SG & PUH

Are we changing the people at the top or at the grassroots, or are we simply changing the structure within which we act?  There will be resistance to any change from family, friends, and colleagues who say they have your best interests in mind and do not want you to do anything that might look “stupid”.  Is that good advice or are they simply afraid?  The irony is that our source of love (family, friends, and community) can also be the major source of resistance to any change.

The Target person may say they have “no interest” but they can still participate since we are looking at the learning process itself, not necessarily with playing permanent roles. We are also not taking an academic test. The power of the target learner is that, for a short period of time, he or she has a team to help find and filter useful information. 

Are we “challenging” people or “selling” to them.  Maybe some of both, but a straightforward challenge may help to decrease the effects of guilt and it will become easier to pose further challenges.  Think about how the sport of baseball or other team sports spread from town to town, even at the kid level.  The SG information processes will be similar.    It may be easier to pick Target Learner from outside your own group to Push Uphill. 

Must we make the nation-state disappear – or evolve?  Can we balance the system with better FB?  An application of better FB will help a better system emerge.  We can follow Hans Morgenthau and believe in balance over dominance. 

Evolution or End of the Nation-State, Part B – Tools

Posted on by josuter

Evolution or End of the Nation-State?                                     J. Suter

Part B – TOOLS for CHANGE

  1. Language – Mental Models and Metaphors, Stories

  2. Bio models and Feedback

  3. Competition and Gradients

  4. Organization and Structures

  5. Examples

Mental Models and Metaphors

We make decisions as individuals but gather information and tell stories as a group.  Communication skills then become very valuable. We must find, filter, and move useful information at all levels and between all levels.

Would a powerful parent let their children destroy each other?  Of course not.  We must apply that same question to the Greater Being who goes by a different name in every society.  A powerful God, like the powerful parent, leads to peace.  This metaphor becomes real or not real by the actions or inactions of believers. 

When leaders tell stories that are not credible, one wants to ask, “Who do they think they are talking to?”  It may be that, in their own mind, they are back in their childhood, just making stuff up and hoping not to disappoint their parent, teacher, or authority figure.  Maybe they do not recognize the facial expressions of disbelief.  What do you do when you realize a leader is lying?  First, show no reaction.  Simply nod your head in agreement.  Second, you begin a process to replace them. 

Story is the software that guides our action and help to build a framework for our understanding of the world.  Good stories become a key part of the flow of useful information and can determine whether or not any particular bit of information is passed on to the next person or not.  Stories as weapons have never gone away, but in an information age, censorship and “Info-Terrorism” stories can lead us astray. 

Love & Language

The national anthem makes the heart swell, making one feel closer to the motherland.  In reality, a nation is not a sentient human being but simply an agreement among leaders.  This can be good or bad.  Elites set the boundaries, set the rules, and make predictable an environment for the grassroots people who are busy with their lives.

Jeff Bezos noted that people are not (generally) truth seekers but social in nature.  Go along to get along.  One could argue that this changes when important decisions must be made or decisions that will affect the whole group.  Both love and language draw people together.  Family, friends, and community.  They all matter.  The fact is, however, that there are Americans who would like to see me suffer, and conversely, there are people living in other countries who would sacrifice for me. 

Hermann Goering, Hitler’s right-hand man, expressed a strong conviction that wars are decided by the elites, and although the common man did not want to fight, it was always easy to bring them along.  Simply tell a story that creates fear of an enemy and the grassroots will join the effort. 

A crack in the story of Western Civilization started in the 1960’s when Detroit Automakers created a slogan for Americans to “buy American” while at the same time they themselves purchased foreign autoparts from Japan.  This allowed US Automakers to get lazy in research and development.

Historian Margaret MacMillan writes about the 4 causes of war:  1. Greed, 2. Self-protection, 3. Emotions and 4. Ideas.  It may be difficult to change 1-3, but #4 does hold some promise.  We should not forget boredom as a factor.  Historians reading personal letters from the period around WWI found that boredom actually was a factor in getting British elites to push for engagement.  These were people who had a lot of power at their fingertips and no place to use it. 

Stories

Kings queens and pawns make a good story, but is that framework sufficient for current challenges?  If there is any change in the environment (any kind of environment), the story must change to adapt.  The role of Hollywood in creating our present story should not be underestimated.  To continue on our present path, however, the Story cannot be clever enough.  Communication and filtering of useful information will therefore be essential. 

People need a story.   War makes for great stories. In the cycle of war, the first thing to do is to start rumors or a story about the place to be taken over.  Want to take over Canada?  First, prime the takeover by telling a story to dehumanize the people, then add a touch of something fearful.  That makes the takeover much easier.

People also need stories as software to help make decisions.  “Is that plant poisonous?”  The answer could be useful information.  “Is the guy over there an enemy?  How do you know?  Do you have a memory of trusting that person?”

We all use mental models and metaphors to navigate, communicate, and to build social systems.  In looking at the more successful systems we could pay attention to the biological systems that have been around for thousands of years.  We are part of that biological system.   The words we use acknowledge this fact: “head” of state, “arm” of the law, “branch” of government, or even “mother” in motherland show our innate biological selves.  We are part of this larger cycle and words help or hinder our understanding of it.  So we create stories of hunters, running down the gazelle in Africa.  Like all situations and stories about how to find food, water, and shelter, geographic location is specific and important. 

Cycles of war and peace reveal two or more forces in opposition, creating a back and forth dynamic, similar to cycles in a biological model.  War to release tension is a catharsis so there is always a tension between the Story and what is happening on the ground.  What is the role of the Story in war?  Is it to find and move Useful Information and to close this gap?  Or is the role of the Story to lead, to find another path and use whatever tension it can create to bring us along? 

Communication technology by itself is neutral on the abuse of language.   NGO’s used to be the good guys, but now they weave their way into a client government and gain a foothold for control.  The biological analogy here is that of a parasite but thankfully one which can be countered and controlled with Useful Information. 

Nuclear deterrence is a Story too and a belief that risk of self-destruction offers stability, at least at the international level.  There are now a growing number of nuclear states.  For this and various other reasons, political power now seems concentrated in a smaller number of people who are adversaries.  This combination pushes toward an increasing real risk of self-destruction of the planet.   

Competition from the bottom up

Silicon Valley’s success is built from the bottom up in the silicon chip, speaking both literally and metaphorically.  A closer look reveals other truths.  The silicon in the chips cannot be pure silicon, or it will not work.  There must be some other elements added, some impurities in tiny amounts for the transistor to work.  This might be a metaphor for the loyal opposition in Parliament, or maybe the First Amendment that keep leaders honest and in touch with reality. 

Silicon Valley’s success is primarily because scientists and engineers paid attention to what happens at smaller and smaller scale.  New languages and properties emerge when a million transistors can be put on a single chip, and with good software it begins to approach and exceed the capability of the human brain. Go small to go big.  Over the last 50 years the desire to use the communication ability of computers has become a natural instinct for most humans.

The wealth concentration created by Silicon Valley increases the added risk that previously reliable information sources can be bought and used as a megaphone to spread whatever message the owners want.  Yet they seem oblivious to this risk.

This brings up the question about who we are as individuals.  What is our local level purpose?  Our task?  Can we change the site and nature of the competition and keep it friendly?  Can we push others uphill toward sustainability?  Can we push in all directions and at many levels?  Nature is competition and we must learn to use it.

Biological Models (War again)

Another biological model to consider is the immune system.  It is the defense system of our body with killer T-cells, macrophages, and all kinds of cytokines, each distributed throughout the cells, organs, and tissues.  The skin is the first and primary barrier of defense, just like the border of a country is a primary part of national defense.  

Most nations of the world were not signatories of the Treaty of Westphalia, yet they all exhibit the same tendency to form national boundaries.  Are there limits to the size of a nation-state?  There are natural limits to size in the plant and animal kingdom.  The elephant has reached a natural limit on land and the whale in the ocean.  In each case they hit the limits of growth in their environment.

What forces demarcate the Nation-State?  How do they “know” to stop growing?  Push, push, push – until resistance – or some signal.  In cell biology this is an important question: “what stops a cell from growing?”  Cells and tissues of the body release chemical signals and provide resistance from neighboring cells.  Out-of-control growth is cancer.  Does this tell us anything about the limits of hegemony?

Alpha women tend to mate with alpha men.  (Do they still?)  This gives both of them power, a social adaptation probably related to our genes – or to a story they were told.  Biology can be very political, a fact that was shown by the intermarriage of royals during the Middle Ages.  Arthur Schlessinger, Jr. a special advisor and historian for JFK, made the remark that maybe the only way to avoid war is for everyone to inter-marry.  That is statistically unlikely to happen with humans, but it could happen with ideas. 

Information and Feedback

Feedback is defined here as useful information at the right time and right place.  Useful information via feedback can help to make a decision by either man, machine, or bio system.  Feedback for any policy or legislation can be written into the law to help keep it on track and not grow too large or obtrusive.  The good news is that feedback can be added post-policy implementation and added from people on the outside.  This is another role for citizens who can act together.   Feedback from reliable and balanced bias sources can be useful for anyone implementing a policy or legislation. 

The sensor for this social feedback is a small group (SG) of people picked randomly to provide another layer of information filtering.  This requires some imagination, but just as importantly, it requires a specific task and feedback from other people.  The structure of sensors and feedback loops may become standard once some good designs are discovered.  Plus, sensor groups and feedback loops do not need to have national boundaries. 

Another example of feedback in biology is the regulation of breathing.  How does your body know that you need to breath faster or slower.  The heart uses feedback to regulate the heart rate.   Breathing, growing, heart rate, senses such as hearing, and movement, all use feedback.  Biological feedback is mostly not seen or thought about.  With a well-designed feedback loop, however, these processes stay on track with a very small signal and good communication pathways.

Accountability is a subset of feedback.  Governments and corporations must have accountability to work well.   Feedback and accountability as types of information and sometimes be just as powerful as military or economic power.  This is why the First Amendment on free speech is critical, though by itself may not be enough. 

Gradients

Life is a flow of energy – mostly downhill.  Organization requires a local “uphill” movement of energy although the general trend is still downhill.  No gradient? No life.  No money?  No goods and services.  But a nation-state cannot survive on the movement of money among the financial sector. 

Gradients can be created with positive or negative slopes, prizes or negative punishments.  One can create a gradient with money as a symbol of value, but gradients, both positive and negative, can come with emotions like fear or desire.  Hope is a great motivator too, but mostly long term. 

Gradients can be one large gradient – or many smaller ones that one can see with a series of waterfalls, or a series of ten 3-volt batteries end to end that create a 30-volt drop in energy.  There is great potential energy in a town of only a few hundred people if they can find ways to organize for some task, or to find better information even for some group outside this town.  Some general organization can be done with a gradient alone plus a goal.  An information filter or story may help focus efforts.

Organization and Structures

In any economy, one can often make money by getting between a person and what they want, maybe adding some value, and charging a fee.  Here “want” is an indicator of emotion, tension, or gradient.  The role of business is primarily one of creating organization.  Without organization there is no product or service.  In a capitalist system the money flows in a downhill gradient in salaries and wages for services rendered and products purchased.  Those decisions are primarily made by consumers.  In a socialist society, decision making is less clear though it can be done.  In either case, good feedback is essential.

The division of labor for gathering and filtering useful information is a task traditionally for mainstream media, but that function is now coming into question.  We do not seem to be getting the best information for problems that confront us.  Course correction may require a new and different division of labor, i.e. a Division of labor for Information Gathering (DIG).

There seems to be a magic of majority in the structure of democracy.  The minority must either stay and fight a larger group or go home.  This dynamic is related to a common sense of fairness and seems to be a basic societal norm.  No matter if the government is democratic or non-democratic however, grassroots people can wake up to their power to change things by creating small group processes.  These small groups (SG) can be started by anyone and participants picked randomly. Depending on the task, they can be re-mixed as needed.  Their primary role is the gathering and filtering of information to provide feedback to Decision Makers (DM) or anyone. 

In social groups we often use the term “feedback” as a negative signal, telling the other person to “chill out” or change their behavior, but feedback can be both positive or negative.  Horseback riders give feedback to their horse and, if paying attention, will listen to the feedback from the horse. 

Feedback must reach the decision maker in an efficient way.  The pilot of an airplane has rows of instruments so that he or she can see what is happening at all critical places in the airplane.  Contrast that system with a passenger sitting near the tail who can see the position of a wing flap and passes that information person-to-person on up to the pilot.  That is a type of feedback too, but one can easily imagine that it would not work very well even assuming that other passengers cooperate.   

ANA – Anti-Nuclear Actuators

Actuators in a system can be thought of as automatic switches that wait for a specific signal before they flip.  They are usually devoted to one task.  If we want to taper off of our dependency on nuclear weapons, we can use the concept of small group Anti-Nuclear Actuators (ANA) which fit quite well with the concept of feedback for military preparedness and nuclear weapons.

The theoretical basis for nuclear deterrence is that one nation will not strike another with nuclear weapons because the aggressor will likely also be destroyed.  This gave rise to the acronym MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction.  This is destruction of all of society and probably all of humanity.  According to a RAND study on nuclear war, particulate matter thrown into the upper atmosphere would last for many years and cut 70% of the sunlight, leading to starvation of nearly all plants and animals.  Humans will not survive.   

In the dilemma of nuclear weapons that could destroy all of mankind, it becomes imperative that some message reach the decision makers directly – and it must be done a priori – before any nuclear war begins.  Otherwise it will be ignored.  Decision makers must realize that if there is any nuclear weapon detonated against either civilians or military personnel – anywhere in the world – then that Decision Maker along with their family and friends will be destroyed.  They must have strong incentives to work with leaders in other countries to abolish nuclear weapons.  Without a strong signal it gets pushed down on the list of priorities.  

Consequences must be clear.  These messages can be sent by post or email on a regular basis (every 3-6 months) with photos showing that they are being watched closely.  Who would send such a message and how would they get it there?  It could be done by small groups of Anti-Nuclear Actuators (ANA) made up of a few people from several countries and be state actors, non-state actors, or a mix.  Surveillance of the decision makers and their family and friends could be done by other small groups or by the same ANA.   The letters must also be made public but with few or no names attached. 

Is ANA murder?  No.  It is group accountability.  It is one way to include decision makers in the feedback loop.  When the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648 it made sense to prohibit the assassination of one’s opponents for the sake of social stability.  With the question of nuclear annihilation, however, it makes more sense to include decision makers in the feedback loop.  This may be a moot point since few leaders will survive a nuclear exchange.  Alternatively, they will be picked off in the hallway by a security guard whose family and future are now destroyed.

Then God will be alone again, thinking about whether he or she wants to do it all over, disappointed that humans did not realize that they were still in the Garden. 

Some might argue that the role of nuclear weapons has been downgraded with the advent of new technologies in modern warfare such as the drones or supersonic cruise and ballistic missiles.  Others might argue that the gap between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons was a chasm so wide as to be unthinkable.  But now that chasm is now closing with recent advances in conventional weapon technology.  By itself, this narrowing of the chasm may pull us into use of nuclear weapons before we realize it. 

Nation-state leaders must have a strong incentive to move nuclear weapons to zero.  The fact that ANA and use of other non-nuclear weapons can be more precise in their targeting of decision makers will actually allow any nation to begin nuclear disarmament unilaterally since first use of nuclear weapons will give no advantage.

The key is in creating feedback, not only for ourselves, but giving feedback to many other parts of the system, much of it done without creation of rigid laws.  We must assume that people want to survive and will look for better methods of government.

Dynamic Democracy

French born journalist and political commentator Vladimir Posner noted that mainstream media in both the US and Russia chose to perpetuate the old stories about the other, hoping to keep up the mistrust – and maybe sell more papers.  Of course most readers had no specific task for which they would have to gather more accurate information about the other country.  If they did have such a task, they would have lost confidence in what they were reading in the mainstream media and searched for better sources.  Who would give them such a task – a task that required better information?  Maybe a teacher.  Maybe other readers.  Even a temporary need for better information could be useful when exploring unknown cultures or exploring almost anything new.  The incentive may be “artificial” or an “artifact” because it is man-made, but useful nonetheless.    

Competition versus War (the YMW20)

Boundaries mean less than they did in the past.  Remember that there are Americans who want to see me suffer, but foreigners who would sacrifice for me. 

The linchpin for changing the purpose of war away from a war business are the Young Men and Women (YMW) called to serve or paid to fight.  Hermann Goering’s dictum that one can always get the common people to fight needs to be modified:

If leaders want young people to go off and fight forever wars, keep them ignorant and angry.  But young people are not as ignorant as they used to be, and most of them want to devote their lives for something positive.  A society that abuses the hearts of young people does not deserve to survive.  If the young people have friends in other countries, they may decide to make a Covenant with those other young people, a Covenant that says they will not harm anyone their age or younger.  Maybe call it YMW20 (age 20 or whatever).  What would that look like?  It changes the value and the meaning of physical borders.  Rather than dividing people by geography or gender or race or religion or sports team, it divides people by age.  Some young people realize that they are being used for political purposes and are OK with that.  Others will find their own path.  Their war is not their father’s war. 

And democracy?  Is one-person-one-vote (OPOV) the best way?  Surviving in a changing environment appears to favor authoritarian regimes if one only looks superficially.  Yet democracy requires citizens to be educated on a wide variety of issues and the time frame for making decisions cannot be too long or too short.  That is a very difficult task to do without a Division of Information Gathering (DIG). 

An “Authority” is an “Author”, someone who writes things down.  What leaders agree to and sign can still work, even if it goes beyond one-person-one-vote (OPOV).  It can become a Dynamic Democracy if there is better FB.  In fact, the role of Western Democracies may lie in connecting people to each other, not in creating a look-alike democracy.  “Who is stealing from whom?”  We now have the ability to discover and move such information, even if we cannot change everyone else and convert all nation-states to Democracies.

We cannot move forward on stories based on lies.  The terrain is too difficult.  There is no one person or organization that has the ultimate truth on anything.  We each bring our bit of information, our idea or question, and try to make things work.

Evolution or End of The Nation-State, Part A – Problems

Posted on by josuter

Evolution or End of the Nation-State?                          J. Suter

Part A – Problems

  1. History of the Nation-State

  2. Problems

  3. War

  4. Purpose

  5. Morality

  6. Power, Structure, Information

  7. New Factors

  8. Isolated

Are we witnessing the end of the Nation-State?  What does that mean?  What will follow?  Is the Nation-State (NS) the pinnacle of human social development?

Political scientist Nicolai Petro wonders whether the structure of the Nation-State has outlasted its usefulness.  He noted the 400-year existence of this structure that began the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, ending the 30 Years War.  Other historians point to a similar structure that began after the Battle of Hastings 1066, fought over the crown of England in which William beat Harold and introduced Common Law.   Still others believe that Rome was a starting point.  Much has been written about the fall of Rome, but Roman historian Mary Beard thinks the more interesting question is why Rome grew so large.  She concluded that Rome made all the conquered people into citizens and pushed them up to a higher level.

The 109 participants who signed the Treaty of Westphalia never met all in one room because they hated each other so much.  This collection of princes and warlords were tired of fighting and so agreed finally to keep their hands off the “property” of others and, of course, not assassinate each other.  This agreement provided a framework for the nation-state.  It was a group of elites who determined the laws, rules, and boundaries.  Life became safer and more predictable for common people who just wanted to get on with their lives.

Future of the nation-state?   What will emerge?

In one of the Smithsonian museums of Washington is the bronze statue of a pre-historic man (we might call Smithsonian Man), naked and crouching with fangs bared.  Viewers who are able to grasp the profound message of humankind’s journey and the struggle to survive will realize how far we have come.  The next question almost formulates itself, “How much further can we go?”  Are we going toward a larger, One World Order?  If not larger, then how do we divide?  Do we diversify or do a re-org?  De-colonization, on the surface, seems to have some answers, though the number of civil wars indicates that the lines re-drawn were not chosen carefully, at least from the perspective of the people who lived there.

Hans Morgenthau, a well-respected political scientist from the last century, argued for balance over domination.  The choices may be broader, however.  What makes a system work well is good feedback to help make the needed adjustments for any change in the environment.  Good feedback requires good information to the control points or to the decision maker.  Most democracies have voting every 2-4 years and maybe some special elections.  That amount of feedback will not be enough, especially during transition.  This implies the need for more interaction, not less, and the need for feedback that is more specific and targeted. 

Problems of the nation-state model.

For all their power, nation-states still have lots of problems, some of which seem intractable: forever wars, climate destruction, growing income gaps, and potential for nuclear annihilation to name a few.  An incumbent re-election rate for Congress of 95% should tell us something about the declining state of this society and the sclerosis that prevents adaptation and adjustments.  The unusually high rate of re-election indicates who is knocking on the doors of legislators. 

War as catharsis.  War as business.

War as a catharsis helps to release pent-up tension.  In 1999, American author and military consultant, Edward N. Luttwak wrote “Give War a Chance”.  In it he argues that a peace which comes too soon will simply prolong the fighting.   Luttwak’s point may have been an attempt to go deeper, to find a fundamental change versus simply a superficial moving of the pieces on the board.  But from a country club point of view with cigar and whisky in hand, he may not realize that anything can be learned by these pawns on the chess board.  From the big guy’s vantage point, it’s easy to let the small guys beat themselves up, then move in and take whatever you want. 

Alliances form, alliances dissolve and form again among the elite, many of whom are business people.  In Arthur Miller’s 1940’s stage play “All My Sons”, Miller wrote about the potential consequences of a bottom-line mentality.  The businessman character in the play manufactured airplane parts but he cut corners to make a larger profit.  In the end he sacrificed his son who died in an airplane accident.  Profiteering continues today in the military industry that will charge whatever the market will bear.  To be fair, anti-war can also be used as a business to raise money, or for that matter, any hot-button issue where someone can hire permanent staff.

Can a nation-state respond adequately to a changing environment?  (“environment” here could be any type of environment – natural, social, economic, or political.)

For climate issues and the threat of nuclear catastrophe, the nation-state seems inadequate.  We are not finding and moving Useful Information (UI) in a way that optimizes problem-solving solutions.  Some nations with nuclear weapons do not even talk with their opponents, allowing confusion that tends to create even more confusion.  Why?  Is it lack of a good role model? Maybe social pressure?  

Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, but why did he wait until the day he left office to warn against this problem?  Was he afraid?  Did he not know how to do it, or were there other factors that involved the social hierarchy?

A larger purpose for the nation-state?  What’s the Story?

Do the People serve the Government or does the Government serve the People? 

A theologian might ask the same question in a different way, “Who does God love more – people at the top or the Grassroots?”  With an all-powerful God, the answer should be “both”.  It is the human spirit that has the will to survive, but the question itself brings in all kinds of religious, philosophical, political, and social views.

We have not escaped the question about purpose.  What is the roll, the task of the nation-state?  Is it simply a division of spoils?  Is it keeping peace among its members, or protection from invaders?  Part of the role must be the facilitation of commerce, creating organization, and sharing a civic life. 

Does the nation-state need an enemy?  Enemies give us a reason for being, even as individuals.  The fall of the Berlin wall and dissolution of the USSR was an opportunity for a visionary to lift us up to a higher level, but instead we chose to keep our enemy.  As a writer who has written extensively on nuclear issues, Jonathan Schell points out that arms manufacturing perpetuates systems of sovereign states – and vice versa.  

Did we need an enemy when a loyal opposition would do?  The task of a loyal opposition is to challenge a leader, to temper ill-conceived plans, and to goad a leader into action when that would be the better course.  Looking at the design of democracy itself, it appears that the founding fathers were not trying to empower the grassroots as much as trying to prevent the re-accumulation of power in a few people around a king.  The three branches of the government divide that power with each branch having a different function.  As a whole, the structure provides balance, feedback, and accountability.

Is there a purpose for the NS beyond its own borders?  Democracy requires citizens to be educated on a wide variety of issues and so cannot function well in countries with low literacy rates.  Even in literate countries, individual citizens cannot know everything, so it becomes relatively easy to spread disinformation.   As Ambassador Chas Freeman noted, in a democracy it becomes necessary for politicians to demonize their opponents in order to get elected.  Of course, this leads to a loss of Useful Information.   Yet we must have Useful Information to go forward, especially when any environment is changing. 

Survival and Morality

Can we create a One World Order that is healthy for everyone?  Will it require more or less violence?  Maybe more competition.   It may be a business opportunity for people who have no common goal except to enrich themselves, but even such people have a drive to organize others and that can be good.  

People Political scientist John Mearsheimer noted that the Arab elites don’t really care that much about Palestinians.  Actually they may really care, but like all leaders, they are paralyzed by their position in the social hierarchy.  That leaves it up to the grassroots who care about an issue to push for change. 

The drive to survive is paramount for the group if not for the individual.  Soldiers are sent off to fight, allegedly to protect the rest of the group.  Even among the lower animals, there are many examples of individuals sacrificing themselves for the group.  The loyalty of dogs is legend in this regard.

We must consider the question of what we mean by morality.  A fair definition of morality is: That which leads to the survival of the group is moral and that which leads to the group’s destruction is immoral.  This is how combatants on opposing sides in a conflict can both be moral – because they are fighting for the survival of their group.  With advent of nuclear weapons, the “group” is now the whole world.  In conventional war, one group’s survival corresponds to the other group’s destruction.  Nuclear war changes this equation with both sides going to zero. 

Power Types

As noted by Mao Tse Tung, the Barrel of a Gun (BOG) is the primary political power.

The executive branch loves it.  Congress, courts, and the police are all OK with use of military and police power to keep order, as are most citizens who do not want chaos.  By itself BOG-power, i.e. military and police power, can create a social hierarchy, but it can also suppress what would otherwise be recognized as useful information.  Those with military power will work to entrain economic power and informational power by creating their own laws and creating a narrative.

There is also power in the ability to print money.  Efforts to print more money can sustain the empire for a short periods of time, but this dynamic only increases the resistance to the flow of useful information and creates a bubble for those at the top, eventually leading to collapse of those in power.  

True economic power is related not only to the vibrancy of the economy but to the system of courts and contracts which, of course, are backed up by BOG-power. 

Governments cannot function without a judicial branch to settle disagreements.  With a good attorney who knows the law and how the judge might rule, the court becomes a ratchet mechanism, pulling money and advantages toward those who already have a step up.  So, the spoils belong to those who can hire good lawyers. 

Structures Influence the Flow of Useful Information

In the distant past, challenges to a leader involved real battles and tested the physical power and wits of the leader.  Most current leaders are still alpha males surrounded by others who do the fighting or who know how to use military force for control.  Besides a well-developed brain and opposable thumbs, what makes humans so powerful is the ability to form a social hierarchy, a pyramid created by subtle forces, some of which are natural and some created by the interaction of many other humans. 

Military power alone can create a social hierarchy but the problem becomes that it becomes like having someone else’s credit card, spending other people’s money and sacrifice other people’s children.  It warps the information that comes to and from leaders because everyone standing on that social hierarchy is afraid of falling off.  They will bite their own tongue and self-censor when they should be speaking out.  This hyper-control of the flow of information creates a bubble, making them susceptible to delusions. 

Information power includes the power of story, religion, and beliefs.   Stories have power if they touch reality at some point.   Of course, there is power in knowing what information is accurate and useful.  Reliable sources and filters are quite valuable.  The ability to spread rumors and misinformation has always been with us but it can backfire with a gradual (sometimes sudden) loss of credibility.  

Non-Violence is an underappreciated power that many leaders fear, but also something that must be coordinated and related closely to informational power.  Because non-violence seems easy to derail with paid agitators, it is difficult to effect change.  Yet proponents claim that it is the only way to create long-lasting results. 

Sanctions offer a type of power and are a type of feedback – but are they effective?  If leaders of the country being sanctioned do not care about their citizens, the sanctions will not have the intended effect.  Furthermore, if the target country is now able to manufacture their own material it can have the opposite effect and make that country more resilient.

Information can be elusive.  Robert McNamara was driven to examine the reasons why we got into the Vietnam War and wrote “In Retrospect”.  Despite ideas and hints from others, he never found a useful answer, and so the problem persists.  Except for the few advisors who like to talk to the public, the circle of advisors around a leader are mostly faceless and unaccountable.  Yet they have access to information that makes them all power players, much like J. Edgar Hoover who had secrets on everybody in Washington.

Imagination itself is closely tied to feedback from other people.  At the end of WWII, Truman failed to imagine a way to keep nuclear weapons from spreading.   Russia was not in a position to refuse nuclear weapons inspection by either a US inspection team or an international inspection team.  Truman was notified of this opportunity but apparently did not get the feedback he needed to explore this option. 

Two new factors of modern life will have a profound effect as history unfolds.  The first is that we have run out of New Lands.  Aside from the melting ice at the poles, there is really nowhere else to go unless one is willing to push aside the people who already live there.  Losers cannot simply find another place to pitch their tent.   

The second new factor is the advent of communication technology, allowing instant communication worldwide.  This too is a game changer for those who know how to use it but can easily be abused.  A larger nation-state might require more social control and tools of surveillance.  It is almost certain that AI will be used for surveillance unless we have other structures in place. 

Isolated

As mentioned above, BOG-power creates a force field that severely affects the flow of useful information.  It is easy for those at the top to broadcast their message but nearly impossible for grassroots to move useful information up the ladder.  Ironically some of this difficulty stems from the apparent power of communication technology itself.  With everyone having access to the internet and social media it becomes necessary to create more layers to gain access to a decision maker. 

Some elite have no understanding of what is happening around them.    They are also not trained to think about feedback design as engineers or scientists might be, and so they remain isolated.  It may be impossible for current leaders to help make the necessary changes.  They may have no mental model and no vision of where to go.  They are frozen into position within their own local social hierarchy.  Major players on the world scene now seem unable or unwilling to talk and negotiate with their adversaries.  Diplomat Richard Haas, in an interview with Ezra Klein, said that he felt too may of the leaders currently in power are out of touch with current events and current pressures.  Klein agreed.   

On the other hand, Leaders cannot look weak or they will be taken advantage of by people who want more power.  This is true of any type of government, but in a democracy, politicians will not listen to voters who have no ability to punish them at the ballot box.  Long term survival of a nation also requires an ability to discover or to formulate better Questions, and just how does a democracy formulate better Questions when the mainstream media appear to be compromised?

What lies ahead?  This question should be a principal task of any leader.  It should be our effort not to tear down or create a revolution, but rather make the change from within, steadily and efficiently.   Grassroots people want stability and predictability.  Military actions strive to push the enemy off balance, but between conflicts, we should want people outside our group to feel stable so they do not feel the need to come and steal our resources.  

Empires die because of disintegration of borders or disintegration of the economy – but that is not what this is about.  This is about an evolution of the concept and structure of the nation-state itself, not individual empires. 

4 Walls

Posted on by josuter

4 Walls

Does evil exist in the world?  What would it look like?  What connection does it have with morality?  Opposing fighting forces appear to have different moralities – or do they simply have opposing goals, like opponents on a football field?  Death penalty supporters ignore the innocence of some death row inmates, a fact proved with DNA evidence.  Does evil exist here? 

Genocide must be evil, right?  Or is genocide a relief valve for the fear and hatred that has built up over years?  Scour the history.  Look under rocks.  Were does this evil comes from?  One group of people may carry the burden and suffer the consequences of someone else’s sin.  The Jews may have carried the burden of hatred and fear carried within the hearts of the Germans.  Now the Palestinians carry that same burden of the Jews.  This is tangible, even measurable.  Evil must exist then, right?

Yet evil may only reside in the hearts of humans led astray by stories that point in the wrong direction or point to the wrong enemy.  Wrong stories corrupt and mislead.  Wrong stories turn young people into the killers who seem to relish random violence.  Such a story cannot last.

Some people live their whole lives in opposition to other groups, unable to let go of hate and fear, even though the target of their hate may not be the source of their fear.   A closer look reveals that they are surrounded by warmongers and so are afraid to appear weak.  They need to be given a choice, just as Solomon gave a choice to two women.  Palestinians and Israeli Jews unable to let go of their hatred can chose to enter a room with 4 walls and 2 doors but no ceiling so God can see the battle.  No one else can enter.  No weapons are allowed – only the stones on the ground.  The survivor will not be prosecuted.  Will people choose to hold onto their hatred or let it go?  They may form a truce . . .  or one of them will kill the other.  Either way, some evil will be buried.  Women will fight other women, men fight other men, grandmothers fight grandmothers, and grandfathers fight grandfathers. Ages must be within 5 years. 

Set the stage to test their story.  Children will be able to examine the hearts of their elders who themselves were once children too, listening to stories from long ago.  Will the children wipe their hands or forgive their elders? 

Evil may only exist in the human heart, but somehow that does not seem enough. 

We live in a time of different people, different languages, different standards and different tools that existed when our stories began.  Survival requires a different Story, one that changes our focus and points to another path.

John Suter

April 2024

Israel-Palestine Solution

Posted on by josuter

A nation-state is not a person or a living being.  It is an agreement among leaders about rules and boundaries.  It is whatever can be agreed on and written into a constitution.  This is good news and may allow democracy to evolve.  It may also allow a solution to Israel’s dilemma.  With this dynamic form of democracy, PM Netanyahu can declare victory.  He could say “The war is over.  We have extracted an eye for an eye, ten times over.  Israel has won and now it is time for peace.”  Such a declared victory would be more Biblical than a war without end.   *(Ecclesiastes 3:3 – A time to kill and a time to heal.) 

Israel-Palestine will remain a single state, but because of external threats, the military will remain under Jewish control, even if the Jewish population becomes a minority.  That can be written into the constitution.  Regional leaders within Israel-Palestine will maintain peace in their areas, but they can be removed by a referendum of 80% vote of any minority within that region, or by a 60% of the general population vote within that region. This can also be written into a constitution and allows political leverage by minorities to allow some control over their own lives.  This dynamic democracy is somewhere between one-person-one-vote and one-group-one-vote.  It can work if leaders agree.  

Let the food aid into Gaza.   Palestinians can leave Gaza (with help and transportation) and establish many enclaves around the whole of the state of Israel-Palestine.  Enclaves on both sides can have their own small arms but only to be used defensively.  Any attempt to use them offensively will result in the small arms being taken from that enclave. Declare that the war has been won, but do not go back to the status quo.  The walls of Gaza must come down.  Anyone can live anywhere in Israel-Palestine.   

It may be that PM Netanyahu is the only one who can carry this out.  The role of religious leaders will be key in helping to guide The Story toward a positive future for all involved.  Third party peacekeepers and communicators may be required for some years and will be allowed to carry arms to defend themselves.  This plan is not simply a way of keeping enemies close but gives people a chance to heal.  Claims on geography are important but not in the same way as in the past, and there is no current court of justice that parties will listen to.  The healing must come from within.  

G_d With Us

Posted on by josuter

G_d With Us

In the beginning was the Word.   In the beginning there were Stories, written thousands of years ago by members of small tribes caught up in a struggle to survive.  Was G_d with them?  Did He interact with them?  Did those people have free will and make decisions? 

Historians often say “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”.  Those who are not allowed to forget the past however, may be applying the wrong lessons in a changed environment.  We are not the small tribes roaming and foraging for food.  The Story must change. 

One can now understand what Golda Meir meant when she said “We cannot forgive them [Arabs] for forcing us to kill their children.”  It was not Golda, of course, but Golda’s grandchildren, the 20 year-olds in the IDF who are trained to kill.  Instead of studying Literature and Art, young Jews are indoctrinated on the use of deadly weapons.  Instead of using Science and Engineering to create, they drop bombs on their neighbors who are also descendants of Abraham.  Jewish children as young as 10 are loaded onto busses daily and driven to food check points where they are told to block food and water and medicine, causing starvation on a massive scale.   Expecting these children to then come home and do their homework must produce a schizophrenia.  In this case a paranoid schizophrenia.  One can only hope that these children do not turn on their leaders and parents.  Can such a society survive? 

There is a way out.  It is through the creation and telling of a new and different Story.  We all need a Story to live by.   But who will tell such a Story?   Our usual story tellers are politicians, religious leaders, and Hollywood.  These are people climbing some social ladder of success – and they all have a fear of falling.  It may be that social structures have become rigid and inflexible because, despite amazing advances in communication technology, people at the top are still not getting the message. 

Is the same G_d with us today?  Do we have free will and can we make decisions?  Christians made a break with Old Testament rules and created a New Testament.  A New Torah might keep Jews in touch with the Old Testament while charting a new direction, starting on the current path but making abrupt and real changes.  If current leaders are unable to do this, then seed groups of mixed composition can, if watered sufficiently, come to understand the need and direction for change.  They will figure out how to find or make a new path.   

Jo Suter

March 2024