Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

As a cultural system this would be termed 'Dichotomy'. It is the embracing of dichotomy not through isolation in apartheid or ghetto but of allowing and catering for 'Unlucky' people, to reduce their polarisation against the Western culture of 'right attitude lucky people', to allow a mixing of the two types without the obvious prejudice that occurs between them.  The acceptance that it is only natural for half the people to be unlucky, and the realisation that this is valid and does not require them to be somehow be transformed. Instead it is the culture that needs to be transformed to allow them both to exist at the same standard of living. The modern solution is censorship and denial combined with the argument that everyone can succeed in the same one sided world.

My suggestion is that a singular system that demands that all the people adhere to it, is automatically flawed by the people who naturally object or are naturally rejected. That a binary system comprising two separate groups would then allow the objectors or outcasts to belong to the other group, and would stabilise with a system balanced to allow frequent movement from the unlucky side to the lucky side (or visa-versa) as the individuals circumstances change over time. That both sides should be fully functional and integrated within each other as balanced system.


General Lucky Unlucky Situation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It seems clear that if you purchase two identical products, one of them will be better than the other. Likewise if parents have two children, one child will be lucky while the other will be unlucky. You might instead compare two families and say that one family will be unlucky while the other will be lucky. The children of the lucky rich family succeed while those of the poor unlucky family fail. Even identical twins achieve a situation where one is better than the other. As this is a natural balance, no matter how hard you try to change it there will always be a correction bringing the balance back to what it was and must always be.

If we ask what the ratio is here it's clear that a 50:50 or 1:1 ratio could be expected. That half the people are unlucky and the other half are lucky. It's clear from this that as a culture we are in denial concerning the existence of unlucky people. It's clear that in capitalism a business must focus on being positive and lucky and that if it were to focus on being negative and unlucky that it would go bust quite quickly. This means that businesses can only employ the lucky people and must strive to remove any unlucky people that it may have accidentally employed. Furthermore any Governmental ambition to make sure that everybody gets an equal chance in life, must fail. The only realistic solution is to also have an unlucky culture where people can somehow prosper despite their unlucky disposition. The natural tendency is to try to turn unlucky people into lucky people, but this often produces harmful results.

* Kenneth Branagh (Wild Wild West) was Irish and as a child had to learn to speak with an English accent to avoid bullying at school. He went on to become an actor. Actors are employed based on their skill of lying and of pretending to be someone that they are not. So it seems that acting is one of the few professions that an 'unlucky' person may do - without the need for the 'right attitude'. It shows that it is possible to have a culture that would work for unlucky rejected people, without the need for these people to 'improve'. Yet actors are not considered to be despicable people. They are not terrorists or extremists, nor are they Communists or traitors.

If my car has run out of petrol, then that's unlucky. A lucky rich person will then sell me petrol to put into my car. But if I have no petrol but also do not have a car then this rich person will not be able to sell me his petrol or his insurance. It's clear that the lucky people are exploiting the unlucky people and this is the route whereby the rich take from the poor. If I have poor eyesight then I am unlucky, and a rich person will sell me some glasses to wear, and that is a form of exploitation. If I am left handed, then I am an unlucky person but a lucky person will try to sell me a left handed guitar. The important feature here is that a disability can be the cause, but it's the cause of the response, and it's the response not the disability that can make the person unlucky. A person who has a disability but ignores it may still be a lucky person, which is why it's declared to be attitude by businesses.

A guy who's married is a lucky person, who will also have a girlfriend. So having two women he has also deprived the unlucky guy of a girlfriend as there is now one female less than there should be. The female in turn wishes to associate with the lucky guy - who is also the married guy. This process doesn't generally seem to work in reverse. The guy who associates with a married female would consider himself to be unlucky. This is an example of censorship. The shortage of females will then seem odd as would the unavailability of those that did appear to be available and single. As adultery is considered to be wrong and as the wife might object they do this in secret thus the single guy is blind to the cause. So this type of censorship is not just Government sponsored.

So the problem here is that a person can very easily find themselves in the unlucky camp due to reasons beyond their control. These reasons can also compound one another. A person may not drive a car, which would be unlucky but the reason could be that they have bad eyesight, which is also unlucky. So the tendency to kick the person when they are down is an automatic feature of being unlucky. A person who is poor is unlucky but being poor they won't be employed and so they remain poor. Likewise we see the same in reverse. The lucky guy will be constantly patted on the back and will become luckier and luckier. The two sides are clearly diverging away from each other. Perhaps this was the origin of class distinction.

The real concern though is the transition from being lucky to becoming unlucky, as tends to happen with old age. Another real concern is that the lucky don't in any way deserve their luck, as it usually has not been earned in any way. So the fact that they are lucky is unfair. As a person becomes older their eyesight will deteriorate and there is a real concern that they would lose their job and then become one of the unlucky people. The real problem is that they weren't always unlucky, so they know now - that they are being treated badly. There is the thought that being lucky is rare and that it is also difficult to sustain in the long term. There is also the fairly obvious concern that the lucky do not understand what it is like to be unlucky (until it happens to them).

Given that the ratio is 50:50 half the people will always be unlucky. This is not unfortunate it is natural and inevitable. It must be so, and it cannot be fixed.

Unlucky:                                            Lucky:
Wears Glasses.                                   Good eyesight.
Left handed.                                      Right handed.
Rides a bicycle.                                  Drives an Audi TT.
Unemployed.                                     Bank Manager.
Old.                                                  Young.
Poor.                                                 Rich.
Black/Chinese.                                   White.
Hates getting up early.                       Loves getting up early.
Drinks Tea.                                        Drinks Coffee.

Looking at these lists you have to ask yourself, "Which of these two people do I prefer?" and the answer is that you prefer the lucky person on the right, and the female does too. The unlucky people here are really outlaws. They are often at the fringes of society looking in. This would be your medicine man selling his 'cure all' after putting on a good show. Fashions can dictate this list. It used to be the case that having a beard was unlucky, but now it's lucky to have a beard.

So what should the unlucky person do? One technique that I have seen work is to lie, but the lying won't last for very long. You might steal an Audi TT but you would still need to be able to drive it (without glasses). You can see from this that the assumption is to try to change from being unlucky to being lucky. That only the lucky people can be happy, and so there is the jealousy of wanting and needing to be one of these better people and we see this with migrants (refugees).

The reality here is that 50% of the people will be unlucky, and that being unlucky is just as valid as being lucky. It is natural and it is normal. So why is it unfair? Take the Hotel for example, that has double rooms for married couples. Only couples go on holiday? There is an assumption that everyone gets married, when they are of marrying age. The reality is that only lucky people get married and the Hotel being a business can only cater for lucky people - it must deny the existence of unlucky people. As you might expect those are the people planting bombs in the hotel, shooting the guests when no one is around, poisoning the food etc. They are doing that because they got sick of being treated badly. This is where ISIS gets new recruits.

So because our culture does not accept the existence of these unlucky people they are bound to be a little upset by this fact, and then they are bound to see it as the fault of the lucky people. Unlucky people are however not good at responding or fighting back. Their unlucky nature means that they tend to get caught and they tend to fail, and then they tend to kill themselves. They look for revenge as a compensation for being treated badly (for so long). Clearly this is the wrong approach, and it doesn't work, but equally clearly these people are trying to correct something that the state itself is supposed to fix. The state in turn fixes what it can and then sweeps the rest under the carpet. Objectors disappear.

The correct approach is to develop a counter culture that caters only for unlucky people. A hotel that only has single rooms for example (the Club 18-30 Holiday). It's difficult to give such examples because it's not being done. It's not a case of helping unlucky people to become lucky, but rather of having something that only works for these people while excluding lucky people. But this is where we hit our culture bound nature. You can only buy the product if you have enough money... has to be changed to: you can only buy the product if you do NOT have enough money? That has tended to mean: You can only steal the product if you can't afford to pay for it. Thus the unlucky have been designated as criminal by the lucky (which is an indirect form of discrimination). It's because an unlucky culture doesn't exist that we are at a loss to describe it. This has also led to the notion that such a culture is a different system such as Communism that sharing (which is something poor people do alot) is a symptom of communism, and it is clear here that Capitalism/Democracy is supporting only the lucky people while exploiting the unlucky people where ever possible. This need not be the case where these people are unlucky through no fault of their own. They are not deliberately embracing an alternative culture, nor are they attacking the existing culture (even though it tends to attack them).

Because our culture is in denial, dismissing the notion that half of it's people are unlucky, it is in many respects censoring all information concerning the existence of these people. These people are simply confused or uneducated or disabled or mental (casting aspergers or is it aspersions). They are certainly ignored and this annoys them, and they become dangerous in their need to be seen and recognised. It's clear that such people are also fairly isolated (and some form of divide and conquer is in place). Where there is a common disability such as blindness, they can often band together with other people that have similar disabilities, pigeon holing in effect. The culture will accept an unlucky person that has been labelled as a specific kind of subspecies?

What is the solution? One aspect here is that the censorship is real and fairly robust - these unlucky people do not exist, you're imagining things. Those people are just criminals. Which people? The ones that get arrested by the police. The ones that are expecting to be arrested by the police… soon. It's an admission of guilt on the part of the lucky population, that anyone not fitting in will be arrested soon. They get disappointed when this doesn't happen. Perhaps this Satanist, Nazi, Pedophile, Drug Dealer, Queer guy, will die of some disease soon? He's not with us. Of course the person who is with them turns out to be a DJ like Jimmy Saville or a comedian like Rolf Harris or a pop star like Gary Glitter, (some Lords, some Politicians, some Knighted) - all lucky people. While the unlucky person gets stabbed in the back for being different or having difficulties. So even on the basic question of whether unlucky people are all males or a mixture of males and females, is unclear due to censorship (I think it's both though). There has been a strong emphasis on fitting in, or adapting to the existing culture. The lucky people say that their culture is great and everyone should be happy with it - but it only works for them and some of them are just pretending.

The idea of a separate culture much like the Amish of America may seem like a solution, but the problem here is where the parents are lucky people but the children are not. You then have a split within the family, and in cases where the parents are thought to be unlucky but the children are expected to become lucky, the children are taken into care by the state (for their own protection). Where a couple split up the custody of the child goes to the parent who is interpreted to be the lucky one, where the other parent is clearly the unlucky one. As you can imagine the female is deemed to be more lucky than the male by the state. There is some form of implied innocence here attributed to the female in an unfair way. Where the children are old enough they can be found accomodation outside of the family and the father is labelled as a threat. This is a very slick form of indirect discrimination, and clearly it is happening. The state is on the side of the lucky people, the unlucky people are wouldbe criminals. So the difficulty here is a strong link between lucky and unlucky especially in a family. In the case of Elliot Rodger his lucky parents and his lucky friends were not able to grasp or understand his situation in any way, despite how close they were to him. In general it was his attitude - his response to his own limitations that caused the most difficulty. He was fairly rich, fairly well connected, he had a BMW car, he didn't wear glasses, he wasn't left handed, and in general we should conclude that he had a lot going for him. If he had kept his mouth shut for longer he would perhaps have succeeded in the long term, but I've seen it and it doesn't necessarily follow. The state has to cater for such people as a group, but the last thing they want to do is to unify the disaffected into an active force that would oppose them, and so censorship prevails.

The unlucky loser group is viewed as faulty. It's inevitability should also really prove it's existence, while ratifying the solution of a dualistic culture that must preserve the dichotomy while validating both groups, not as opponents but as a complementary team. In many respects this already occurs within the political structures. The Government of the UK has the biggest loser group as the Opposition tasked with arguing against ideas that the Government might put forward as a way to bias the voting. People who do oppose the state can validate their position by joining an opposing party and here you begin to see how Unlucky & Lucky could co-exist with separate/different but equally valid schemes while not being the same or having the same attitudes or ideas.

The concern then, is that this 'Dichotomy' is a system of culture that we don't currently have but are in need of. That to achieve it we would need to develop structures that would work for unlucky people. My view here is that there are two contexts, on the one hand I reached this view as a result of studying this forum so it should be possible to show where this Lucky/Unlucky context kicks in, but on the other hand there is the wider reality of promoting an alternative culture to the wider world which might involve writing books. So the question is whether this view is correct. I will try to present the arguments of the forum within this context to expand upon it and if that seems to work then may be I will pursue it in a more literary sense.

Elliot Rodger was his own worst enemy, who could not be helped due to a lack of understanding caused by censorship. Everyone around him was as confused as he was, and that's what the state wanted. Clearly censorship is the first concern.

Schools
^^^^^
Dichotomy is a system that must account for all of the people not just half the people. It's a system of Pro & Con, and it presupposes a definite fixed 50:50 ratio between pro & con. For each person in favour there will be another against. The person against is currently silenced and their existence is denied. It is forbidden to speak of these people, and it is argued that they do not exist. Dare we ask what the outcome of this censorship is? Doesn't the school child reason out his dilemma and having done so, suddenly and violently stabs the teacher to death with a kitchen knife. This is not my imagination, but an actual instance. The solution is to declare the person to be crazy, mental or insane, yet the result is pre-meditated, carefully planned and skillfully executed - along with the teacher. This is the result of that childs education. Is it just me, or is it cold in here?

The above is a fine example of the complete and utter failure of the well meaning state. In it's wisdom the Government of the UK has declared that children won't be allowed to leave school until they are either over 18 or have a job or gain further education elsewhere. This has resulted in the school leaving age being secretly increased by two years, yet the child above was only 16. The addition two years of extra suffering hadn't kicking it yet. If he had been allowed to leave when he was 14 the crime would not have been committed. In Japan the current solution is suicide?

The views of these children are not taken into consideration, but in Dichotomy the views of all the people must be accounted for. These children are too young to vote and do not have many of the rights that adults have. The Government argues that school is NOT a baby sitting operation? Dichotomy opposes a range of other systems and one of those is the Ghetto structure. Schools are ghettos and this clearly needs to be changed.

For every child that wants to go to school there will be another child that doesn't. For every child of school age half will want to wear the school uniform while the other half will not. The compulsory nature only acts on the Unlucky group who are being discriminated against. It's not compulsory if you want to do it anyway, it's only compulsory if you object. Action is only taken therefore on the children who do not want to go to school, or those that do not wish to wear the uniform, and it is only these children that are made to suffer for their contrary view. Given the determination of a fixed 50:50 ratio even in the context of a Democracy these children represent a group on the verge of becoming a majority, and their views must be taken into consideration.

In a system based on Dichotomy it must be assumed that half the children who go to school - don't want to, and these children must be allowed to stay at home or elsewhere at their parents discretion. Now clearly they would have to be at least 14 before they could be allowed to wander the streets, so this is a policy that would be impractical to apply to the younger child. For the younger child it is clear that the schools are taking care of them and that in truth these are indeed baby sitting operations with a bit of education thrown in and would have to be renamed as such. The baby sitting school obviously would have a duty of care to safeguard the child and it would be clear to the child that this is because they cannot take care of themselves to a high enough standard. But at 14 the child is at the traditional school leaving age of long ago and is clearly capable of looking after themselves to a reasonable degree. It follows that half the children would also choose not to wear the school uniform and the role of the school is merely to state what it is. The school has the right to state a preference but cannot be allowed to enforce the preference, as that is the right of the child to choose.

In a practical setting the school system would need to account for the likelihood of it's children not turning up half the time, however as the school leaving age (in the UK) has been deviously increased to 18 instead of 16 and as the typical length of an A Level course is two years, these courses would simply be rearranged to run over 4 years instead. We can then forecast the outcome.

Peak performance: The child who studies that subject for 4 years instead of 2 gets top marks in the exam.
Regular performance: The child who skips school half the time gets the same results as now.
Poor performance: The child who never goes to school but could turn up for the single exam gets low marks.
Indeterminate: The children who are educated at home by their parents, or teach themselves.

The scheme would increase the standard of education for the interested child. It would lower the standard of education for the disinterested child but improve that child's quality of life. The disinterested child would continue living and would not be murdering his teachers or his class mates. The parents would have the option to teach their children at home over the extended 4 year term rather than having the higher qualifications needed to teach their child over the 2 year term. The child would have the option to become a self learner and could study the books at a time of their choosing much like a University student. The school would be filled with happy children who wanted to be there, they would not be imprisoned within a Jewish Ghetto run by Nazis. Further more most conflicts would be avoided. A child would also be allowed to leave school and get a job or an apprenticeship at the age of 14 if the child chooses to do so. The resulting adults if qualified would have genuine qualifications reflecting their genuine interest in the subject, they would not be faking it for the sake of an employer. The views of the children would be taken into consideration and they would be free to choose whether to participate or not and could clearly choose to be associated with one group or another with neither being labelled as the failing group. A wandering child might also volunteer to help others and would gain a greater grasp of the opportunities available in the area where he or she lives. Such a child might also be taught the family trade instead of the school education but some care would be needed to ensure that this was the childs choice and not that of the parents.

Children must be seen as citizens and not be regarded with suspicion but at the same time they bear some responsibility for their actions. It may perhaps be a requirement that the child who chooses to wander must make a definite plan the day before, as to the expected locations that he or she might visit the following day, and that this location sheet must be available as a general guide incase there is a need to trace the individual. They may of course stray from the plan depending on what they encounter, but this would at least provide a trail to follow if the child goes missing. It may be the case that they would be required to travel in pairs to ensure their greater safety. The aim is to ensure that the child can safely broaden their horizons and experience some degree of freedom from the stifling school environment. That doing so would give them more of a positive view of life than the oppression that they currently suffer from.

Present Context
^^^^^^^^^^
I think it's important to say where things stand at the present time. We live in a confusing era. It's clear that Democracy has been a successful system in comparison to other schemes such as Communism which has been less successful. As a consequence Democracy is all we have and it's the only scheme proven to be reasonably functional in the long term.

Democracy has huge problems because it only supports 50% of the people. As a social culture it has cherry picked the winners and the Lucky people and only supports this group. As a result this group then finds itself supporting the Unlucky group in various ways. Prisons for example are very expensive and the cost comes ultimately from the Lucky people who are moving the Unlucky people out of their way and confining them where they can do less harm to the opposing groups happy lives. They become forgotten people. Democracy then argues that these people are being treated fairly as a part of the 'system' which is then a system that is clearly designed for the people who are not in jail. This represents a failure of Democracy. It does not indicate a failure of the people who are in jail, and many of these people are viewed as being victims of circumstance (the key one being the Democratic culture).

Never-the-less Democracy is still a system that is half right, and it is impressive enough to at least manage the people that it does not support. It can even on occasion take advantage of them. So to argue that this is a system on the verge of failure would be an inaccurate view. There has been much suggestion to develop a counter culture with an alternative system that would support the very people that Democracy rejects. Such a culture or system is currently unknown but can perhaps be inferred from the structures that already exist in the Democratic system. The character of the Unlucky people is fairly easy to determine and many respects they are like doppelgangers of the Lucky people and such a counter culture would lean towards being opposite to the existing structures.

So to generalise: Dichotomy = Democracy + Unknown

From this you begin to see why groups such as the Amish community are tolerated. In any breakaway culture designed for the Unlucky people the social system that would be adopted would not be Dichotomy but rather this other 'Unknown' culture, and it is the two combined that would eventually form the new system. So the result would be a Democracy+ system and this may perhaps explain the variously stupid manoeuvring that we see in the modern era. These may be attempts at moving towards the DemocracyPlus type of hopeful solution? What you should realise is that Democracy will not be destroyed as a social structure, and any alternative that develops through opposition must ultimately unite peacefully with it at some point in the future.

So in any talk of a breakaway culture one of the primary concerns is what this new structure will be. Further more it will be a NEW structure and not an old one, previous one, existing one, or traditional one. What does clearly emerge is the separation between the two. The Dichotomy would be physical despite the avoidance of the Ghetto or the Aparheid structures. As an example consider the Freemasons Dream:

The Freemasons being Business people and Technocrats would slowy conquer the Cities, expelling those people who were not members (or were not females associated with members). The expelled people would become the farmers of a semi-Amish community who would work the land to produce food to trade with the City Dwellers. Their culture would be primitive and backward and like the Amish of today they would avoid a connection with the world and shun modern technology to a degree. Each group would have it's own particular worth and any discontent member of one group would have the means provided to attempt to join the other group. Being able to transfer from one group to the other all the people would be accounted for and you would have a happy Dichotomy. Now in the event of solar flares wiping out the entire technological base of the Freemasons holding the Cities, they would become non-functional for a time (four years) however they wouldn't starve because the primitive culture of the countryside would be unaffected and would continue to produce the food supply (and would share it). Likewise in the event of some microbiological plague that destroyed the crops of the countryside these people would become non-functional and would not have the capability of fixing the problem but the Technocratic City Dwellers would come to their rescue and would have the capacity and the technology to analyse and resolve the problem and would after a period of time (four years) overcome the environmental catastrophe. In this way two completely different groups could interoperate with one another despite different values and both groups could have respect for each other and their separate ways.

The above is not an example of what I would like to see happen, but you can see how a Dichotomy would function. The requirement at this stage then, is to develop the Unknown system that would cater for the Unlucky people. That would be intrinsically difficult to do as Democracy is still under the illusion that all people must follow the same single system - even though they don't, and so it would view any other system as a threat to replace it, especially given the fact that it would only support the very people that Democracy was rejecting as a threat to the state. Given that the two would tend to peacefully coexist as a combined system at some point in the future the thinking is that such an unknown system could exist within the legal framework of a Democratic state, so it may still be possible to a degree.

This is really where things stand at the present time. The people themselves are culture bound to a culture that won't function as described for at least half of them. 50% of the population will therefore be disappointed by the way that the current culture actually works in practice and the only solution that Democracy can give them is to deny that this is the case and censor the individual by labelling them with the many names used to discredit their words of opposition. These people do not exist and they have not said what they are saying - lock them up quick, and don't let them talk to anyone. Thus the failure of Democracy is concealed, and yet more people are led to believe in the system's success only to discover "Hell no, it just ain't so". Democracy has not yet learnt to be honest about it's limited scope and capability, and it is not prepared to admit any of it's failings.

Academia
^^^^^^
Dichotomy suggests that a social system cannot exist as a single structure. That a singularity is not achievable, and the smallest structure that can exist is a duality or a duplicity. That in any apparent singularity you will find a duplicity. The workhorse of Democracy is Capitalism and Business. As Academia is the exact opposite of Business it appears to be the workhorse of this other Unknown component which in combination with Democracy would produce Dichotomy. So:

Dichotomy = Democracy & Business + Unknown & Academia

The best example of the views of Academia probably came from the developers of the Haskell programming language, although you would have to dig very deeply these days to find such a reference. The Haskell developers saw their programming language become a business success - and they were not happy about it. "We are academic failures, because our language has become a business success." This was their statement, which I read about while studying the language.

So given the previous example of an Unlucky group, are farmers academics? At first glance it would appear that they are not, but what is the difference between Business and Academia? The Capitalist Business is primarily using a raw material which is shaped or modified to produce a product which is sold. In contrast the Academic approach does not use a raw material, tending to manipulate or reorder existing energies or strucutures to produce the new product. The Farmer is manipulating energy, his crop is capturing the energy from the sun to produce more than he started with. Books are produced on the basis of rearranging words. Music is produced by rearranging tones. So the Academic is producing products covered by intellectual rights such as copyright.

In the regular business, value is added to the raw material, thus VAT is then applied by the Government. This Value Added Tax gives the best definition of what the Business Man is actually doing. Of course VAT is also applied to other products where the material is minimal and the actual content is more of a virtual information structure rather than a physical material. What we are seeing is the confusion of Democracy. It's VAT only really applies to raw materials but it tends to be applied to hyped products - the value being added by the hype which generates a perceived value that doesn't exist, but that materialises when the product is sold.

The confusion of Democracy is a product of the fact that only a duality can exist, but the scheme is touted as a singular system. As it cannot be, thus it is not. The two parts that must be inherent have been mixed together to produce a confused mess. The average person is then struggling to see where they fit in. On the upside if the Unknown system is already present then it's just a case of separating the two (to clear up the confusion).

Business is the pinnacle of the Democratic 'Lucky' system.
Academia is the pinnacle of the Unknown 'Unlucky' system.

This is probably why you could have a list of 'Unlucky' scientists. They are Academics and are failures in a social setting. The average parent doesn't want their child to succeed in an academic sense because that would make them into failures - so why have schools. Why rate schools when a failing school would tend to produce more socially acceptable people, who would support your Lucky system? This is why intelligent people are rejected. The population have some understanding even if the state doesn't.

Consider the Fireman, and the Nuclear Technician. The Fireman puts out fires, where the Nuclear Technician is a firestarter using the fire to generate electricity. Neither is using raw materials to produce products and both are manupulating energy. In theory both are a part of the 'Unlucky' system. We know that the Fireman is the hero of the average female. Our brave hero who rescues their baby from the burning building. In contrast the Nuclear Technician although much more highly skilled, doing a far more difficult job, is a hated and despised slightly radioactive individual who threatens his entire community with nuclear annihilation, who the average female would distance herself from by any means. Yet this technician is the academic doing the important job of generating electricity. In this context it looks as though the Fireman is the Business Man while the Nuclear Technician is the Academic. So there is the sense of Business being physical and practical, where the Academic is being theoretical and hypothetical.

So there's more to it than just the consumption of raw materials. If you look at the previous Unlucky/Lucky list and substitute Academic/Business for the headings you can see this working out. The Academic is wearing glasses, he doesn't need the money, and he's riding a bicycle. It doesn't matter what time he gets up in the morning, so he doesn't need the coffee to act as a stimulant. Yet the Democracy does need these people - it just treats them very badly and denies the fact.

The problem as I see it, is that the Unknown 'Unlucky' system appears to be more complex, more academic, and therefore harder to develop into a supporting structure for it's people. In contrast the cherry picking of the 'Lucky' people with the 'Lucky' system was easier to do, so it was done first, and what you have is an incomplete structure, dominated by the 'Lucky' system that has found itself in charge and wishes to stay in charge. So it spends it's time trying to undermine any organisation of the 'Unlucky' side of the equation (but still leeches from them). This undermining process is the stirring of the pot to create confusion and isolation amongst the academic group, for fear that being smarter - they might actually take over at some point.

The Business Man is taking risks. He has to be rich to buy the raw materials. He has to gamble on making and selling a product, and make a profit that covers his loss. If he fails he goes broke. If his product succeeds he will need to scale up production which won't get any easier. In many respects this is a brave and fearless guy. This guy has a high profile and is often clearly visible.

The Academic Man doesn't take risks. He doesn't need to buy raw materials. His product will eventually succeed if he continues working on it (Haskell for example). He has no need to make a profit, but as he hasn't made a loss, any success will bring in residual income forever more. His production method is mostly automated, simple and cheap. No courage is required so this guy doesn't need to be brave and fearless. This guy has a low profile and no one knows he exists until he's dead.

Why should the Academic become a stupid Business man? Why should the Business man become a nerd, especially as he's on the winning side here.

"The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose." - Devlin

The Business Man is more visible and is displaying, thus the females will choose him not the Academic. It is this aspect that the 'Unknown' system needs to resolve - without becoming a Business Man. It is this failure that is undermining the Academic structure. How will the Academic become more impressive than the Business Man? You would think that the Atomic Bomb was quite impressive - but clearly the Academic would have to come up with something better if he is ever to impress some female? Which is annoying!

Social Failure & The Power of Three
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The view that emerges here is that the lack of Dichotomy as a system is causing social failure. It is the lack of separation between the Business Man type and the Academic Man type that is resulting in the typical female choosing one type or the other which results in the Business Man being chosen and the Academic Man being rejected. The problem is cause by a 'three' (instead of a 'two').

It appears that while a singularity (such as that claimed by Democracy) cannot exist - and so doesn't, the resulting structure must be a 'two', a duplicity or duality. If you try to push it to a 'three' then someone loses.

When you have a THREE one of the three will lose.

So:
                                Female
                                    V
Business Man --------------------------- Academic Man

The female gets to choose and she will not be the loser. The failure is caused by the three. So the female is expected to choose the Business Man for a wide variety of reasons. It's not necessarily the case that the 'Unlucky' guy is the Academic Man, perhaps he's just very fat and ugly, but being very fat and ugly does imply that he may not be the Business Man type. At the same time the Academic Man may have turned down the Female and made himself 'Unlucky' and then again perhaps the Female is fat and ugly. The general view is that you have a world that the Business Man and the Female fit into very well but where the Academic is some kind of visiting outsider.

What Dichotomy would do here would be to identify these two types of male and separate them to a point where the female, that can see one - cannot see the other. That by definition (by Dichotomy) you can't have one singular female, there must be two females and the other female is hidden by being out of range. So:


                               Female 1                                               Female 2
                                    V                                                         V
Business Man -------------------//             Dichotomy             //-------------------Academic Man


There was another female who was out of range. The first female was biased towards the Business Man while the second female was biased towards the Academic Man but the proximity of the two men resulted in an apparent three where in reality there was a four. The lack of Dichotomy, the lack of separation between the two types of men, and the mixing caused by Democracy resulted in an unrealistic situation that caused one of the men to become a loser, where the natural 50:50 birth rate should have allowed both to be happy. The Dichotomy here has produced 2 twos, and it's separation of the two types of male has aquired an additional female. Obviously you can't have one forum where the people meet, it has to be two separate forums catering to both groups and they both become 'Lucky' people instead of the current system which would create either one or two 'Unlucky' people. The system fails because it sees no harm in mixing people together despite the people being fundamentally different, it then has to pick up the pieces when this fails.

The result of this is that the Business type female gets to choose a Business type male, and an Academic type female gets to choose an Academic type male. There may of course be a number of each and that is where the freedom to choose kicks in (presumably based on merit or preference).

The lack of separation creates a kind of Ghetto whereas too much separation would create an Apartheid and both need to be avoided. What we have at the moment is a kind of Ghetto and this is emphasized and epitomised by the school structure. The school as a Ghetto of mixed types will see the greatest amount of conflict and is a part of the dream of Democracy to try to force the existence of a singular system through some kind of forced indoctrination.

We could say that Academics should meet at a Library while Business types should meet at a Bank, but currently there is a fair mixture at both locations. Likewise Universities are fairly mixed and are a continuation of the indoctrination process. Some clear separation needs to be indicated, some classification of people into specific types need to to occur. The requirement is similar to the idea of keeping children out of pubs until they are 18.

The Business Man type is frequently a Freemason and uses the lodge to meet similar types, and there are females that are somehow brought into their situation by arrangement. It seems clear that the Academic Man type does not seem to have a similar group or a similar arrangement for females. I doubt the Academic Man would view religion as the solution, due to the belief in factual data.

So it seems clear that where Business is the pinnacle of the Democratic 'Lucky' system it is grouping around the Masonic Lodge, but in contrast where Academia is the pinnacle of the Unknown 'Unlucky' system it is currently not grouping together in any meaningful way? There is a good reason for that which will be explained later. Further more as a culture it is being mixed in with the Business Man type but is being excluded from any of the benefits of that.

The first requirement is to withdraw, the second requirement is to identify where to withdraw to, and the third requirement is to indicate to any interested females - WHERE you have gone. MGTOW have confused the second aspect and neglected the third aspect. A fourth aspect would be to refine any academic ability to a high enough standard to allow you to earn a living. I hope you can see from this the position of the Refugee (or migrant). The primary argument though, is to achieve the separation within the existing Democratic state, and in general it must be said that the Freemasons seem to have already worked out the answer for their group. As I have suspected for some time now, a competing organisation is required to support the people who are not Freemasons. The problem is that this would tend to be Academic - but cannot be a school. It's also clear that the Freemasons themselves may have already thought of this and the organisation that they have constructed for this purpose is the Jehovah's Witness religion (the bible students). The Academic aspect is the study of the bible as a token gesture, and instead of the lodge they have the Kingdom Hall. This works to a degree but looks a lot like another Ghetto.

There is a view that the general 'Unknown' system is not sufficiently identified or developed to provide enough information to see what it would group it's people around. It should also be realised that this system would also support 50% of the people just as Democracy does (just the other people) and therefore should be just as functional and potentially separate (self contained in otherwords).

I can now preempt my next post by saying that this 'Unknown' system is 'Autonomy' in it's raw undefined state.


UPDATE 18th April 2016:
The relationship between the Business Man and the female is clearly the fact that he makes money and she is a Prostitute. The exchange, their relationship is paid for with money. This is the easy part that we all know and understand.

The relationship between the Academic and the female suitable for him is less obvious. The relationship is paid for by the exchange of information not money. There is an example of this I now wish to give. It occurs in the film 'Man on Fire' which is referred to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_Fire_%282004_film%29

The Academic Male is the character Miguel Manzano (Giancarlo Giannini), an agent of the Agencia Federal de Investigación (AFI). The Academic female is the character Mariana Guerrero (Rachel Ticotin), a journalist investigating kidnappings. The female journalist is asked by Creasy to check out information for his campaign of revenge. She gets that information from the Police Officer, who gives her the information she asks for because he gets to fuck her in return - a point she makes very clearly in the film: "We don't sleep together, we Fuck".

The Academic male provides information of some kind to the Academic female who sleeps with him in return. He has a job that involves obtaining information that is not normally available. She has a job of conveying that information to the wider public.

The Unknown System
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the system that must support the individual who has been stabbed in the back by Democracy. It has been quite difficult to see the answer (despite the answer being quite simple). I can now say that this system will be called 'Autonomy' because the key feature of the people in this area is their practical autonomy in choosing what to do, through their own academic study of the situation, they find themselves experiencing.

The Business Man is a liar - that's how he makes his money.
The Academic searches for the truth - that's how he makes his money.

The key difference is the way that each of these people handle information and the quality standard that they apply to the information itself. For example the Business Man is described as a 'liar' because the standard of information that I myself am applying here, is that of the Academic. So his handling of the information is being described truthfully (as lying) and not optimistically or positively (as an exaggeration of the benefits). If the Business Man was using my standard of information he would fail to sell any of his products.

As the pinnacle of the 'Autonomy' system is Academia it becomes clear that it's primary method is through the use of factual data. It also follows from this that as 'data is king' you are looking at an observational capability. One key aspect would be the avoidance of 'loose cannons' and these would be people who have developed the theoretical information and have extended it into the hypothetical, with the intension of carrying out their premeditated plan in a practical setting. The key method that the realised 'Autonomy' system would need to impose on it's people would be the use of Information Standards to distinguish between high quality and low quality information. For example Occam's Razor, "that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected" or in other words the simplest answer is the one most likely to be correct. Another standard, that you can't predict the future, thus even if Jesus Christ himself say's that he will return, it would have to be viewed as a forecast and the information dismissed as unlikely. So the Apocalypse would get trashed whether it involved Zombies or not, and Occam's Razor would say that it probably wouldn't have Zombies - if it occurred at all.

The school child, who on the basis of his academic education, realised that he needed to take a kitchen knife to school and stab his teacher to death with it, despite being 16 and about to leave school - certainly had the 'Autonomy' described, but is clearly not applying the information standards suggested (which presumably he was not taught). Occam's Razor suggests that not going to school would be simpler (especially given his age), while any future prediction about what the future might hold either way would be dismissed as inaccurate. Thus his education has failed and what he was taught was inadequate. The state didn't learn from this, no changes were made, and the instance re-occurred later when, at another school, another child stabbed a black substitute teacher in the stomach. Fortunately the teacher lived. In neither case was the quality of education questioned, and in both cases presumably the state simply labelled the child as mental, thus an unfixable problem from their limited point of view.

So to generalise:

Dichotomy = Democracy & Business + Autonomy & Academia

How do I know that this is correct, isn't Dichotomy just something that I've invented (like some dumb Liberal)? Lets have an example:

"should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

This is the question suggested for a referendum to determine whether or not the UK should leave the European Union, and it is not a hypothetical example. This is a genuine example of Democracy at work, in practice.

Democracy as a system is supposed to be based on the concept of a majority rule. We are supposed to do what the majority want (tough luck on the minority who want something else). If however we ask what the majority want, we find that only about 10% of them actually agree on any individual point - the other 90% all have different ideas. This is exactly how the state wants it to be. It's actually quite dangerous to have all the people thinking the same thing at exactly the same time. Like putting the kettle on when there's a break in the program, which results in a number of powerful generators being started up to handle the sudden increase in demand on the electricity grid. Clearly then if there is any majority rule it's only determined on rare occasions, such as the above example.

Because the majority of the people do not agree, it's necessary to polarise the issue to sort the people into two camps. Those that agree vs those that disagree. You can see from this that Democracy as a system has immediately delegated the problem to Dichotomy (as an overarching system) because a polarised Dichotomy is required to determine what the majority think. From this we can see clearly that Democracy is a sub system within Dichotomy, but that Dichotomy is currently an occasional system called on when the need arrises to support Democracy as the continuous subsystem that acts to implement the choice. You might argue that Dichotomy, in only being used occasionally is itself the subsystem but it is also the only method of truly implementing Democracy, which can only determine the wishes of the majority through it's use.

Okay, but what about 'Autonomy' as a complementary system to Democracy? Is it possible to say that this is correct?

We know that people such as Elliot Rodger acted autonomously. They don't generally have a committee to discuss what should be done and then take a vote on it. It's not democratic. It's also fairly clear that there is a strong informational content informing their decision making process. They reason it out by writing huge volumes of text (much as I am doing now). We also know that they tend to fail, which implies that their analysis is usually flawed. The key feature of autonomy is it's independence and isolation and this is it's nature but also it's key flaw. The autonomy is not refined and no standards of information are applied, perhaps because autonomy itself is not defined clearly enough to indicate the need for accuracy. So 'Autonomy' has not been developed as a clearly defined Academic system, and people 'wing it'. Further more given that it's very nature is independent thought in isolation, there is generally no grouping concept, and you're dealing with a Lone Wolf. That is a weakness but it compensates for the unwise and inaccurate decision making achieved by such people and results in a smaller problem for the local police to fix. Never-the-less if 'Autonomy' was developed as a more refined system then you might get a less criminal outcome, more likely to succeed.

It seems very clear at this point that the 'Individual' cannot defeat the 'State' because it's too big, while the 'State' cannot defeat the 'Individual' because he's too small. Although bullets are cheap if the 'State' kills one 'Individual' another will take his place, and then another and another. The 'State' must tolerate the 'Individual' and the 'Individual' must tolerate the 'State' as they cannot defeat each other. Democracy represents the group, Autonomy represents the individual - it's a Dichotomy. Democracy hopes that it has strength in numbers, but in truth these numbers simply represent a bigger target to hit. Democracy argues for it's own importance on the strength of numbers - the majority, but ignores the power of the individual to act completely beyond it's control. Democracy is a liar just like the Businesses that it supports, but this is no surprise. The surprise is the existence of the contradictory Autonomy whose existence - was lied about and censored - by Democracy.

There is the temptation to believe that Democracy knows about Autonomy and it uses this to create monsters. This would be the process known as Problem-Reaction-Solution. Democracy uses the unlucky people (even selling them guns in America) to act out their Autonomous actions so that it can then supply the solution, knowing that public opinion has been swayed in their favour. They take a vote and win a majority decision for their own preferred solution. Democracy is then using these people to create propaganda to support the changes that it wishes to make. However there are many instances where Democracy seems confused and doesn't know what changes to make, and fails to make any changes, leading to a repeat of the problem, so perhaps this conspiracy is not really happening or perhaps autonomous events happen all the time and only some of them can be used to support a change in policy.

Autonomy as a system is difficult to judge at this time because it doesn't exist. It has not been developed and it has not been successfully implemented. Clearly it would be seen as a threat. The nature of the system means that it can spontaneously appear when the individual reaches breaking point. So it is an inherrent system that is a feature of human nature. My view is that it must exist in a rudimentary form driven by data. This begs the question of whether Democracy is opposing Autonomy? Although they are opposites Autonomy is not presenting a target to hit, so how could Democracy oppose it. Perhaps that's another reason for censorship.

Autonomy is (in theory at least) a system of choosing what to study, hence the association with the Academic. Clearly for Dichotomy as a system, to suggest that school children should decide whether to go to school or not, and then to imply that this autonomy is associated with Academia raises all sorts of questions. The general Academic view must be that for a true academic, the individual must choose to study, and must choose what to study. That if you instruct a child to study Physics - they might not want to. They do get some choice over the subjects studied but mostly they hate the subjects once they reach the classroom. A true Academic must of their own free will apply themselves to the subject and like it enough to focus on it. That process demands an autonomous choice. The individual must decide on the basis of the data, and of their own free will - otherwise it won't work. Which is why schools don't work.

Autonomy, as a system, will need to be thrashed out until it can be clearly defined. It is an anti-democratic system that does not rely on a majority view. There is no 'ask the audience'. Fortunately it is not an impulsive system. There is no blitzkrieg. The Academic is not a risk taker or an extrovert. It might be viewed as a form of citizenship. It is a cold and calculating form of premeditation. The real question though, is whether this system, if well defined and well implemented, could resolve the social difficulties that 'Unlucky' people encounter. I have already suggested that Dichotomy as a system might do that by expanding on the general structures to ensure they are balanced. In theory though the accounting for the 'Unlucky' individual should really be directly in the realm of the Autonomy system. It has helped them to attack the state (in it's undeveloped form), but so far it hasn't helped them replace the state (because as previously suggested the state is too big to be defeated by an individual). Autonomy is an Executive response to bypass the state, by implementing a subsystem as a patch to cover the failure of the state. Autonomy then, tends to unwisely label the state as it's enemy, because the actions of the state have effectively switched it on, so the state is the first thing it sees. What you then have is a doppelganger of democracy.

Then Democracy leeches from it - because it gets the answers or triggers a systematic improvement.

There is of course a much stickier problem. Where do the Feminists fit into this? Was Elliot Rodger a male Suffragette? Isn't a prostitute a Business Female type? The Freemasons seem to think so.

Where Do The Females Fit In?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lets start with the Suffragette movement. The definition is merely of women campaigning to get the vote. This was the argument put forward: That females were people too and they should have the right to vote just as men did. So there was a basic argument for similarity, which was a theory that they were proposing, and it was rejected. What happened then was World War One. They volunteered to replace the men in the factories and as a result they demonstrated the similarity suggested earlier and were given the vote. So, their theory was experimentally proven, and that is a key point, because it means that the Suffragettes were Academics in pursuit of the truth.

You can see that they studied methods of resistance, and then deployed these autonomously. You can also see that they were a group that were united around a cause, and this indicates a more refined type of 'Autonomy'. They presented a very simple theory, and in being simple this complied with Occam's Razor, which shows that they were applying data standards and were not simply misguided or in error. They went on to participate in what must have been an experiment, and this showed that they could work in similar jobs to men. They then succeeded by proving that they could indeed do this just as they had suggested, and having proven their point it was accepted and they were given the vote. The Suffragettes were academically inclined and this is fairly easy to show. The fact that these were females also lends credence to the idea that Autonomy like Democracy would be capable of supporting the other 50% of the population, and in this case the females fit this concept well. On top of this they were directly attacking Democracy with their specific argument to be given the vote.

So whether you like it or not, here you have a very fine example of 'Autonomy' as a system being deployed skilfully against the male Democracy that existed at the time. Whether you are for or against these people, their tactics and their strategy were successful (unlike Elliot Rodger). We learn two new things about 'Autonomy' here. That firstly, instead of having a persistent group it tends to group it's practitioners around a specific cause, and secondly, there is an apparent sense of directly attacking Democracy as an opposing system. Another curious feature, is the sense of trying to break into the system - not escape from it. These Suffragettes were feeling left out and wanted to be included within Democracy. This is anti-revolutionary but you'd be hard pressed to spot it from their actions.


But then what is Feminism?
The first feminist was Goldilocks of course (where the three bears were Bachelors), and there is much concern about where the feminists fit into the structure being suggested. There is no continuity between the Suffragettes and the feminists, so the feminist is not continuing the activities of the Suffragette movement. The Suffragettes got what they wanted - the vote - The End. Now to determine whether or not the 'female terrorist' - the feminist, is following the 'Autonomy' system, we can ask a range of questions:

Are the feminists, Academics?
Are the feminists applying Information Standards?
So do they have a simple cause that they are gathering around?
Are the feminists searching for the Truth?
Are the feminists using factual data?
Or are feminists liars?
Are they in fact acting in an autonomous way?
Are feminists trying to make lots of money?
Could they represent 50% of the population?

*It's sad that many of these questions seem painfully stupid.

We should consider some important points here. The Academic is not a risk taker or an extrovert, but this is a tough call because the Suffragettes were taking risks, so there is some difference between these two even though they are on the same side of the line. I think that the feminists must be classified as extroverts because their protests look more like showing off. An Academic wouldn't do this. A Suffragette would not take part in a bare chested protest, but a Feminist would.

Cursory glance gives at least 5 causes or movements their not sure what to call them? The most recent being 'Ecological Protection': "Also known as eco-feminism, this is a movement that connects the subordination of women with the deprivation of nature". Does it seem truthful? Is it factual that the 'subordination of women' results in the 'deprevation of nature'? No sign of Occam's Razor here - for sure. It's rather hard to see the simple cause that they are gathering around. It also looks a bit like a lie. Their only autonomy seems to be focussed on inventing new things that they can blame men for. They also claim to be revolutionaries, where the Suffragettes seemed to be anti-revolutionary.

Answers:
Feminists are slightly academic, as they do seem to read and write some books.
They are not applying information standards at all and often seem to invent new words.
They have a fudged cause which has something to do with subordination by men but it's unclear & complex.
If they are searching for the truth, they don't seem to have found it.
They are promoting ideas as factual, but they are mythologising (sometimes literally, 'Lilith' for example).
They seem to have the Business sense of promotion through exaggeration and lie.
They seem to have a peculiarly twisted ideology that seems prejudical, almost occult in it's strangeness.

*It has to be said that the closest I can get to an understanding is to describe feminism as a religion. If they would admit to this then they would gain much respect for their beliefs. So this is a cult, and it acts like it.

It's not a question here of arguing whether the ideas of the feminists are right or wrong. The question is of where they fit in. While the Suffragettes were clearly 'Unlucky' there is the view that the Feminists are being surprisingly 'Lucky', and this is the side of the line where they belong along with the liar Business man and the lying Democracy. Which is great - if you like lying and cheating, and don't have any ethical standards. The Feminists are pretending to be Suffragettes and this is another of their lies. Their ethical standards are fine for where they are placed within this structure. They are clearly being embraced by Democracy while still claiming to be revolutionary. Indeed, they are a very facinating group, much like Punk Rockers, or Goths. I feel sure that the Business community will be able to develop lots of feminist products to sell them (Teach Yourself Prostitution by I. Fukalot, only £5 but worth hundreds in the right hands).


The Other Female?
This leaves one other type of female unaccounted for, the Academic Female. From above we can say that she certainly is not a Feminist but may still have rights issues after the manner of a Suffragette. We can also say that she will not have much interest in Business and will also therefore not be a Prostitute. Her position becomes rather important where the low ethical standards of the previous groups tend to result in their rejection by the Autonomous Academic, and from this we can say that she has better ethical standards and a tendency to lean towards the truth, but also independence and isolation.

One of the interesting factors shown in an earlier posting was the 'three'. While the Business Man type and the Academic Man type are fairly close to one another in the Democratic environment, and while there is also a Business Female type around - there isn't an Academic Female type within the same environment, and this has created huge problems because the only female, is attracted to the Business guy not the Academic. So what this suggests is that the Business Man and the Academic Man are helping each other to make money and they get along reasonably well. However there is some antipathy between the Business Female and the Academic Female and those two seem to hate each other, and this puts a greater distance between them than between the guys. So the Academic Female type is nowhere to be found in the arena where the other three are grouped. Dichotomy separates the guys to bring the Academic Female into view, because she is somewhere else. We can also argue here that there is a greater similarity between the two guys than there is between the two girls, and we can argue that the Academic doesn't belong in the Democratic environment. Perhaps these two guys are leaning towards Dictatorship as a common ground. The other feature here is the implication that the Academic Female type is actually far more Autonomous than the male given the greater distance away from the Democratic side of the line.

Because this female is on the 'Autonomy' Academic side of the line, she should be following the principles of the 'Autonomy' system at least in an unrefined way. So the aspects of the 'Autonomy' system might shed some light on her whereabouts:

Autonomy:
An academic interest in books and factual information perhaps through observation.
The application of data standards and the quality of information.
Strong ethical standards, and strong emphasis on truthfulness or discovering the truth.
Rallying around a single cause.
Independent.
Isolated.
A tendency to oppose the state, and a dislike of politics.
An introvert.
An unlucky person.
Strong willed, perhaps slightly arrogant.
Meticulous planning and timetabling, cold and calculating.

Well I hate to say this… a female trainspotter who accidentally gets run over by a train.

Another interesting method we can apply here is to use the antipathy between the Business Female type and the Academic Female type to shed some more light on what she is like. The two guys are closer together because Business and Academia do have a lot in common. Although the Business man must lie about his product to sell it, he must use factual data to run his Business otherwise it would fail. So the Business man is not incompetent, he is not mistaken, he's lying on purpose for a reason. This may not be the case for the Business Female type who might simply be getting it wrong by accident or negligence, or dare I say it, stupidity. We do of course have an exceptionally well defined example of this type - the Feminist. The Academic Female type appears to be the polar opposite of the Feminist. Given that this is so, then a clear description of the Feminist would allow us to reverse every argument and every flaw to produce a clear description of her polar opposite. The Academic Female type is an anti-feminist.

This is not as clear as it may seem. The Suffragette for example is not a Feminist, yet the two are fairly similar, and this is where the plot thickens. We are expecting the Female Academic type to be 'Autonomous' to rally around a cause - and we have already determined that the Suffragette is on the 'Unlucky' side of the line by comparing her actions to see if they fall into the 'Autonomy' system, which they did, because of increased skill and ability. Perhaps the Academic Female type IS a Suffragette (a good guess but not in fact correct)? You begin to see why I suggested that Elliot Rodger might be viewed as a male suffragette, but he was less skilled. However what this points to is a certain degree of confusion. There are obviously a wide range of different types and degrees and if we try to draw this as  a diagram we would get this:


                                       <<<STATE or INDIVIDUAL>>>
                                                         |
                                                         |
                                 Prostitute  Feminist                      A.Female   Suffragette
                                       V            V  |                              V               V
                                                         |
Democracy >----------< Business //Dichotomy// Academic >----------< Autonomy


Democracy is the polar opposite of Autonomy, however this is not the case for the Business and Academic types and those two are near the central line. Therefore there is some distance between the Democratic state and the Business Man, as there is between the Autonomous capability and the Academic. The central line is really the deterministic point between the state taking action or the individual. The Feminist is just straddling the central line, so she has the expectation that the state will take action on her behalf but will protest with a degree of Autonomy to campaign for this to happen. The Suffragette in contrast is deeply into the Autonomy side of the line, and wages war against the state in a highly skilful way. The Prostitute is 'squarely' on the Business side of the line but is not really following the Democratic system but is at least not aggravating it in the way that the Feminist is doing. Logically speaking it would have been nice to place the Academic Female at a point opposite to the Prostitute but previously it was shown that because of the 'three' it was possible for both guys to see the Prostitute but not the Academic Female who was somewhere else, so in this case she is having more 'Autonomy' and rather less 'Academic' capability.

You can see here that the Suffragette acting with Autonomy is actually some distance away from the Academic but is at least on the academic side of the line. This means that the Suffragette is NOT the Academic Female that I suggested above. The Feminist does have some Academic ability but is using that as an excuse to protest. The Prostitute is where she is because she is attracted to the Business Mans money. The Academic Female is probably slightly more Academic than Autonomous but doesn't have as much Autonomy as the Suffragette.

If the Academic Female was in the exact opposite position to the Prostitute it would mean that she was being attracted to the Academic because of his knowledge (rather than the money in the case of the Prostitute). Because she is where she is, she cannot be seen directly by the Academic Man type. This is because she has more 'Autonomy' than he has - she doesn't have to be there. The Business Man and the Academic are associated with buildings and fixed locations. The Democracy is associated with the entire country as a whole. The Autonomy really implies a mobile situation contantly moving around, like a gypsy perhaps ("no fixed abode").

From this perspective she looks more like a Taxi Driver than a Trainspotter. There is definitely some implication of direct mobility. A holiday maker perhaps? A hitchhiker perhaps?

Mirror Mirror On The Wall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are certain problems with the previous diagram if the argument is made that it should be symmetrical. While trying to find the place where the Academic type female would fit in, this type being the presumed ideal female for the Academic Man, I failed to notice that there wasn't an ideal Business type female. So our poor Business Man type gets stuck with the Feminist or the Prostitute - which hardly seems fair. It's clear from the diagram that there are two spare slots and these slots are really mirror images of what exists on the other side of the line:


                                       <<<STATE or INDIVIDUAL>>>
                                                         |
                                                         |
F.Politician                  Prostitute Feminist F.Student       A.Female   Suffragette
       V                              V            V  |       V                     V               V
                                                         |
Democracy >----------< Business //Dichotomy// Academic >----------< Autonomy


We don't have a perfect mirror here, because as previously the Academic is probably closer to the Democracy than he should be, and we know that he's unwisely competing for the female attracted to the Business Man type (without really knowing she's some kind of prostitute), and cannot see the ideal female on his side of the line because she is not present (at the same location). Perhaps he can see the Feminist as well and perhaps those two females hate him as much as he hates them. He should be able to see a Female Student on his side of the line, although he may mistake her for a Feminist, she being the mirror image of that type. My view is that he will have a range of problems with the Female Student. For one thing she will be too young and perhaps one of his own students if he were a teacher. For another thing like the Feminist the Female Student is a protester of some kind with an equally fuzzy cause that relies heavily on mythological non factual data. The Female Student is at least more academic than the Feminist so has better arguments than the Feminist, and she might actually be an anti-feminist but may be any type of protester.

The mirror image of the Suffragette who is deeply into the 'Autonomy' system, is the Female Politician who is deeply into the 'Democracy' system. It is this female [the Politician] that is really the ideal female for the Business Man type although she herself is not into Business. There are some dubious aspects here. Being the mirror image of the Suffragette where the Suffragette is anti-revolutionary (but appears to be a revolutionary) so it seems that her opposite is in fact a revolutionary (pretending not to be) and this looks like an intentional lie. Perhaps her association with the Business Man will be some kind of corruption, and she will be conducive to some kind of bribe which would be a Business like response, (unlike the Male Politician who would simple be just another Freemason like the Business Man).

This gives us six types of female and only four types of male? Trying to cast the female side as a mirror for the male side produces some difficult results. For the F.Politician you can have a M.Politician and that's fairly easy. For the Suffragette the male here would really have to be a Terrorist, who would attack the state because he would know in advance that his arguments would be rejected (without even needing to ask). The Prostitute, of course is sitting very 'squarely' on top of the Business Man (in the lodge) and here we have the interesting idea that his exact opposite is not the ideal female for him. This rather implies that the Business Man type is acting like a sort of male prostitute? He is offering something for sale, and he is saying that sex sells, and he does try to associate his product with a range of sexual imagery - much like the Prostitute does. If we look at the Feminist and the Female Student, they are protesters and they are close to the central line where they are not sure if the state or an individual should handle the situation. I think in general we could classify these people as male and female protesters. I don't think that their causes are well defined, and I think that female protesters are the opposites of male protesters. These are people who just like protesting and they would tend to associate with each other. Their cause is CONFUSION, they are protesting because they are confused. This leaves the Academic Female who is not mirroring the Academic Male - hence the problem. The structure has an inherrent misalignment they are not only in different locations, but they are also behaving differently. There is another interesting difference here which is that the Business Man type has the choice between the Prostitute and the Politician and probably gets both, but on the other side of the line the Academic Man type is not really associating with the Suffragette, and has the Academic Female type within closer reach.

*The cynic here would probably say that the structure is odd because I made it odd.

It is interesting that on the Democracy side of the line the main currency is money but on the Academic side of the line the main currency is knowledge. Where the Business Man pays the Prostitute and bribes the Politician (who he eventually marries), if we project that onto the other side of the line, the Academic Man would perhaps bribe the Female Student by giving her higher grades, but is then supplying some kind of insider information to the Academic Female? The Business Man is passing money, the Academic Man is passing information. Perhaps the Academic Female is some kind of spy?

So the Academic Female who is the natural mate of the Academic but 'Unlucky' guy is in a rather stange position. Gathering information from the Academic, while Autonomously acting to attack the Democratic state. Perhaps we should generalise that into a sort of journalist of some kind acting in the public interest, by publishing the information provided. This does appear to be a correct interpretation. Obviously the 'Autonomy' side of the line is more complex than the 'Democracy' side.


Description Of Types
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Feminist/Student Protesters:
These could be male or female. The most visible will be younger youths. They will have some elements of the academic. They are confused individuals who are unclear about their cause and not sure whether they should take action themselves, and so tend to limit their actions to protesting. Their hope is to encourage the state to take some action to appease their claims. They generally aggravate the state for no good reason. They can be expected to associate with each other.

Politicians:
These could be male or female. They are in truth revolutionaries trying to overthrow the state from within. They are generally corrupt and easily bribed. They associate with Business men in a generally corrupt way. They can drift into a Business role when their Political careers end. Female Politicians could be expected to marry rich Business men. These are people who want money and power but if they can't get both they will settle for one or the other.

Suffragettes/Terrorists:
These could also be male or female but are commonly more likely to be male. These people have usually tried for some time to get along with the state but have discovered that the state is against them. They realise that their arguments will be rejected and that the state itself is rejecting them not just their arguments. They generally become frustrated and attack the state and anyone in the state that they don't trust. They often lose. They have extreme 'Autonomy' and are difficult to defeat, but their weakness is they tend to act alone. They are most effective when they rally around a cause such as 'votes for women' in the historical context or ISIS in the hope that the Islamic State can eventually communicate in some meaningful way with the moronic Politicians who cannot be reasoned with. They are not revolutionaries and are not truly against the state and have spent their time trying to become a citizen of the state - but without success. The Suffragette/Terrorist is very isolated and I doubt that this individual will be associating with anyone of opposite sex.

Prostitute/Business Man:
The female version of the Business man is really a Prostitute. They both have a strong interest in money and use sex to get it. They are astute liars and use false claims to sell their products. While they may be good at lying they are also good at handling facts which are essential for their long term survival. Both are very good at customer service and handle people very well. We often see Prostitutes colluding with Accountants much as Business men do, so both have some interest in certain types of Academic. Both are into bribery and various types of corruption. Perhaps the Prostitute will eventually marry a male Politician who will cover for her just as the Business man might marry a female Politician for similar reasons.

Academic Man:
Highly skilled and knowledgeable in a way that makes communication with others quite difficult. Generally male. This individual is tolerated by the state as his knowledge is often needed. Business people need this type of individual to solve problems for them. This is the guy who invents the Atomic Bomb, and accidentally passes those secrets on to the Academic Female who is attracted to him for his knowledge. He is susceptible to her because such females are usually hard for him to find, but she's probably a Russian spy. His knowledge makes him a bit of an enemy of the state.

Academic Female:
An isolated female. A traveller. An observer who gathers information. An opponent of the state. This is the person transporting terrorists around the countryside, while encouraging them to attack the state in various ways. A spy or journalist of some kind. This individual seems quite dangerous. She has a high degree of academic ability combined with significant autonomy to deploy what she knows in a tactical way. She could be expected to marry an Academic. She is hard to find and hard to stop.


Some General Conclusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The apparently available females are not ideal choices. Both the Business Man type and the Academic Man type cannot directly see their ideal female counterpart when they are associating with each other, as their proximity distances them from where these females are physically located. The Business Man will be more successful with the females that are in the area but those will tend to be Prostitutes, Feminists, or Students. Students in the area will tend to associate with other students, and if you are a student then you should find a group of protesters and join up. The Academic Man may have some luck with the young female Student if he can tolerate the stupid cause that she's supporting. Both men need to avoid each other as their association is damaging their chances to find an ideal female. The Business Man would do well to focus on Politics. The Academic would do well to focus on Transport and may perhaps be best advised to travel around the countryside in some academic role. Sadly the advice here is for the guys to do stuff that they are not good at.

Strategies and Methodologies
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now we have a general structure we must ask what to do with it? Initially it was said that this is a developing system and that the 'Autonomy' side was not developed enough to be as supportive of the Academic as the 'Democratic' side was for the Business man. Both have problems with the current structure, but because they are trying to help each other as each need what the other has, their close proximity has moved them away from where they need to be within the structure. The Academic has moved further than the Business man and has become more disadvantaged as a consequence.

But all of that is theoretical?

The first problem here is the confusion between the physical and the metaphorical. "When the two guys are exchanging their views they are unable to see their ideal females because those females are not in the same place." Being in the same place is physical while the location of the Business man and the Academic is metaphorical (sorry, that's how I think). Because the attitudes of the Business man and the Academic are influencing each other the Business man has become more Academic, while the Academic has become more Business like. They are poluting each others ideology. The problem here is that while this has happened to them the same is not true of the females who have remained in their original places within the structure. The Academic in moving closer to the Business man in terms of ideology has at the same time moved further away from the Academic Female. Likewise the Business man in moving closer to the ideology of the Academic has moved slightly further away from the Political Female. The prediction here is that the Academic is thinking like a Business man and isn't being true to his own nature (like teaching a cat to behave like a dog). The same has happened to the Business man who is now thinking more like an Academic. So the females who would have been attracted to these guys now think they are acting very stangely and are avoiding them.

Strategy 1:
If you are a Business man avoid acting like an Academic. If you are an Academic stop trying to function as though you are a Business Man. Choose which you think you are and have some belief in your type, avoid people who think differently to yourself. Don't support the other guy unless he's truly on your side of the line. Be what you are. So, you can't be an Academic but then support a political party (the Business man can but you can't). The idea here is that if you do it will create a kind of muddled confusion which will lead you astray. Sadly this does mean that you must choose a side, and it also means that one side should not be listening to the views of the other side. Many people are guilty of this, including myself. Dichotomy demands a separation, and the lack of separation causes confusion. With separation both types can become 'Lucky' people as one system would support one side, while a different system would support the other side.

Strategy 2:
If you are on the Democratic side of the line then support the state. If you are not on the Democratic side of the line then do not support the state or participate in it's schemes. This is why many people do not vote. Business people then are required to believe in the culture (no matter how bad it is).

The view then is that failure is caused by confusion, and confusion is where differing ideas are mixed together. The failure then is in not achieving 'Dichotomy' and failing to achieve a clear separation. This is an opposing view to Pol Pot. He felt that the teachers must also plant rice otherwise how could they have food to eat? If you mix business and academic ideas together what you have is a social failure because the two guys are selling out to the opposition. The Business man and the Academic should be enemies not friends (but perhaps the Academic should indeed be growing the food, it'll give him time to study while he's waiting for it to grow).

Muddled confusion is a way of losing! What you think can be very damaging. Mixtures lead to the 'Protesters' group close the the central dividing line and half of them are Feminists. Please do not become a Feminist!

*There is a saving grace here. Sometimes people who were 'Lucky' suddenly experience changing circumstances that result in them becoming 'Unlucky'. The whole structure is set up to allow a person to transition from one system to the other and potentially back again. As separate communities people would choose which to belong to and would have the means of making a free choice. There may be some study therefore of the opposing group, but the requirement is to keep these systems apart, and not allow the ideas of one to contaminate the ideas of the other. Should we simplify what we drink by mixing Coffee with Tea to produce Teaffee? Why does it sound like a bad idea? Teaffee would have equal quantities of Coffee and Tea so you would achieve equalitea? Vending machines are good at producing this, but it kind of tastes bad.

Strategy 3:
For the Business man the currency is money, but for the Academic the currency is knowledge. We can see that the first part here is well understood but the second part less so. The Academic must not pay for what he wants he must give knowledge in exchange for what he needs. For example: As previously suggested the Prostitute associated with the Accountant - she slept with him and in return he did her accounts and payed her taxes. That's not a hypothetical example, that's an actual instance. So this Academic type, exchanged his knowledge rather than his money. It seems clear that the 'Autonomy' system needs some form of currency based on some kind of knowledge, but whether this can be standardised in the same way that money is, is hard to say, it would need to be something that the people couldn't share by copying (a problem that was solved by Bitcoin). So the Academic needs to learn to live by wits alone. In effect he needs to reduce his cost of living to zero. They might of course, sell information in some way.

Strategy 4:
There is a general view that 'Autonomy' needs to be developed as an independent system and it would therefore need some form of controlling structure capable of policing it. The organisation here would be rather like the Amish Community but where they are below the level of Democracy in terms of lifestyle and functionality this would be a community that would be above the level of Democracy. In many respects it could be considered as the exact opposite of the Amish. So where they shave off the moustache but keep the rest of the beard because they are against the concept of rank, the 'Upper Echelon' would shave off the beard but keep the moustache specifically as an emblem of rank. Where the Amish avoid modern technology the 'Upper Echelon' would be using Dark Matter technology of the kind demonstrated throughout the Bible. Where the Amish avoid a connection with the world the 'Upper Echelon' would be spying on the world (and selling the information). The 'Upper Echelon' could be touted as an anti-terrorist group and would then police the 'Autonomy', but at the same time would develop it into a thoroughly independent structure based on Academic information and advanced technology. The isolation may perhaps be achieved through the incompatibility between Dark Matter technology and the modern electrical energy at least through the blocking of high voltage transmission due to the absorbtion of Beta Radiation.

We are some distance away from the Dark Matter technology described, at about the kind of level that Faraday was at with regard to Electromagnetic Induction, but much future technology will be of this type.


Symbolism
^^^^^^^

                  O

            H         T

        C                 O

    I                          M

DEMOCRACY+AUTONOMY

[preempted by ROMEO+JULIET I guess - also a Dichotomy]

It's interesting to try to slot out the Democracy and replace it with some other system such as Communism or Dictatorship, but it doesn't really work. In the case of Communism the Dichotomy becomes rather small and insignificant, in the case of Dictatorship you effectively have two Autonomies and one become an enemy of the state to be disposed of. So only Democracy really fits and that looks like a natural fit.

The general view then is that 'Dichotomy' is really indicating that Democracy does have this bigger structure and must accept that it is not a singularity but part of a greater system that must always have at least two distinct systems that co-exist, as proven by the Amish Community of America. There is also the view that the sorry state of Western Democracy is caused by internal confusion and it cannot help itself to fix that. It needs the formation of the external 'Autonomy' structure to draw out from itself the elements that are currently confusing it's existing structure. The view is that the lack of 'Dichotomy' and the failure to separate out 'Autonomy' as a separate system has resulted in a non functional mixture.

*There is of course, a very serious problem here. In many respects you might argue that this is what the Nazis did. They drew out the Jews - and gassed them, but this is the response of a Dictatorship, not a Democracy. They may have identified the problem correctly, but their solution was wrong (a foreign legion of Jews, much like the British use of the Gurkhas, would have produced a stunning victory for them - as it would have given them 6 million soldiers).

Conclusion
^^^^^^^
Well, you have a choice, you can put the Clown in charge or you can put the Nazi in charge. If you put the Nazi in charge the first thing he does is gas the Clown. The Clown is no longer laughing. If you put the Clown in charge at least the Nazis get to live, but why am I laughing - is it because there's a Clown in charge?

Western Democracy is so screwed up it caters for these clowns, but your potentially Academic Nazi would be unable to create such a system and would be left wondering what to do with these people - that he wished weren't there (that he wants to do in). In contrast with the Clown system currently rulling, the hardest part of the problem has been solved, morons are now accounted for, they have a wonderful clown confederacy. So developing a system for the remaining Academics should be easier, as they are not so deranged.


General Observations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An opposing system 'Autonomy' composed of Academic type people is required. What I'm saying here is that this isn't a system that should be allowed to evolve naturally, and letting it do so is causing many problems.

The 'Autonomy' needs a leadership structure the 'Upper Echelon' was suggested.

A Dichotomy between 'Democracy' and 'Autonomy' needs to be established separating Academic from Business interests. An example would be VAT applied to Business products would be mirrored by IAT, Intelligence Added Tax applied to Academic products (where intellectual rights apply) which would be paid to the 'Autonomy' (ruled by the 'Upper Echelon'). The failure to separate these two is causing some cross contamination to infect both sides, making for a sick culture.

Many of the problems that exist within the world today are a direct product of failing to develop the 'Autonomy' system. This system in it's raw undeveloped state lacks any form of quality control. Being basically Academic in nature it is essential that the information it uses is of high quality. Not only does information need to be assessed for accuracy but there are pointers like Occam's Razor that can indicate more likely ideas from less likely ones. Factual concepts need to be distinguished from beliefs. Where 'Autonomy' may spontaneously emerge the individual concerned has not been taught how to respond. A simple scheme such as the Green Cross Code that teaches a child how to cross the road safely, could easily be developed to handle the urge to respond autonomously. It would point to data accuracy and quality concerns, giving a range of tests to be applied. These would improve the individuals judgement. Such a scheme could be given to younger protesters such as Feminists to help them think more clearly about what they are doing and why.

The Suffragettes expertly deployed 'Autonomy'. Now whether they did this because they were some how clever, or whether they quickly learnt from failure is unclear. Their success is important because they succeeded, not for what they achieved. Circumstances largely came to their rescue as their strategy had stalled. They were right to argue for the vote and it was a small thing to grant them. A line is drawn at that point. They only had data accuracy for this one argument. The subsequent emergence of Feminists is entirely different and is a feature of 'Democracy' with it's inherent lying mentality. These are merely confused protesters, they have no credibility, and their arguments are worthless.

The 'Autonomy' system has a very definite currency based on information not money. That seems particularly relevant with regard to the modern world and we see examples of this such as Edward Snowden who autonomously leaked information. That information became a kind of currency, and he did it because he wanted to expose the surveillance state. Which seems slightly ironic.

One of the features to emerge here is that the situation affecting males has been very different to that affecting females. The men have to a degree tried to help each other, and have moved significantly towards each other despite incompatible ideologies. The women haven't. They have tended to stubbornly hold onto their fixed views - despite Feminism and suggested equality. That's unintuitive. The women haven't changed their world - the men are the ones that have moved and have changed the world for them. Equality is not being achieved by women - it's being achieved by men. The women have said that the men need to change, and they did, and that has made the culture worse. Meanwhile the women are just exactly where they were previously. They became equal 'in name only'. They were merely said to be equal by men, and that is a part of the failure caused by the mixing of academic and business interests. Remember - women got the vote - and that's all.

There is a very strong psychological aspect being proposed here. It is being said that you cannot mix Business and Academic ideologies together. In financial terms this may be quite successful, which is why it happens. What I am saying here is that the identity of the individual is being eroded. The guys are attractive (to women) for what they are but that needs to be clearly defined (much like DNA), and if you are out of focus then you become less visible. You then become a mutation - a cancer of the culture. At that point you either die out like a cell or you successfully breed to produce a spreading cancer that tries to kill the culture. It's not only bad for the individual it's also bad for the state. The Business Man and the Academic Man are like two organs within the body of the culture. Each has a separate function. If the two merge to produce an Academic Business Man then the function of each organ is lost and the body of the culture will die. Let me spell it out a little more clearly, the Academic Business Man is a Feminist.

Democracy is not a singular system but part of a bigger structure and must accept this. While the Democracy cannot be replaced by Communism or Dictatorship, it is possible to replace the 'Autonomy' aspect with Communism or Dictatorship. When this happens Democracy opposes the existence of such a structure. The 'Autonomy' suggested here is different in that it is usually not a social group but if a group does occur then it tends to surround a specific cause. The thinking is that 'Autonomy' can only survive if it is small.

The 'Autonomy' has a Nazi flavour and will always tend to be labelled as Nazi by the state.

Final last words - purity control. I'm not arguing for racial purity, what is needed is psychological purity. It is not the mixing of blood, genes, or races, but ideologies that has caused the problem. This theory suggests that you have this choice:

[Business & Money] or [Academia & Information]

The failed culture & the poor social relationships are caused by mixing these two together in YOUR HEAD. In order to improve the culture, the state, and your relationships you must choose ONE OF THESE, and remove the other. In doing so you will become a part of the DICHOTOMY SYSTEM, and you will have a place in the world - in todays world.

Assuming of course, that my analysis is correct. Some people may disagree but are they a part of the problem or a part of the solution?

Marriage
^^^^^^
This is an important aspect that wasn't covered. I have said that parents are automatically 'Lucky' but their children might not be. If they have two children then one might be 'Lucky' while the other might be 'Unlucky'. But clearly the couple that get married are automatically deemed to have become 'Lucky' and there are a wide range of consequences.

Suppose two Academics get married. Being on the 'Unlucky' side of the line, they would then transition from there onto the 'Lucky' side of the line? This rather implies that they would change and become Business people instead? Do they also change from being truthful people to becoming liars? Perhaps this is an aspect of relationships in general, the couple have learnt to lie to each other (a political aspect perhaps). Can we say then, that if we think about our own parents - that they were liars?

If they move from the 'Unlucky' side of the line to the 'Lucky' side of the line - are they now supporting the state? Perhaps if they have children they would then need to support the state. The ambition of the 'Unlucky' people seems to be to become 'Lucky' to join the lucky people on the other side of the line.

One of the main concerns in the development of an 'Autonomy' system must be to develop it in a way that can support it's people independently from the state. This rather implies that 'Autonomy' would need it's own form of relationship construction, some form of marriage concept that does not result in the married couple automatically supporting the 'Democratic' state instead? Clearly this would not be prostitution as that is a Business concept. Then we would have to ask the awkward question of how a child could then have 'Unlucky' parents? Marrying across the central line is extremely hazardous, don't even go there. Even a single mother would have been 'Lucky' for a short period of time. Even in artificial insemination the mother would be chosen and thus 'Lucky' at least to a degree. In a Nazis state you might see Eugenic selection? In fact there is such a system that is rather more in the hands of God than our Nazi Scientist, and it's a scheme that I myself developed through the observation of character.

I worked in a large factory where all the workers were mainly men. Given that there were more than 1000 of them as you can imagine there were many guys with exactly the same name. As an apprentice I worked in most of the areas in the factory and I was able to compare these people and what I found were extreme similarities between people who had the same name. The Michael who would jump up and down waving his arms in the air, shouting No, No, No, three times in a confrontation. That only has to be seen twice, in two different people, at two different locations, five years apart, before you realise that something is going on. People with the same first names were behaving the same as each other. The implication is that the vibration of the name somehow shapes the neural networks of the brain producing specific characteristics. So God was using phonetics, instead of genetics.

This was developed for a long time and after many years it became possible to determine sexual compatibility from the name (I think this already exists). Basically + or - 1 letter and across the circle of the alphabet. Thus where my name is Shaun my compatible types were R, S, T, or E, F, G. Females: Rachael, Sharon, Tracy, or Errica, Fiona, Gabby. For people who were married it was then possible to determine whether they were married to someone compatible or not and then determine the outcome. Most people who were 'Lucky' were found to be in compatible marriages. The same name types tend to compete against each other. So this is an entirely observable scheme that allows the selection of a compatible female from a list. No contact is necessary, no social skills are necessary. It's a function of the brain, and the ability of one brain to interact with another. Here's a picture of the circular structure so you can experiment with this yourself:




So the 'Autonomy' system would use such a structure to determine male and female compatibilities and the structure has enough matches to allow freedom of selection, and on top of that it's a God like process based on the 'word' of the name (as in the name of God). It's also a step up from the Nazi Eugenics as it's a naturally occurring system.

The parents of the child do not then need to be 'Lucky' they can be 'Unlucky' but apply an Academic factual scheme (rather than nurturing some kind of relationship), which could be statistically proven to be accurate. It would then be adopted as a custom. Can you see how it cuts through the concept of marriage. There is no direct sense of Monogamy but there is a limited Polygamy. There are females that you cannot be with even though you are single, yet there are more than one, of the females that you can be with. So it's a clever mixture of the two schemes and resolves the argument that the married man must have prostitutes as well. Further more it demands loyalty to the scheme itself, not the specific female or male, and both male and female get to choose. In addition to that it could be viewed as an arranged marriage - only the arrangement is rather large and marriage is not required.

The scheme is testable. This I think is an encouraging sign. To take an impossibly difficult problem and provide a simple solution - that works, is a big step towards an independent 'Autonomy' system.

F. Rodger Devlin - Sexual Utopia in Power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a primary document that attempts to diagnose the failure of sexual relationships with respect to the modern Western culture.

"Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen."

Here of course, the Lucky are chosen - the Unlucky are not. The male must put on a display that results in him being chosen by the female. What if he chooses not to? Here we compare the kind of guy with the behaviour of the guy, and assume that the two are the same. So the female mistakes the behaviour of the guy as an indication of what the guy is like - instead of determining what the guy is like. So, if I say that I tell the truth, the female believes that I am truthful - but then if I was a liar I would say that wouldn't I? The female is taken in by the display, by the claim, while another guy, being a guy, can clearly see that the other guy is a liar. Thus the unethical win. We must conclude that the female is gullible, and has a dim witted method of selecting guys, but at the same time she deserves the liar she has chosen. The only issue is when all females are equally dim. What tends to happen next is that the dim witted female become educated to the point of realising that the guy is lying, but still having a low IQ she now believes that all men are liars and rejects them all or treats them all badly. This is the kind of cycle that occurs in America.

One of the key features of Democracy and it's sidekick Capitalism is that you have an entire culture that seems to be based on lying, and it works because of the untruthfulness of Capitalism. At best this is interpreted as an exaggeration which is then promoted by Democracy as 'being positive' (which is a requirement in order to believe the lie). So the Positive nature of Democracy is achieved by lying (which is required by Capitalism to achieve a profit), and as you can imaging if this is extended into the social culture it then has very damaging consequences. The Unlucky people then, are also truthful people dealing with facts. So to quote Devlin:

"The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose."

The presumption is that this display is a lie. In nature of course, it will often be the case that this is not a lie, but even in the case of the body builder - if he doesn't display those muscles then they will not be seen, and he would not be chosen. It's clear that the smarter female who is more discriminating will be looking for factual data that might be obtained when the male is put to the test as would occur in a sport. Data is king, and observation or witness information is the main source.

Devlin gives credence to the Feminists, but I think that this is a mistake. They don't have the credibility he gives them they are just confused protesters. I don't think that they should be classified as a movement.

There are a whole lot of issues that Devlin points to yet he doesn't seem to suggest any solutions? The sexual revolution can't just happen - because someone says so. I think it was probably an aspect of contraception, specifically the pill in the case of females, but while this gave the practicality for a sexual revolution because it mean't that women could themselves avoid pregnancy, it didn't really provide any methods of interaction just the hypothetical suggestion of more interaction. When a situation changes, then the methods used previously also have to change. So when cars were new and slow, a man walked in front of the car carrying a red flag (if memory serves) but when cars were liberated and could travel much faster using the man with the red flag was no longer a practical method. The same is true here for the sexual revolution. After achieving a medical solution the existing methods were no longer valid and were replaced with mass confusion? In fact it often seems, as I read what Devlin has written here that he has 29 pages of failure and merely bitches and moans, yet above I just provided a direct solution using far less words. Even if you argue that my solution is unscientific and successfully prove that it's wrong - well hey, it would still solve the problem for simply being a method where no other method seems to exist.

So Devlin tells us about the problem and then shrugs his shoulders. We should all do what Devlin said - like what exactly? Is he recommending that we avoid women for example? In providing us with contraception the Democratic state provided half the answer, as a Dichotomy it tends to do this a lot, now the 'Autonomy' (the individual people) must provide the other half of the answer but without some degree of organisation confusion reigns. As there is no organisation no answer is provided other than luck.

Devlin was right about Germany and their low birth rate, but the Germans found a solution - refugees. They are simply replacing their failed population with a population of foreigners. Sort of a reversal of the Happier Abroad concept. Meanwhile the German population have expired through their own stupidity. Isn't that exactly what Adolf was trying to avoid? If the refugees preserve their native countries culture then this might actually work and Germany would become an Arabic nation. I'm bound to think that the German Government has not helped and supported it's people in the way that they could have hoped. My view is that they were incapable of doing so due to some element of confusion. That as Democracy is half a system they are failing to see the bigger picture.

He does finally get to some lame solutions by page 33.
Strengthen the marriage vows.
That the wealth due to the wife is dependent on her successfully being a proper wife.
The reintroduction of the shotgun marriage.
Harassment claims listed on a record of the females behaviour.
Separate schools for men and women.

Needless to say all these ideas suck. Marriage does not work, it's an exercise in crisis management. The wealth due to the wife is her wealth, just as the wealth due to the husband is his. If you're dumb enough to have some kind of joint account then you are destined to spend the rest of your life arguing with your wife over money. The key objective then is to avoid marriage thus the idea of shotgun marriage is exactly the opposite of what you need. I think that what we need is a situation where men and women get along with each other better - not worse, so having separate schools would worsen relationships and increase the liklihood of harassment claims.

If like Germany there is a problem with a lack of population then you can see that some form of Polygamy would resolve this but it needs some rules and some limits. The child will always belong to the mother who gave birth to it, because it's the mothers flesh (can't think how to put that any better but it can't be any other way). The wealth of one person does not belong to another, but some degree of donation by interested parties could be expected to occur. There is no real difference between being married or not, but the general theme seems to be to reduce jealousy or establish ownership? In more primitive times the women was the man's property. Polygamy suggests some degree of sharing is required which my scheme above limits to specific types of grouping, and that must surely be better as it provides greater variety. Where the scheme that I have suggested indicates which females are available to which males - this availability would nullify any claim of harassment, so you could only be prosecuted for harassing someone of an incompatible group (thus problem solved, much like marriage). You have then defined acceptible harassement (deemed to be normal) from unacceptible harassment (of someone who is incompatible, or in the case of marriage - not available). Furthermore given the continued existence of Democracy and the Church it's still possible for a couple (dumb enough...) to still get married and depart from this scheme.

Devlin gives the usual argument that marriage limits one male to one female and visa-versa, and he admits that this limitation is artificial. My view is that this is why marriage fails, it creates an extremely claustophobic environment often endured by the children. Now the solution in the family context has been relatives. Where the mother and father have many brothers and sisters, these often visit and there are often associations with a wider group. In general though this is often quite a poor situation of the blind leading the blind. Miserable people consoling one another to try to dispel the misery. I don't think that the children should have the burden of caring for their parents mental health. Instead the Polygamy approach suggested links the child to the mother (and the mother to the state) but what you have is a larger group of people who can relate to one another for their mutual benefit, with the only obligation being an obvious sexual interest. The female has a wide number of males willing to help out, and the males a wide number of females to support if they choose. Why would this be so bad? There's no divorce and a strong tendency against separation. The father would tend to continue to be able to see the child even if he wasn't getting along with it's mother. The peer pressure from 'others' would act as a protective measure. Instead Devlin wants a legal contract cast in stone, as an obligation for the couple to act correctly and to get along forever and ever.

So I disagree with Devlin. Now for those people who are a bit miffed that the state looks after the female first, I think it's clear that the children are seen as new blood for the Democracy. The suggestion is that an 'Autonomy' system would look after the male first as you might imagine. That this unfair tendency of the state is really due to the female being more compatible with Democracy itself, just as the male would be more compatible with an 'Autonomy'.

The Ideology of Autonomy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the ideas I have here is the suggestion that the Democracy is 'Female' where the Autonomy is 'Male'. Perhaps we are seeing a gender war, an actual battle between the sexes?


                                       <<<STATE or INDIVIDUAL>>>
                                                         |
                                                         |
F.Politician                  Prostitute Feminist F.Student       A.Female   Suffragette
       V                              V            V  |       V                     V               V
                                                         |
Democracy >----------< Business //Dichotomy// Academic >----------< Autonomy
FEMALE                                                                                              MALE
MACHINE                                                                                            VIRUS

The implication is that the development of Democracy is also a development of Women, but the lack of development of the Autonomy is a failure to develop Men. The implication is that to improve the situation what we need to do is to look at why Democracy is feminine and how the two are related and then try to create some kind of reversal as a means to develop the Autonomy.

*Of course this does tend to mean that you will see Democracy become a Matriarchal system and may perhaps account for some of the success of the Feminists.

We might take the view of adding the term JEW to the FEMALE Democracy and the term NAZI to the male Autonomy but I think that this would be an inaccurate interpretation.

The 'Autonomy' can have three possible ideologies. It can be Terrorism, Nazism, or Virus like? It's clear at this point that the Islamic State can be clearly defined as Terrorism, much like the IRA. The Suffragettes being all female (as far as I can tell) have a racial concept as an aspect of gender and this would equate to Nazism. If you look at Nazism it was primarily centred around the state as a form of Nationalism, the objective being to transform the nation, and this was the primary agenda of the Suffragettes. In projecting the male and female into obvious areas…

The female is clearly on the side of the Democracy because she can have children, thus new blood for the state. Then she has concern for the school structure and the care of her child. The state cares for her child and so does she. Her caring for her child is the same as her caring for the state. The 'Lucky' parents etc. This should be fairly clear at this point.

The male is clearly on the side of Autonomy as a former hunter. He doesn't have children his wife does. While it's important for the wife to look after the child she does that instead of looking after the husband who is then competing against the child for her affections. As the traditional head of the family he decides what to do - autonomously with some feed back from others?

What we see then, if we compare the biology of the male and the female, are stark differences between them which are so obvious that I don't need to make a list here. Suffice to say that there are limited biological similarities. For example: The female has two eyes, and so does the male - but the male has eyes that work and can see in three dimensions (3D, 3 whole dimensions, of length, breadth, and width). Sadly although the female also has eyes and claims to be able to see equally well, the brain seems horribly flawed and three dimensional vision is severely limited to 2D providing a kind of flat space view. This creates limitations for females who then have difficulties understanding three dimensional images conveyed in 2D form like photographs (or computer artwork). It was a bit of a shock for me when I discovered this inability. Female art has to be flat not three dimensional otherwise they can't see it.

In terms of reproduction the female is the machine, and she provides all of the machinery. Perhaps this is the area of compatibility with the Democratic state. In contrast the male provides the seed, which is miniscule in comparison. The female would therefore argue to be superior because of this, and she does have a good point, except that the male is achieving so much more - with so much less. The seed could be viewed as a Virus, the child a product of venereal disease? I feel sure that I could win the Feminist vote with this argument. Well, the pill is the cure I suppose? Suppose though that the male could be viewed as a Virus with respect to Democracy. It only took one of these to assassinate President Kennedy and to radically alter the fortunes of America (a severe case of poisoning, resulting in an organ transplant). It seems clear from this that the ideology of 'Autonomy' needs to be based on a Virus like structure, and this has already been preempted by the Chinese and the North Koreans. As previously 'Autonomy' as a system could be replaced by Communism or Dictatorship and would be seen as a threat to Democracy, and these other systems are attacking the Western world and are using viruses to do it. The conclusion is that 'Autonomy' needs to learn it's practical functional ideology by drawing a parallel, an analogy to the computer Virus, and then emulate the strategies used.

Thus the Autonomist is not a Nazis, but actually Virus like:
A virus is doing something that it's not supposed to be doing, often harmful.
It reproduces itself after it gets in.
The virus steals resources and gets the machine to do it's own choice of tasks.
Displays political or humerous messages.
Spamming their contacts.
Logging what they do.
The virus attempts to hide itself.
Self-replicating, installing themselves without user consent.
Gain access through 'social engineering' and exploit detailed knowledge of security vulnerabilities.
Anti-detection / stealth strategies to avoid being discovered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

Remember here that the 'Autonomy' system is at the polar opposite to 'Democracy' and is an extreme use of Academic knowledge where the truth argument has given way to a more hostile response. This is not the decent guy expecting the female to appreciate what a good guy he is, but the Academic that has moved along since then. This list not only applies to the Democratic state but to the Female as well, and this is a detailed list of what to do and how to do it. On top of that - you're studying computer viruses, it's a perfect cover.

There is tremendous scope to study computer viruses and apply the basic principles to resolve the issues that the male of the species has with the failed culture and the state.

So Where's The Money Then?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where previously I dealt with the argument that 'Autonomy' had an ideology that should be Virus like, obviously that refers to the opposite of Democracy. The Virus like behaviour being the polar opposite of Political behaviour is not expected to produce any kind of wealth. Just as the Government has no real Business skills and runs as a non profit making leech, so too the Upper Echelon of 'Autonomy' would have no real or practical Academic skills as those would be very narrowly defined to fall within the Viral aspects only, and it would be funded by leeching off the 'Academic' in some way? So it is the 'Academic Man' who is the counterpart of the 'Business Man' who must in some way be generating the wealth to support the 'Autonomy' system. The question is how, and it's an important question to ask.

There are already very obvious differences between the 'Business Man' and the 'Academic Man'. The Business uses raw materials where the Academic doesn't. The Academic is transmitting his data via some medium, where the Business is using the Postal Service. The Academic is conveying information where the Business is moving physical materials. In many respects you might argue that the Academic is handling the transport where the Business is creating the product being transported. The picture is confused as the two are generally mixed together in the modern world where in a corrected 'Dichotomy' they should be separate. So the 'Academic' should refuse to transport the 'Businesses' product. We need to extract the Academic from the Business to see how this aspect could stand alone within the 'Autonomy' structure.

The Democracy is well developed where the Autonomy is not. If we look at how the Business works within the Capitalism embraced by the Democracy then it should be possible to say how the Academic would function by analogy.

Business:
The Business employs people A to manufacture product A. The raw materials + cost of manufacture + profit margin added, gives the price which +VAT is then declared to the buyer. The buyer purchases the product for the stated sum. From the money VAT is paid, the profit is extracted and paid into the Business Owners account, the cost of manufacture is extracted and paid to the workers, and the rest pays for the raw materials.

Another Business employs people B to manufacture product B. The same process occurs as above.

The buyer who purchased product A worked for the company that manufactured product B, and so believed that the price quoted was a good price. The buyer who purchased product B worked for the company that manufactured product A, and so believed that the price quoted was a good one. If buyer A purchases product A then the clever Business Owner gives him a discount in return for his silence with regard to it's true value which he lied about to inflate the profit.

Both worker A & B could have manufactured the products themselves and simply exchanged them with one another thus getting a lower price while cutting out the Fat Cat Business Owner. Perhaps that is the theory of Communism? The whole process is made to work because of the use of MONEY without which the barter and trade system would remove the Business, the Government, and the state, leaving just happy people. The Government makes and handles the money as a method of controlling the people, who in truth could easily opt out if they chose to do so.

Conclusions: The structure tends to feed on itself and what you have are a series of confusing feedback loops that have the purpose of confusing the general public so they cannot see or complain that the overall system is just some kind of gigantic Ponzi Scheme. The expectation is that 50% of the people are losing and this is concealed to prevent the pyramid from collapsing. It must be assumed that these 50% come from the Academic/Autonomy side of the line, and that it is these people who are absorbing the losses inherent in the structure.

Academic:
This structure is currently unknown but could be expected to be similar to the above. It must have similar qualities in order to function. We can probably work in reverse order here.

It seems clear that any losses in this structure would have to be absorbed by the Business/Democracy side of the line, and if so then you have a money argument because it's their money that is being absorbed? On the Academic side of the line we would have to see workers working for some kind of leader. The results of their activities would have to be exchanged with other workers working for other leaders. So one type of information is being exchanged for another type of information in a barter process. The Leader of these workers is obviously aggregating smaller pieces of information handled by each worker to build a bigger result which is then more functional than each part and therefore has more value. In this particular case you have IAT, Information Added Tax but in this case the Upper Echelon would get a complete copy of the data result as it's share.

The resemblance is still to Bitcoin and Bitcoin miners. You can see that a currency is being manufactured and controlled by an overarching group. You can also see that Bitcoin is now being used as a currency to exchange for Government Money in the purchase of products from Businesses. However the Government that currently prints the money is not a Business and tends to be a non-profit making organisation.

The argument is structurally flawed because where Business uses many people as an aspect of Democracy you would expect the Academic to limit the number of people used to avoid information leaking out? On the Autonomy side of the line the emphasis is on individuals not large groups of people. So perhaps the structure above could be viewed more like a botnet?

The basic argument is to combine lots of separate smaller pieces of information to form a much bigger structure whose value is greater than the sum of the parts. The Leader designed the bigger structure - in this case 'Dichotomy', made from all the smaller pieces of information (which presumably might be rolled into a book and sold). So where you would have witnesses observing things and reporting what they observe, this information is gathered together to try to form a structure that makes sense, and that result is used to produce something of value that didn't exist previously. Currently Dark Matter technology is being developed as a product of the observations made of UFOs that are truly unknown (reported faithfully by the witnesses) that seem to have a liking for sources of radiation. Occam's Razor says - food, and the concept suggests that the aerial phenomena are composed of Dark Matter with the implication of being the origin of life by combination with regular matter, thus the possibility of primitive life consuming water containing Radon Gas as a form of food? A sort of Holy Grail concept, only modernised by the apparent interaction of these creatures with certain kinds of electronic devices.

We might therefore point to Private Investigation where a number of investigators are needed to follow an individual target to record where they go to, and what they do. To build up the picture of a wife cheating on her husband which is then sold to the husband at a profit. None of the individual investigators can do this job alone, and the individual information that they obtain has to be combined with the rest to get a clearer picture to determine what the overall result might be. Their leader must control the overall data gathering process and successfully aggregate the data into the product (sold to the client), then finally pay each of the observers a small share of the profits in return for their efforts. Now it can't have escaped your attention, that each of these individual private investigators are actually behaving in a Virus like way. Lets try to draw from the previous list:

The Private Investigator is using:
Anti-detection / stealth strategies to avoid being discovered.
Gaining access through 'social engineering' and exploiting detailed knowledge of security vulnerabilities.
Installing bugging devices without user consent.
Logging what they do.
Spamming their contacts - i.e. using a pretext to gain information about the target.

There is a large degree of alignment depending on how you interpret the behaviour. The target in this case is a person who is a part of the Democracy system, and is being exploited for gain by someone who is a part of the Autonomy system. So this is the kind of structure by which money is made on the 'Autonomy' side of the line.

The Virus like behaviour of the Autonomist is being chanelled into a data gathering exercise and the end result is the revealing of a previously hidden situation and the evidence that shows it to be true has value enough to be sold for a fee, that is worth more than the cost of gathering the data in the first place, and thus serves to pay the autonomists who are gathering each piece of information. Like a spy network.

The above is Devlins reference to James Bond, as the most desirable mate for the female, and resolves his confusion as to why this should be the case. James Bond makes himself appear desirable through the use of all the information he has gathered about the specific female target? 'Live and Let Die', where all the Tarot cards were switched for 'The Lovers' as an inducement for the female 'Fortune Teller' to sleep with him, allowing him to create a double agent. A result achieved by using information gathered previously, which was then exploited.


Update 28th April 2016:
Many examples here appear a little too sinister for my liking.

Currently I am photographing bicycle parking facilities in Norwich to produce a book 'Bicycle Parking in Norwich' which I hope to sell to cyclists and tourists. It will show where they can park their bicycle on any street in Norwich with, hopefully, a landmark in the image to aid navigation. So many small pieces of information in the form of photographs, will be aggregated into an electronic book that can then be self published and purchased by interested parties. Mainly so I can get used to the camera and editing processes. This is called Documentary Photography and it's a simple example of what I mean above.

The Autonomy State
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It rather follows from all of this that a code of conduct should be followed (I'm thinking of citizenship as a citizen of the 'Autonomy' system). This was my original thinking at the start of this section. The expectation is that we are born into the system, which is the Democratic system. The initial aim therefore must be to be a part of the state and to fit into the existing system. If you are the right 'type' of person then this will come naturally, however if you are the wrong 'type' of person, although you mean well and try your best, you will find yourself frustrated by some peculiar kind of rejection exacerbated by the even stranger fact that Mr. Wrong is actually Mr Right. "This clown is the right stuff?" (Also not a hypothetical question, but one I was actually asked by a fellow reject.)

Certain 'types' of people, often those with a belief in factual data, are rejected by the state, and the people around them. This is often a two way process in which they in turn reject the state and the people around them. The cause is unclear but may be related to brain structure (multicore focus rather than single core focus). Instead of going forward towards data accuracy, these people are usually asked to take a step backwards and embrace the stupidity of the people around them. Many times their own parents seem to be the most stupid people of all (inherent within the structure). The people closest to them like brothers or sisters seem to do so much better than them even though they are 'Made of the Wrong Stuff'. This obviously causes dismay and confusion, and no information is available on this issue because it has been censored by the state and the system in the interests of keeping the rest in the dark about the true nature of their poor culture. A delay is assumed and the losing individual goes into a waiting pattern to wait for the system to improve - which it never does. The individual eventually cracks under the strain and is then done away with in various ways - hopefully with the least amount of damage to the rest of the population. That this situation happens to 50% of the population is unacceptable (that it doesn't is a lie).

Perhaps the cause is simply a lack of belief or an acute perception. If you have a system based on lying, at some point you are bound to discover someone who doesn't believe the lie. This is a person who doesn't have the 'right attitude'. This is someone who hasn't realised the benefit of being a sucker. This is someone who has watched the lemmings jumping off the cliff to their doom and has decided that perhaps it's not a good thing to do, who has then become hated by the other lemmings for pointing out the danger. This is a person who then stops trying to fit it, and takes time out to look around at the bizarre world. (and scratches his head). What should this person do?

The first step is to realise that much of the existing advice is flawed as it comes from a system that lies for a living. That structurally the system is a product of history being written by the winners. If you are not a winner then none of this advice will work in your case. The information has been provided by people who cannot understand the nature of the problem because they have never seen it, only the consequences of it. Their primary solution is to placate the individual to minimise the damage that they might cause, because it would harm the world of the winners. So the successful people cannot provide an answer or a strategy simply because they are successful. You cannot be like they are and their advice is a veiled suggestion to copy them (which is egotistical, but would probably work). The result is alienation, with all the associated labelling to insult the individual. It's hard to know what the rest of the population hope to achieve through their insults - distance I guess?

* What most people do is they pretend to be the same as the people around them, much as the previous example of Kenneth Branagh given originally. They learn to 'act' as though they are not different (and some become actors because of the development of that skill). These people are like the fish on the outer edges of the shoal.

There is a strong sense here that 'Autonomy' has some kind of power associated with it (centrifugal force). It's a system that seems to capture people in some way. These people then behave in a virus like way and do so naturally (and it could have been any kind of behaviour - so this is very specific and begins to look more like an observation than a suggestion).

'Autonomy' isolates (distributes) the individual, 'Democracy' networks (focusses) the individual. The system works because it is based on a majority - a gathering of people, like a shoal of fish. The group structure works for enough of them. Strength in numbers. It looks like an antipredation concept. In many respects the group must view an external individual as a predator - hence the hostility.

One of the problems that I encountered at this point, was the effort to determine how such an individual might interact with a social group (not 'within' a social group). The virus ideology suggested various kinds of infiltration: infect the group, isolate individuals from the group, and so on. This is what these outcasts are generally trying to do within the existing system. It's clearly the wrong answer because the 'Autonomy' system must be capable of functioning as an independent structure capable of supporting it's own people. The females that are observable are generally interacting within the 'Democratic' structure. For example you might see them in shops, or pubs, or clubs, but as a consequence they are interacting with Businesses as consumers, much like you would be doing at the same time. Where the male has a shopping list and specifically buys the list, the female is browsing and is clearly sucked into this structure. Democracy naturally draws in the female, and those females are effectively lost from the 'Autonomy' system. If the 'Autonomy' has to support it's own people in a similar way to 'Democracy' then the expectation is of another group of females (perhaps a smaller number) who are elsewhere - not doing this. That the females who can be observed must by definition be the wrong ones. So trying to relate to them must be destined to fail? The autonomous 'Academic Man' is being led astray by unattainable females that respond by rejecting him, and this leads the individual to reach all manner of negative conclusions.

There is clearly a marked similary in behaviour patterns between the ideology of 'Autonomy' and the behaviour of the people who fall within this system. This behaviour is also shared by the 'Academic Female' who seems positioned squarely between the Academic and the Autonomy state. This female must have almost exactly the characteristics that define the 'Autonomy' system. The previous list gave this:

An academic interest in books and factual information perhaps through observation.
The application of data standards and the quality of information.
Strong ethical standards, and strong emphasis on truthfulness or discovering the truth.
Rallying around a single cause.
Independent.
Isolated.
A tendency to oppose the state, and a dislike of politics.
An introvert.
An unlucky person.
Strong willed, perhaps slightly arrogant.
Meticulous planning and timetabling, cold and calculating.

This female isn't part of a social group. This female isn't buying stuff in shops as a browser (but might perhaps be stocktaking instead). If we now look for a similar list for the Autonomous male we get our virus list:

A virus is doing something that it's not supposed to be doing, often harmful.
It reproduces itself after it gets in.
The virus steals resources and gets the machine to do it's own choice of tasks.
Displays political or humerous messages.
Spamming their contacts.
Logging what they do.
The virus attempts to hide itself.
Self-replicating, installing themselves without user consent.
Gain access through 'social engineering' and exploit detailed knowledge of security vulnerabilities.
Anti-detection / stealth strategies to avoid being discovered.

and the practical version:

Anti-detection / stealth strategies to avoid being discovered.
Gaining access through 'social engineering' and exploiting detailed knowledge of security vulnerabilities.
Installing bugging devices without user consent.
Logging what they do.
Spamming their contacts - i.e. using a pretext to gain information about the target.

*You can see the 'avoid being discovered' concept occuring twice here. It's clearly the opposite of visibility. How will the female find this invisible guy? Presumably he will find her, but that's generally a non-functional strategy as she needs to be accumulating information about him.

The general idea here is that if there were a protocol that both the male and female citizens of the 'Autonomy' system could follow, they would tend to find themselves in ideological alignment. They would then be able to see each other as well as the overall structure and context of the social system supporting them. As 'Autonomy' is not yet well developed and as it is being poisoned by it's association with 'Democracy' this alignment does not currently occur and is perhaps being deliberately obscured by the state. It would be more convenient for the state if all these others that seem to fall under some other unrecognised scheme would just die out as quickly as possible. That could be a problem if they are all men.

One of the problems is the notion of equality. Clearly the male and female are different to each other, and one of the current problems of the culture is mixing the male and female together, and the attempt to mix male and female ideology together which increases this poisoning effect (generating confusion). There needs to be a separation between the male and the female just as there needs to be a separation between 'Democracy' and 'Autonomy', or between Business and Academic. Generally here, the view is that the 'Academic Man' needs to withdraw from the Democracy. The 'Academic Female' is finding herself on the male side of the line yet she is clearly not a Feminist? How is she masculine then (a belief in factual data, a female with a rational mind, or may be she's a female body builder)? The current general opposition between male and female may be caused by the surplus of females on the 'Democratic' side of the line vs the surplus of males on the 'Autonomy' side of the line. As they have opposing ideologies you have a battle of the sexes developing in the background - exacerbated by the state, hell bent on a singularity, in denial of duality or 'Dichotomy'. The state is ramping up this war as an example of it's stupidity and incompetence. The participants in this war believe that they are on the same side and that therefore one of them must win. If they separated into two factions that were complementary there would be no war, but surpressing that information results in open combat for the same ground. So while the 'Academic Female' must have the same ideology as the 'Academic Male' clearly there must be some separation between them which must place them into complementary interoperation within the structure of the 'Autonomy' state. While there must be common ground it really relates to citizenship, the characteristics of the people who live in the 'Autonomy State'.

The male then is still looking for a way to become 'Lucky' within the 'Democratic' system that he hopes to join some day, and there is the flaw. The rejected individual can only see the 'Democratic' state, and is jealous of it's members. Even within it he's still outside of it, looking in. There must be an external perspective and the 'Autonomy State' must provide it - and to the same standard, but it's nature must be quite different. This guy says: "If only Democracy worked think how great it would be?"

We might get the answers by reversing the existing structure. A shoal of fish is an antipredatory device. It can create the appearence of a big solid structure (like Democracy) where in reality there is a very weak small structure simply being aligned. While this works, the reverse of the focus would be a dilution. Where the shoal is difficult for the shark to interact with that's largely a feature caused by confusion (which should be familiar). A similar result could be achieved if the fish were evenly distributed but widely spaced. The shark might see one fish and eat that one, but would not be able to see the rest. Consider a night club on a Saturday night. The people are densely packed like sardines. What would be the opposite to this? All the people who are not there? Consider the structure - a point, the opposite of which would be a ring? A boundary of some kind. People who are on the fringe. So the occult concept of the point within the circle, the infinitely small or the infinitely large. The 'Democracy' would be the point, the 'Autonomy' the circle (which is actually unintuitive as you might have expected the reverse to be the case). The shoal of fish have the advantage that as a closely packed group they can easily find a mate. A distributed ring at a distance to the shoal would have huge disadvantages. By definition they would need to be spaced so far apart that one couldn't see the next, but perhaps they are also rotating like the shoal, in which case the male might rotate around the ring in the opposite direction to the female, and then they would occasionally meet each other? It does rather suggest that the symbol that should be associated with 'Autonomy' should be a circle. Cursory glance reveals an immediate structure, the circle of the alphabet that I suggested earlier, used to determine sexual compatibility. That the compatible female was (best placed) on the opposite side of the circle of names. That does imply rotation, although the exact placing seems arbitrary depending on the number of letters and their position within the sequence of the alphabet. Never-the-less a ring that rotates?

Circular structures are very common and don't necessarily indicate something of importance. One obvious point is that such a ring would have a low population density (that being the point). Many of the problems of society today are simply caused by a high population (which is what a society is). The ring has a larger size and therefore a lower population density and thus less problems would occur. Whatever the role of this culture would be it would tend to involve movement around the circuit much like a race track. This is a clear structure that is clearly indicated, but at the present time it's still a bit of a mystery? It seems to involve monitoring the people in the middle of the circle?

So the suggestion is of a city - Cyclopedia. The central portion is a Democracy, and this is surrounded by an outer ring which is an Autonomy. While we can easily give the current structure for the Democratic centre the structure of the outer ring is harder to describe. It can't have a physical structure as this would limit the expansion of the inner city. The only economic business like structure, would need to be based on IAT (intelligence added tax) so would be copyright type stuff, but mostly performances that attract cash, much like buskers. This ring is a kind of Circus ring. The travelling performers move around the ring. Males clockwise females anti-clockwise. The old concept of running away to join the circus would be moving from the Democratic city to the Autonomous outer ring. Much like a Hooker zone.

The structure is an obvious problem. It would need an independent economy and system of order. Unlike the civilised city this would be constantly moving in a nomadic circle. It would become a dumping ground for the homeless and the drunks, but more than that it's a place these types would naturally go to. People living on the edge - would live on the edge. So there must be some kind of structure that would look after these people. As you might imaging it would only work in it's completed state, so there's the question of how such a structure might develop. Custom and practice would need to form it over a period of time (unless there's some natural occurrence). For a performance to pay you need an audience, but the low density would tend to make that unlikely. The view is that the people living in the outer ring would tend to be single. That the forces that make an adolescent leave home for their own place would be similar to the forces that would make an adult walk out of the state to enter the Autonomy instead. This outer ring city would need to be self contained, and that seems unlikely. The Amish would call this Rumspringa and you can see that their 14-16 year old starting point is probably about right. If they return then they are baptised but they have the choice not to return. The Amish always seem to get the right answers? The mediaeval city wall surrounded by outlaws and bandits seems like a similar concept.

One advantage is that such a ring would have the farming community on one side and the city dwellers on the other side. You could see the inner edge of the ring acting like some kind of farmers market. The people in the outer ring might also work for the farming community or process their food. They might also trade products from the city with the farming community, so you have a two sided market. Farmers food market on the inner edge, but technology products on the outer edge. The 'Autonomous' ring city then acts as an interface between the inner city and the outer countryside. It would also work well as a security structure because it's very difficult to target, so it might be a kind of security zone. It could keep people out of the inner city and would act like a mobile city wall.

Practical Applications 1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are two important factors here the first is whether the general arguments are correct or not, the second is whether the information is internally consistent. If the general arguments are correct and if the data is internally consistent then there is the suggestion that it should just work.

Cyclopedia City:
Some time was spent studying this in the context of Norwich City in th UK. As an example of pre-existing data (admittedly of poor quality) was this:

There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the King's highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby

Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake is long, seven miles
Ride the snake...he's old, and his skin is cold

The west is the best
The west is the best
Get here, and we'll do the rest

The End, The Doors

The edge of town is indicated (not a City). The King's highway indicated a road. Ride the highway west is an indication to travel in a particular direction. The snake in this case now appears to indicate that this will tend not to be a directly circular path. The lake is often a river and often acts as a boundary. The seven miles of length was tested as a circle using Norwich Castle as the centre point but this did not produce good results (the length here is exact, but that seems unlikely in a practical generic setting). 'he's old, and his skin is cold' has led to the belief of something no longer in use or of great age (a disused road perhaps). 'Get here, we'll do the rest', the West in this context probably doesn't mean the western world as that's too simplistic, but the context of this line is that some automatic result would tend to occur if you were in the right place. The information here is probably quite poor, but did lead to a conclusion.

The original context was of a circular city to rival an internal central city. This implied an area of similar size, but that's not what I found in practice. In the general context the idea of something physical was largely rejected as it would limit the expansion of the inner City. A Town expands to become a City.

After looking at a 7 mile long circular path around Norwich I then moved on to study the outer ring road which was where the City Council had placed 'Welcome To Norwich' signs. It wasn't naturally occurring. It was not exactly circular. It was not exactly centred. As a contender there would need to be some form of Autonomous activity occurring at points around the ring road. Crown Point Depot was originally a train station where the Circus off loaded it's animals. In general that was dismissed as a coincidence.

I then moved on to study the ruins of the old City Wall. The battlements would have been patrolled in both directions. Charting the locations on a modern map is fairly difficult but there are ruins that are visible on the satellite images. There was then the question of whether the reference is to the inside of the wall or the outside of the wall. The population would be on the inside not the outside, and the outside had a huge ditch along the wall. Cursory glance showed some matches which appear more likely on the inside of the old city wall rather than the outside. For example Notre Dame High School, as well as Chapelfield Gardens (Park), which are both just on the inside. The wall was built to repel the French who were attacking some of the English Cities at the time.

The conclusion here is that the Old City Wall is indicated as the edge of town. There are a range of positive aspects. One of the boundaries is the river, so the inside of the boundary at that point would be a walk along the river bank. As a contender it is old as suggested and would have been in use for some time, however it does not constitute an Autonomous Circular City as suggested previously. For a covert organisation however, it is quite an interesting location. It could be viewed by historical Academics, and likewise it could be documented by Photographers, on top of that there is ample scope for encountering holiday makers viewing the ruins (and these would be travellers). So it makes quite a good candidate for the concept.

So the original concept really asked the question of where the Academic Female might be (if not wandering through shops and Malls buying garbage). Being Academic was first indicated in the context of Haskel as a programming language with the view that the Academic was engaged in some kind of technical or scientific study. I think that historical study was left out of that argument. The Academic Female could easily be an Archeologist and this might appertain to the concept of being slightly masculine (digging in the dirt, masculine clothing etc.). Most Academic knowledge already exists in a historical context (certainly Libraries are expected locations). Perhaps the Historical is a key attraction with respect to traditional Academia. A traditionalist would be interested in how things were done in the past, so that's an Academic interest in History. If that is so then an ideal location or place to occupy would be mediaeval ruins and the like (rather than night clubs and pubs). In the sense of a general location a City Wall is an obvious location that everybody knows about and can find easily, but that only interests a few people. The argument from the song is 'get here, we'll do the rest'.

Okay, well before you say that I'm nuts, what about this:

http://pia-journal.co.uk/article/10.5334/pia.469/

"Indisputably, UK Archaeology, including both Contract and Academic Archaeology, is becoming numerically a female profession. In 2012–13, 46 per cent of archaeologists in the UK were women and this can be tracked as a steady increase of 35 per cent over a 16-year period (Aitchison, 2013: Tables 68 and 69). Today, most students studying archaeology are women. At UCL’s Institute of Archaeology (IoA), 60 to 70 percent of degree students at each level of undergraduate, Masters, and postgraduate research, are female. These figures have been pretty constant over that last two decades at the IoA. At the same time, recent UK university research-based archaeology has seen a growth in the number of post-doctoral staff on short-term contracts, typically two to four year-long, variously funded by the AHRC, NERC, Marie Curie and other award-giving bodies. Currently at the IoA there are more than 30 members of post-doctoral staff, 57 per cent of which are female. This proportion stands in sharp contrast to the 27 percent of permanent IoA academic staff who are female. More widely, it is also striking that the majority of UK professional archaeologists currently under 40 years of age are women. Indeed, it is likely that within the decade women will make up the majority of the UK archaeological workforce (Aitchison, 2013: 95, 97)."

This is not a feature of Feminism and these women are not Feminists, and they are Academics. It confirms the general hypothesis.


Update 30th April 2016:
I can now give a more detailed explanation of why this is so.

The male Autonomist is engaged in a projection of an extension and in an archaeological context he is operating magnetic survey equipment to detect underground structures. That information is passed onto the female Autonomist who in the same context is an Archaeologist so that she knows where to dig. Through her work and activity she brings forth the buried treasure from the clay of the earth.

This is allegorical and in a biological context the information provided by the male to the female is in fact his DNA carried by the sperm. It penetrates deeply into the earth, the clay of the body of the female where it seeks out the location of the buried treasure (I'm tempted here to say the egg of the dragon). In finding the egg of the female and indicating this, it is then up to the female to bring forth the buried treasure whose location has been indicated by the male. It with great effort that she digs within the earth to bring forth the buried treasure in the form of a child whose presence was indicated by the information provided by the male.

Archaeology is an analogy of being a mother and giving birth to a child, and this is why it is attracting the female. The digging in the earth may seem to be a tough form of manual labour but it's parallel is the labour of child birth. Thus females are attracted to archaeology.

An Alien Culture
^^^^^^^^^^^
Much of what I write in this part is speculative supposition, requiring more evidence.

The last section seems fairly tenuous (even to me), yet has some facts to back it up. In general there must be something going on (the question is What? and Why?). Whatever it is the influence is stronger and more sophisticated than just the lead in the petrol fumes causing criminal behaviour. Although that may have masked some other influence. The section quoted in the previous item indicates a 35% increase of female Archeologists over a 16 year period. Since when did little girls decide that they wanted to be Archeologists instead of Nurses?

The general view is that the Democracy is being crushed in a kind of Ghetto situation, where in contrast Academia is suffering from an Apartheid. A division of the human race, and then the application of influence to each group to disadvantage them, and in this case both the Business Man and the Academic Man are attracted to the childless Prostitute (to placate them). It's clearly an attempt to reduce the population of the human race but does not look like a local influence. Divide and conquer. Screw up childbirth. The methods here are also rather slick - low security areas that won't be noticed or responded to. It's also very slow, 1000 years plus to produce the required annihilation/infiltration. I'm aware of the influence but can't say how it's being transmitted. It seems likely that America would be targeted more vigorously and may have been for some time. Perhaps it's extraterritorial and presumably the objective is to take land at some point. I don't think that the human race is causing this. Tactically an alien race would preserve Academic females (as breeders) but would have more of an interest in Archeology than Medicine. The Democratic Business world could be left to implode. The Academics would be thinly distributed and less of a threat. If an alien race conquered the world in this way it probably wouldn't even be illegal, and they could just do it, unseen in the background. This is probably how we would conquer some other inhabited world if it was us. The key to success would be making the population believe that it was their fault, so staying undercover would be the key goal, and even that is being done in a slick way. But there's no direct evidence at this time. Without knowing the technology being used, shielding against it seems unlikely. So the general view here is of a hostile force being exerted against the human race to produce a humane removal of the population. However the world is still heavily populated at the moment, and we must adapt as the solution.

If we consider China's One-Child policy and the fact that the family heir is male not female, and then the 'accidental' death of any female child born, you can see the state implementing a strategy that runs a definite risk of transforming the surplus population into a non existent population. This is due to a conflict between the customs of the people versus the ideology of the state. Presumably they would ease off this restriction before running out of people? China would be another prime target for population removal.

Suppose we take the view that the Academic Female is somehow being modified mentally, presumably to make her more suitable as a breeder. This presupposes that her behaviour would become more suitable for some kind of male alien infiltrator. My view is that you have a single influence that may influence the Academic community thus both males and females, but then the interaction with an influenced Business community is then separating out the males from the females, to get the Academic males to interact with the Business community (in a way that doesn't produce children). This influence might then be viewed as a breeding influence. In such a context the Alien Male could then be expected to behave like the Academic/Autonomous Man. So the Alien Male behaviour would then match our virus list:

An alien is doing something that it's not supposed to be doing, often harmful.
It reproduces itself after it gets in.
The alien steals resources and gets the culture to do it's own choice of tasks.
Displays political or humerous messages (crop formations for example).
Spamming their contacts.
Logging what they do (with implants).
The alien attempts to hide itself.
Self-replicating, installing themselves without user consent (abductions and the breeding program).
Gaining access through 'social engineering' and exploiting detailed knowledge of security vulnerabilities.
Anti-detection / stealth strategies to avoid being discovered (making witnesses sound like idiots).

This does generally match UFO phenomena. There's even enough influence to do selective breeding.

*But… clearly these are the features of computer viruses and the argument is drawing an analogy. It has been suggested as an ideal behaviour with respect to Autonomy. These are NOT alien viruses, they're computer viruses. Is it lucky then that this analogy exists? The virus is circumventing the normal methods and in many respects that is an attack upon the state. It appears that aliens behave in a virus like way?

The interesting feature is that the 'Lucky' people are the ones being targeted the most, and it's the Academics that would defeat the Business community in the long term because they deal with facts (like gold coins instead of paper money). The Democratic Government has switched from following the advice of the Church to following the advice of Science. Scientists would be made obsolete by the advanced knowledge of Aliens, the same is not true for Archeologists and even Historians would be more valuable. In contrast the superior medical knowledge of Aliens would eliminate the need for Nurses and Doctors. So what we see here is rather disturbing. It appears that the 'Autonomy' would eventually replace the 'Democracy', but the alignment is to an Alien Culture.

Crop formations, rather like the pattern produced by the 'Heaf test' (which gave a circular pattern using 6 needles to determine exposure to tuberculosis), could easily be a way to deposit a drug or compound into the wheat (while still in the field) which would then be randomly mixed with other harvested crops and then end up on the breakfast table to be consumed by the local population. Again it's a strategy that America might have thought of with respect to Vietnam etc. You then insert a psychotropic compound of alien origin into the food supply regularly eaten by children - and persist year after year, while the Democracy looks on and shrugs it's shoulders. Some of those children then stab their teachers to death with kitchen knives, while the Democracy shugs it's shoulder again. Our leaders are not too smart are they? The assumption is that crop formations are for the purpose of displaying meaningful signs, but while that concept is believed the real reason slides under the radar. Remember here that the statistics for female Archeologists referred to in the previous section was for the UK and it's here that we have Crop Formations. Don't those formations look like the remains of ruins?

And so Democracy sits back with a perplexed look on it's face.

Dark Matter technology is still indicated here. Soil samples from crop formations produce spooky effects, which you would get with a Dark Matter deposit. As Dark Matter combined with regular matter makes living matter, it's possible to argue for a Dark Matter transfusion. The Dark Matter would come from Aliens, it would be inserted into the Wheat, which would be consumed by the stupid humans, who would absorb a small sample of alien life to join their own. They would slowly be transformed into aliens and would exhibit alien behaviour patterns. However these crop formations don't seem to be occurring in America so perhaps the influence is on the Academic side with a positive focus on the UK where there is perhaps a negative focus on America? The UK may therefore be destined to become more Academic and more Alien while America is destined for annihilation? While potentially the UK might be fixed by dilution(?) what then is the influence vector on America?

*Elliot Rodger was originally from the UK. His exposure would have been fairly low, never-the-less when he got to America he eventually started killing Americans. His use of the Machete seems similar to the use of a kitchen knife by a school boy (two in fact). Does this suggest that the UK will eventually fall out diplomatically with America?

Meanwhile the Japanese are being poisoned by radiation for the third time.

Cyclopedia City Revisited
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After studying Norwich City for some time, I began asking the question of what would happen if Autonomy as a system did in fact take over from Democracy? This would produce a shift of power which would result in the Autonomy being in charge instead of the Democracy, and that in turn would tend to swap the positions in such a way that the central city would become an Autonomy stronghold while the ring city would be the remains of the Democracy and the Businesses. What if Democracy fell and Autonomy took it's place, what would the impact on the structure be?

I then found strong indications that this has actually happened in the case of Norwich City.

This is what we have at the moment:

                                       <<<STATE or INDIVIDUAL>>>
                                                         |
                                                         |
F.Politician                  Prostitute Feminist F.Student       A.Female   Suffragette
       V                              V            V  |       V                     V               V
                                                         |
Democracy >----------< Business //Dichotomy// Academic >----------< Autonomy
FEMALE                                                                                              MALE
MACHINE                                                                                            VIRUS


So I have suggested polar opposites, but there are some snags with this suggestion. It's clear that the structure above was being used to try to understand the social context, but equally valuable must be the financial context.

Originally the view was put forward that you could have a structure in which a central city was a Democracy that would be surrounded by an outer ring that would act as an Autonomy, a kind of ring city deduced from the shoal of fish concept. Fairly obviously the Democracy was cast as being the centre because it came first and because Autonomy as a system has not yet been developed to any standard. On top of that there is the notion of a majority being the social structure of the shoal given the high population density. But if a Business starts out as an Academic idea then perhaps this 'seed' is at the centre while what grows from it is the productive Business. The seed could be a single coconut, while the tree that grows from it becomes a coconut Business. As suggested previously the original structure was unintuitive as the Male represents the seed. What if the central city was Academic as it might be in a case where the two systems reverse places which might happen due to factual data being seen as more important than the lies of Business.

The practical assessment was of Norwich as a City. The central point was taken as the Castle 'Museum', which may have been the centre of a Democratic culture but is currently an archive of archeological relics. Perhaps an inversion has taken place in the case of Norwich City, because this would also account for the many Businesses that have placed themselves on the 'edge of town' to take advantage of cheaper rents. The argument is that Autonomy as a system may actually be currently emerging (globally?). If this was the case it would mean that Business and Democracy were in the process of being destroyed. A while ago we saw an economic collapse for example and that was a global event. It would create a degree of stress in both the Business and Democratic institutions and this in turn could lead to what might be perceived as a deterioration of the culture. For example in the diagram below Business and Democracy have switched places and this has brought the Political Female closer to the protester line in the middle and such a female could easily drift into Feminism in much the same way that the Feminist could drift into Politics (you then have a political feminist making Democratic changes).

There is also a question of where the Business Man and the Academic Man would be if such an inversion had taken place, because with an Autonomy system in charge the implication is that the Academic Man would be distantly placed from the Business Man (exactly the opposite of the original system) thus:

                                          <<<STATE or INDIVIDUAL>>>
                                                            |
                                                            |
Prostitute                  F.Politician Feminist  F.Student Suffragette                A.Female
      V                               V            V     |       V            V                              V
                                                            |
Business >----------< Democracy //    Dichotomy     //Autonomy >----------< Academic
FEMALE                                                                                                       MALE
MACHINE                                                                                                    VIRUS

The result suggested here would occur if the central Democracy was blown outwards to form the outer ring. The inner edge of the ring would be the Democratic hub while the outer edge of the ring would become the Business hub and between these two would be the outer ring road in the case of Norwich City. You then have an inversion of the Autonomy and the Academic and this places the Academic at the Castle in the centre but being the polar opposite of Business you have the Castle Mall alongside. This was bought by Infrared, who installed a female manager to run the Mall. The Castle Mall is underground, building it required digging so in that sense it is archeological and not only is this archeological dig now being run by a female it's also a source of finance.

This of course, means that the Academic Female is indeed wandering through the Mall buying garbage (the opposite of what I suggested previously).

This placed the Autonomy as the controllers of the City (having displaced the Democracy) somewhere along the Old City Wall. This was studied and on the very edge was Chapelfield Mall run by 'intu'. Yet another money making Mall placed exactly where you would put a military outpost, next to the Old City Wall. Well now City Hall is obviously within the City Wall but would have to be seen as a minor office (much like an embassy), cursory glance then shows Norfolk County Council as the main Democratic centre outside the City Wall. It's unclear if there is a main Business centre at some point by the outer ring road?

The implication is that in the building of these two Malls which occurred recently we are looking at some kind of sly infiltration leading to some kind of hidden revolution. The Academic way of making money is then indicated as Retail which doesn't use raw materials but merely leeches off the manufacturer in the conversion of bulk purchase to single units (while hiking the price). You then have a City running in an Autonomous way, with very specific centres placed at fairly predictable locations. If it's real - it's not the Freemasons?

Has this solved any problems, or were the problems caused by the previous system? If problems were caused by the previous system or by the transition, doesn't this mean that the problems should now be resolved?
 

                                    <<<Individual? OR State?>>>
                                                            |
                                                            |
 Business                  Democracy           |              Autonomy                      Academia
      V                              V                    |                    V                                  V
                                                            |
Ring Road >---------< County Hall //   Dichotomy   //Chapelfield >---------< Castle Museum
                                                                                Mall                          Castle Mall

A victory for the revolution? Can it be proved, can it be used?

In the social context the Autonomy is supposed to be more suitable for the Male. If the suggestion is made that the females would be shepherded or herded to a specific location by the males, then the Mall is implied here. In Norwich we have two. The Chapelfield Mall is occupying the position that was indicated as representing Suffragettes, somewhat harsh females, while the Castle Mall being buried underground is at the point indicating the Academic Female previously associated with Archeology (and digging holes). In historical terms one group is next to the Old City Wall while the other group is next to the Norman Castle. The analogy is quite interesting and these places were deliberately constructed where they are.

*If I had invented this - I would have got it right last time!

So perhaps there is an ongoing change from one culture to another and this has caused serious problems.


Update 2nd May 2016:
This is a fascinating post and people have suggested that I am drifting into conspiracy theory at this point. However one of the most interesting features here is that the County Hall and the Chapelfield Mall having moved closer to the central line should be in conflict. What you have is a Democracy engaged in a conflict with an Autonomy.

If we take the average persons point of view you would expect the County Hall to exhibit signs of interest in Business activities, while you might expect the Chapelfield Mall to exhibit signs of Commercial activities. However the average person isn't looking too closely here, and if we look closer we see that in the case of County Hall they are exhibiting a Jaguar XW563 fighter jet which can be seen here:

http://www.simplyplanes.co.uk/royal_air_force_coltishall.shtml

while the Chapelfield Mall are exhibiting a metal sculpture of a German V2 Rocket - called The Spire which can be seen here:

http://sculpturefornorwich.co.uk/NorwichSculpture.php?id=242

Both are symbols of military might, not commercial or business interests. I looked for this because my diagram above suggested it. I didn't have to look far to find this evidence.

Autonomy and Clarity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the problems here is the fuzziness of the general picture. Autonomy is not clear enough to see what it means or how it would work. One of the solutions is to presume that Autonomy is largely an opposite of Democracy, so the structure of Democracy should suggest an opposite but comparable structure within Autonomy. Although the attempt here is to clarify, the result is still fairly muddled. Take for example the unemployed, often long term unemployed who are clearly unlucky and thus unemployable. The Autonomy needs to employ them instead, but it's unclear how that could be done.

Nazi ideology vs Virus ideology:
This becomes important because a study of Norwich City and the two Malls has been showing a fair quantity of Nazi symbolism (still being investigated). A deeper study is bringing in a range of unusual technologies (optical invisibility - ghosts that need to open doors). If the hypothetical group controlling Intu and Infrared were of Nazi origin, it would question the Virus like ideology as Nazi ideology would then appear more practical (as a result of a practical instance). After studying this for some time my conclusion is that any remaining Nazis (the Antarctica base story) could not be following the original Nazi ideology (like the neo-Nazis do). Nazi ideology failed. It created huge visibility and thus huge contention and even aggravated the contention on purpose (much like ISIS), but was then unable to handle the contention resulting in their defeat. Any breakaway group would suddenly be adopting a more stealthy virus like strategy in order to survive. Nazis at an Antarctica base would have to develop their technology perhaps in corroboration with some other group, and then argue for an agreement with the rest of the world. If true then all the virus like behaviour would automatically follow. The Germans were very good at building bunkers and would be happy to live and work underground if they had been doing so in Antarctica. So the Archeological Female would still be at home in a bunker complex, while the male fighters would be holding the front (the City Wall in this case). Clearly any attempt to follow the original Nazi ideology would need to exclude visibility and therefore a more advanced ideology would be in place and this would tend to lean in the direction of the virus like approach suggested. Any remaining symbolism would be historical sentimentality.

*One of the flaws in the analysis of Elliot Rodger, is to be mindful that any suggestions to improve visibility (as I have suggested in the past) really panders to the Democracy system, and is really another way of saying pretend to be like other people. It seems clear at this point that we are dealing with a different system that people such as Elliot are naturally drawn into (Intu). As a system Autonomy will need some other solution and the visibility/contention argument has been proven to be faulty by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The Nazis failed and thus do not provide the correct answers or strategy. As above their strategy must now be different and thus not 'Nazi' any more.

I have said, on another website:
Angels are not automatically good or evil.
Demons are not automatically good or evil.
Aliens are not automatically good or evil.
Humans are not automatically good or evil.

However it has to be said that Nazis are automatically BASTARDS. As you might imagine this obviously implies that any currently existing Nazis decended from the remnants of WW2, will be disguised as either: Angels, Demons, Aliens, or Humans, but not Nazis. Therefore logic dictates that they will tend to adopt an Alien disguise especially given the technology in use. Likewise any of the worlds Governments will find it much easier to explain away any newcomers with superior technology as Aliens - as no Government would ever admit to being in collusion with any existing remnants of the German Nazi Party. So, there may well be some very difficult political problems developing in the background (if the Nazi remnants are actually out there).

Democracy and Autonomy:
In Democracy the people are counted to determine how many agree and how many disagree. The choice is taken on the basis of the majority supporting it. This is really a military strategy. It says if we build an army, the bigger army will defeat the smaller army. A quantitative battle. It has been shown that a qualitative battle results in a smaller army winning if it has superior technology, which invalidates Democracy in practice. [In effect the quality of the voter makes their vote more meaningful, where currently thick people get to vote and quantity is counted.]

In Autonomy instead of counting people the individual is counting pros and cons (as data for or against). The individual pieces of information have replaced the individual people, and they are stacked up on either side to see how many of them agree and how many disagree. The choice is taken on the basis of the majority of data supporting it. Instead of gathering voters the Autonomy is gathering information. This is where the quality of the data becomes more important than the quantity of the data. Here too it has been shown that greater quality of information is more likely to result in success than a greater quantity of inferior data. Data accuracy and quality become very important therefore (the position of the Scientist).

In Democracy when the majority choice is determined, it's implemented and these people become the heros of the state. The loser's choice is rejected and the people who voted for that option become labelled as a minority group of nutty people who can't think straight and are rather dangerous enemies of the state. These people are traitors who should know better. So Democracy aims for a 98% majority in order to be seen as successful, and if it achieves this then the structure works well. A 51:49 ratio would create confusion. There is a general view that common sense means that most of the people will agree and any who disagree must therefore be abnormal. All people must be the same and all must support the singular system.

In Autonomy there is an understanding of the value of the loser group seen in Democracy. This in turn implies that while the greatest amount of evidence supports a particular view, the opposing evidence must by definition be information that would successfully provide a greater quantity of evidence for an entirely different argument (yet to be proposed). So to clarify, if the majority of the data supports the proposition then the proposition is correct, and therefore no data can oppose it - if it is indeed correct, therefore the opposing data must be in error for seeming to oppose when no opposition is possible, or else the proposition is flawed in some way. In this case instead of saying that the people who oppose are abnormal, here we have information being labelled as faulty instead. An Autonomy might erase the opposing data, if it was a singular system (like a Dictatorship). As with Democracy the ratio would approach 50:50 if two apparently different arguments were instead very similar.

Example:
Suppose I ask if it is better to use a bucket or a cup to carry some water to the top of a hill. In Democracy 80% say the bucket is better but 20% say the cup is better. Are the 20% nuts? In Autonomy the existing data also suggests that the bucket should be better than the cup but the suggestion is a future prediction and is therefore unreliable poor quality data which must be tested in practice, so the cup and the bucket are filled to the brim and taken to the top of the hill. At the top of the hill the bucket is empty while the cup is full. More water is taken from the cup than the bucket, and therefore the Autonomy concludes that the cup is better than the bucket and would repeat the test just to be sure. Eventually 98% of the time the cup proves to be better than the bucket. In Democracy the 20% who said that the cup was better than the bucket - knew that there was a hole in the bucket, but their view was rejected because they were nuts (and if they knew then they were probably responsible for causing the hole in the first place - BASTARDS, or Nazis). The Autonomy cannot know which way to vote as there is no data on the outcome until trials are done (and cannot therefore vote). Once the data is in there is obviously a discrepancy between what might be expected and the actual outcome. The fact is that the opposing voters in Democracy knew something that the winners didn't know about. The Autonomy gathered data and therefore reached an opposing view.

The 20% who democratically voted against were the Autonomy that gathered the data prior to the vote. In Democratic terms they lost due to their small number - but they were still right. Thus the error within the structure of Democracy. The result here is that the Democracy would now be using a bucket with a hole in it and would never run the tests to draw comparison with any other option, and would assume that they have the correct answer that was also the best answer (and would shoot anyone who disagreed). The culture would fail at this point.

* Governments are smarter these days and run trials on their ideas. Some data is gathered and many things are studied academically. The Academics are selling themselves short by helping a culture that would fail if left to it's own devices - which would then allow the Academics to take over and implement a more functional culture, but by helping, Democracy is preserved and the clowns remain in charge.

Actual Instance:
There is an actual instance of this. The Electron is a negative particle which travels from the negative terminal of the battery to the positive terminal. In the copper material the negative electron fits into the 'positive' hole in the atomic structure of the metal, and jumps from atom to atom as it flows. The original discovery of the electron resulted in it being labelled as 'negative' - but clearly it is positive where the vacant hole is negative. This mistake was so widely adopted that by the time it was realised, it was too dangerous to change the names around, so the majority that had embraced the faulty data forced it to become the current standard - even though it's wrong. We now pretend that the electron is a negative particle (when in fact it's a positive one). The workaround has been to label the negative as the cathode while the positive is the anode. However having said that they are still not sure if the cathode is positive or negative and have the quaint notion of the 'current' travelling in the opposite direction to the 'electrons'.

As an Electrical Engineer by trade, I can say that the electron flow IS the 'current' and the two are obviously flowing in the same direction and that flow is very sadly from the negative to the positive which should also be from the Cathode to the Anode. Furthermore the 'voltage' is the speed of flow, while the 'current' is the amount flowing. A quick check of Wikipedia can clearly demonstrate the degree of confusion created by the adherence to a democratic view point which is compounded by academic protectionism of some kind?

The point:
The losing voters may be correct, the winning voters may be incorrect. Opposing data cannot exist but if it does then something is wrong. If you have opposition then there is an error, and this error is not caused by the opposition. As there will always be opposition thus there will always be error therefore there is always a 'Dichotomy' and must therefore always be TWO ways of doing the same thing, and both ways must be able to succeed to the same degree. Therefore BOTH methods should be used but by two different groups, and this is 'Dichotomy'.

Example:
Light consists of Particles, but in other tests can be shown to be composed of Waves. It cannot be both yet both can be proven to be the case (in isolation). Light still works though. So you have an ever present contradictory duality, even in physics:

As Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do". Wikipedia

Light is a DICHOTOMY. But… Dichotomy is a singularity! So you have a unity elsewhere, whose breaking into two parts produces the two components that we see in our world. Although we may not embrace the Dichotomy itself it can be referred to as hypothetically existing. The failure of Democracy stems from the outcome of the vote, which favours the winners, instead of favouring both the winners and the losers. Democracy implements the winning choice, but doesn't realise that the Autonomy should then be implementing the losing choice. The ideal situation is to give the winners what they want but to also give the losers what they want too - only elsewhere.

* In the case of the UK staying in the EU or leaving the EU example suggested earlier, if the majority vote to stay in the EU and the Democracy implements that (no change in effect), how would the Autonomy implement the losing voters choice to withdraw from the EU? You would have to have some Cities designated as staying in and others designated as leaving the EU and arrange the differences in funding accordingly. People would have to move out while other people would have to move in. It would be quite difficult and complex to do, but it would give them the option to change their minds, which they could do by simply moving to a City that was still in, if they had previously voted to stay out. The result would be quite interesting and would improve the tourist industry (even locally). All the people would get what they wanted, and all could change their minds at a later time if they wished.

I think I should emphasize this one more time: You cannot have agreement. You cannot have unity. You cannot have solidarity. You cannot have the singularity. You can only have DUALITY and this is as close as you can get. You can't get smaller than a 2, and any attempt to do so will result in failure. So even the idea of cooperation, must be seen as two different groups following two different methods in a complementary alliance (much like male and female throughout evolution).

This is a very interesting point. It is the power of Plan B. What you have here is a very definite indication of a required strategic structure to achieve a successful outcome. Every problem should therefore be attacked on two fronts using two different methods (the Exocet missiles fired in pairs for example, one to punch the hole, the other to fly through the hole - thus sinking the ship).

If you have two separate groups there is of course the risk of war between the two groups. Such a war is an attempt to reduce a duality to a singularity - the winners. The simplest duality suggested by Occam's Razor are obviously males and females and there is potentially a risk of an actual Gender War, with males killing females, and females killing males. Democracy and the Western World may recognise this risk and EQUALITY may be their attempt to avoid it. An effort to reduce polarisation. It is suggested that the lack of alien civilisations may be due to internal conflicts destroying them. Any survivors might indicate the nature of such wars and it seems likely that total annihilation can only really be achieved by a Gender War. It may be that the human race is on the cusp of such a war. That the human race may be destroyed by an actual war between males and females? Such a war would change the human race forever, and we would never achieve our current state of relative peaceful co-existence ever again. So perhaps it is not without some forethought or some advanced knowledge that our leaders suggest equality to us.

In the case of 'Dichotomy' the expectation is of somehow allowing a smooth movement of an individual from Democracy to Autonomy by the disenfranchised, and from the Autonomy back to the Democracy where an individual is capable of achieving it. To preserve the peace by a degree of separation but to keep a large degree of collusion.

More study is required…

Autonomy and Clarity 2
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Democracy is a system that supports the 'Lucky' people while hiding or ignoring the 'Unlucky' people. Democracy itself is a system that evolved by luck. This is the side of the coin that lands facing up - we cannot see the side that is facing downwards, yet both have to exist. The Autonomy system is not a system that can evolve or develop through luck, because by definition it is on the unlucky side. It can only be developed as a deliberate reflection of the Democracy as a kind of doppelganger. In addition to this it is not a system that can be developed by the Democracy as it's a kind of system that can only be understood by the unlucky group. The Democracy is currently handicapped whenever it tries to deal with the 'unlucky' people. It cannot understand them and tries to convert them (but they cannot be converted). As these people are naturally 'unlucky' they too cannot understand the 'lucky' people or the Democracy and are equally handicapped whenever they find themselves dealing with the state. Naturally the two don't get along, and Democracy does the best it can.

* It's important to realise here that this represents a major security hazard. You have a hole in the system, as big as a barn door, that almost anything could walk through. ISIS is currently walking through that door, but it could be Nazis or Aliens conquering the world through this route. Democracy cannot fix it and has great difficulty understanding it, so they conceal it and hope no one notices. If the hole is not plugged then you get to share half your world with anything that comes along - whether you like it or not, because whatever it is it will easily gain the support of the 50% of the population that Democracy has stabbed in the back. Not only that but these are the people who tend to change the world for better or worse.

The major problem is the visibility of the Democratic system. This is all we can see, but for the unlucky people it doesn't work. We are looking at a world that we cannot be a part of. A world that seems to work so well for other people, but not for us? As a consequence we take on the demeanour of Frankinstein's Monster and hide in the shadows. How ugly we must be? What race is this that we are trying to be a part of? The similarity of appearance conceals the ideological differences. So you have a lack of identification for the 'unlucky' side. There is even a tendency to attack the state in various ways. Because the Autonomous individual grows up within the system all the people around them will tend to be a part of the system where he or she is not. So Elliot Rodger's friends would either have been a part of the system or pretending to be. That creates huge problems, and these also exist within families. One of the children becomes the black sheep of the family, and this becomes inexplicable to the parents who cannot understand or fix the issue. As the person is NOT mental no amount of mental health care can alter them and they remain unchanged. Likewise stronger and stronger drugs simply have a tranquilizing effect that masks the issue. It's just a phase they're going through - they'll grow out of it (yet they never do). Some do make the best of things, but their hearts not in it. As the only system that can be seen is Democracy, these people are therefore 'duds'.

Autonomy obviously has a visibility problem. If it were visible then it would look like the Nazis. It's lack of visibility results in it not being seen by the people who would support it, if they knew it was there. Those people are starring at Democracy with disgust, because they can't see anything else. So the very first problem for the Autonomy to resolve, is to find a way to be as visible as Democracy, without drawing the contention.

The State is a machine, and this machine has a huge structure. The structure has to be everywhere, to control everything. This is what creates it's visibility. These structures are quite big because they often house people or interact with people. Other systems and cultures would also have these things. I'm thinking here that a system like Communism would tend to have very similar structures and visibility, but Autonomy is a part of the 'Democracy +' structure and in that sense Autonomy would tend to use Democracy as it's base. I think that this is perhaps comparable to the Freemasons and still suggests that Autonomy should be seen as competing against the Freemasons, although not directly at odds. The view is that if the Autonomy could shape itself to be viewed in a similar light, that it would be just as acceptable to the Democratic state. These are some of the structures of the state:

Police.
City Hall.
Speed limits, road signs, traffic lights.
Politicians.
News.
Television.
Education.
Borders.
Voting.
Hospitals.
The Time (clocks moving forwards or back - to signify the power of the state).
Army.
Business.

Other softer types of visibility should also be considered here such as:

Dating.
Money.
Family.
Work.
Christmas.
The Utilities (Gas, Electricity, Water, Phones)


All of these things show that the state is in charge and cannot be challenged. In fact only the state is visible. Most of these structures are helpful to the lucky people, but are often unhelpful for the unlucky individual, and it's been deliberately set up in that way. Now I'm not saying that these things need to be done away with, I'm saying that complementary structures should exist. However in rejecting Democracy the Autonomy runs the risk of being contradictory instead of complementary. For example, if the Police and the Law are a part of Democracy then they should not have any impact on the Autonomy. The Autonomist should not therefore follow the law and should break the law...

The VHS Video Recorder was an example of this. It recorded movies in breach of copyright. It was an illegal product that broke the law - which was finally changed to allow it. CB Radio in the UK was illegal, but people ignored the law and eventually it was legalised and licenced using FM instead of AM transmissions. It's unclear what Sikhs did prior to their exemption from wearing crash helmets on motorcycles in the UK but it seems likely that many of them did not wear the helmet required by the law, and eventually the law was changed to allow them to wear a turban instead. The so called 'hoverboard' is currently next on the list here. If we all followed the law, no changes would be made, no concessions would occur. Therefore custom and practice are seen to be able to modify the legal system. These law breakers are acting with Autonomy, where the legal system is acting in what is claimed to be a Democracy. It can be argued that only after a large number of people start breaking the law in the same way, is it then decided that this seems Democratic, but in the first instance the early adopters would be prosecuted and the unlawful practice stamped out - if the state could achieve it, but if it can't and too many people take up the practice (the many inspired by the few) then the state is forced to accept the situation.

So the Autonomous opposite to the Democratic Police and legal system is - The Early Adopter, leading to Custom and Practice within the population. This only works with a degree of stealth to hide from the state and it's attempt to clamp down. We see this with the internet at the present time, and we saw it with books around the time of the first printing presses. If you have a group with many members, such as a religious organisation, and they all decide to disobey a particular law, then an exception will be made if there are enough of them. The law therefore is designed to act on the individual - to oppose Autonomy, but will acquiesce given enough people. The law of the land is therefore unfair because it only attacks people who want to be different, or who are different. The school uniform is an example of indoctrination into this principle. Therefore 'The Law' is not absolute and should not be taken at face value. It's also obvious that the state tries to bully the individual into compliance, to behave exactly like everyone else. So there must always be ONE person who starts to suggest something different, and this is a seed event - a virus that infects the population. It is not political and does not attempt to win elections, or overthrow the state. It is a persistent but minor subversiveness. A risky strategy, that tends to produce a positive outcome by pushing back the draconian state. The primary requirement is wide support for the new idea. Even a hostile organisation such as the IRA in Northern Ireland seem to have succeeded in this way. However many organisations that are set up expressly for this purpose, such as trade unions, are often unsuccessful? How could the IRA succeed but the National Union of Mine Workers (Arthur Scargill - NUM) fail?

So, what you have is an interesting 'shape' that the strategy must follow to succeed. The opposing idea has to come from an individual influencing a range of unconnected others, and not from an organisation built expressly for the purpose of opposing. So Democracy is trying to follow the 'will' of the people, and not the ideas of an opposing group of radicals. It's looking for sincerity. It becomes clear from this that if the Autonomy was a group, it would need to be a secret organisation so that the Democracy could not determine who the members were, so that it could not say that they are all connected by some kind of network. Perhaps therefore an actual group is not the best approach, perhaps a set of standards would be better, and that would look more like a religion. If the Autonomy was a religion then people could join it or not, by choosing to follow it's standards. As a religion it could then receive donations adhoc. Perhaps this would be a Radical Religion and would follow standards of 'Being Radical'. The followers would then recognise another person following a known standard, or could correct an individual not applying a standard correctly, you would then have an adhoc network that would be impossible to nail down. You could then have a book which could be passed onto people perceived to be following the radical ethos ('The Mavericus'). This would NOT be politically right wing in the sense of Reactionary, and it would not be a Radical in need of Deradicalization (er… please become a hippy instead?). And this would be a positive step with regard to Democracy, because it would actually help by defining standards of behaviour and the limitations would be determined by effective interaction, in the context of political agitation. In short the standards would be optimisations of subversive strategies designed to maximise effect while minimising the jail sentence and the objective, clearly, would be to get what you want but also to modify the Democracy to make it acceptable for other people to do the same (and encourage them to do so).

* I would also point out that any person following such an approach would tend to look more attractive to females for a wide range of reasons (for being a trouble maker mostly I guess).

The list above shows that much of what the Democratic state does could indeed be classified as agitation, just as the Romans would build a Cathedral, and win by the might of superior weapons and strategies. Businesses also follow this approach and they call this advertising. They agitate the population to pursuade them to buy their products. This agitation produces visibility. We might question what the 'News' is for. On the one hand it emphasises the pursuit and capture of criminals, and if we have a bad weather story it emphasises the state coming to the rescue of those poor people (and they grudgingly have to do it, too). So in all instances the objective of the 'News' is to demonstrate the power of the state. Opposing political parties produce their own news in the form of leaflets that have concocted stories showing how their local representative has helped the community (so vote for us). They actually wander around looking for things to do that will create photo opportunities, and they hope that these will accumulate as a quantity of evidence in their favour.

So Democracy spends it's time waving the flag, letting people know that it's in charge. This is the juggling clown of the circus. This is the Colosseum of Rome. The system supports the mob, and these are the common people, and for them the structure works well. For the rest there is the concept of 'knuckle under' or else.

I think there is a strong sense here of the Autonomy being a Plan B structure. That if the structure imposed by the state were to fail - what would replace it? The first requirement of Autonomy is to be independant and separate, and to function on it's own if it needs to (autonomous functionality). If you assume that the state could fail and ask what you would do instead? We often get such suggestions for handling terrorism, or bad weather. Assume that everything that you depend upon wasn't able to function, that civilisation did collapse, then this would be the system to replace it. If you buy something - that's Democracy and Capitalism, you would have to make it yourself. In many respects then Autonomy is what is now called Resilience a kind of resourcefulness. Being able to live 'off the grid'. At the same time there is a stong emphasis on portability. A different country could build it's own structures, but if you did that within the existing country it would be a threat to the state and would be smashed. If however it's portable then they have to find it first, and it could be moved around. In the case of mobile phones though, this mobility is used to track people and find out where they are (which is the exact opposite). The Amish avoid a connection with the world, so they follow this to a degree. If you are mobile and you have a car, then you are on a road & that's Democracy and Capitalism again, with Road Tax, Insurance, MOT Testing, Drivers Licence, Petrol, Servicing and on and on. The Amish have a horse and buggy. The horse eats oats. The 12 mile range though is close to what a bicycle can achieve (but bicycles are not allowed on motorways). The Gypsy is perhaps Autonomous, but the state scrambles to pin these people down. The Traveller community is a modern form of the Gypsy. Another point here is that after you have committed to Democracy and Capitalism by buying something, you usually end up throwing half of it away.

So for example lets take a can of beans. Which is more valuable - the beans, or the 'can'? Isn't the 'can' more valuable than the beans? But hey, isn't that the bit that you throw away? The 'can' will last for 20 or 30 years, the beans 20 or 30 minutes. Given the cost - do the beans cost more, or does the 'can' cost more? If you throw the 'can' into the recycling, whose getting the money for that? Could you make such a 'can' yourself? How much would it cost you to do that, and how long would you need to study just to develop the skills to be able to do that? So if you don't throw it away could you use it for something else? Here we begin to see the Academic aspects emerge. The knowledge is really the part that is portable, and if it's in your head then it can't be taken away, or easily found. We have a similar situation with Jam Jars. These are intricately made with glass screw threads that the tin lid fits onto. How would you make that. If you can't, doesn't that make it valuable. So why throw it away (because there's no use for it)? These items are thrown away in the same way that Democracy throws away the losing voter. These products are disenfranchised are they not? Thanks for giving us the yummy stuff you were holding - now you can get lost cos we don't need you any more. Yet the bit being discarded is worth more than the bit being kept. There is a parallel between the rubbish and the autonomy, as both are being trashed for no reason. Again you see the Dichotomy and the 50/50 ratio, the beans and the 'can', the beans are lucky the 'can' is not yet both are needed. The 'can' is a highly technological product - the beans are not. The beans are naturally occuring but the whole process of the 'can' is extreme, from the idea that it would work (preserve the food) right to the extraction of elements from ores and mixing them to make alloys and then coating one metal with another and the interior with plastic and so on. The beans occurred by luck (evolution), but the 'can' had to be designed and thought about. There may well be a money argument here (somewhere).

Whenever you make Product A you are always throwing away Product B, because there is always a duality. With Power Stations we see the cooling pipes being used to heat nearby homes. This also occurs in nature, so you peel a banana, you eat the bit on the inside but discard the bit on the outside - there is your 50/50 duality. The Autonomy must be rather concerned by this discarded portion, because if you could make Product B into a different Product A it would have the same value - yet be available as a raw material for free. For example:

This is something that I have been thinking about for some time now. When the local Newsagent doesn't sell his magazines - they are not sent back to the publisher. Current practice is to tear off the front cover and return just that part for a full refund on the unsold magazine which is then tossed into the recycling. If you could retrieve the magazines from the recycling then you have the entire magazine excluding the front cover, for free? Now if you could then sell that for a lesser amount 50p ($1) then you could make money from that and might even be able to get the agreement of the local manager or the company itself. There's no VAT as the product is second hand and is devalued. Many people would pay the lower price. You could just have a rubber stamp and stamp the name of the magazine on the Page 2, and sell door to door. If it's illegal - you're a maverick (see The Mavericus from previously). So, in tearing the cover off the magazine your Newsagent creates a duality because now he has two parts, and you get to make money on the part he throws away. The cover he tears off the magazine becomes the 'lucky' part that he gets a refund for while the other 'unlucky' part gets thrown away.

More study is required…