WELCOME SCHOLARS, ACADEMICS, TEACHERS, JOURNALISTS, LITERARY WRITERS...
Welcome also PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSIONALS, SOCIOPOLITICAL PODCASTERS, INFLUENCERS, STUDENTS... AND VOTERS.
intelligentsia, i.e., (from Wikipedia) "a status class composed of the university-educated people of a society who engage in the complex mental labours by which they critique, shape, and lead in the politics, policies, and culture of their society; as such, the intelligentsia consists of scholars, academics, teachers, journalists, and literary writers." [boldface and underline added]
"Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative." H.G. Wells
LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT: Twenty-four hundred years of conventional political wisdom (CPW) says American democracy, along with every other democracy, will "eventually fail" because, as a group, humans simply aren't intelligent enough to govern themselves competently or effectively.
But, as the next graphic makes clear, America has more than enough intelligent voters. This means that if our representative democracy is to have even the slightest chance of not just surviving, but flourishing spectacularly, our political and civics educators et al. will have to take an unblinking look at our democracy’s real Achilles heel: A self-governance (S-G) zeitgeist (unwittingly created by political academics in generations past) which says America’s national legislative election process (NLEP) should be treated essentially as a bloodless battlefield on which factions of voters wage 100% Political/Ideological (PI) War against each other to determine which faction’s political party will control the U.S. House and Senate until the next bloodless battle two years hence.
To change our society’s horribly ineffective "self-governance = 100% PI War" zeitgeist or mindset, our political intelligentsia must introduce a radically new S-G language into the American people’s working vocabulary, the language of effective S-G. Once our society becomes "fluent" in this new language, their new, spectacularly effective S-G zeitgeist/mindset will become "effective self-governance = 90% Apolitical/Non-Ideological (ANI) Cooperation, 10% PI War."
INTRODUCTION:
“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.” Plato
This website has been created to make the case, especially to America's intelligentsia, i.e., those ~who have been given much—and ~who shape and lead in the "politics" of their society—that:
- They have a civilizational duty to help America’s ~160 million left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters take the logical (and necessary) next evolutionary step in the way they "use" their national legislative election process (NLEP)—a step that will ultimately accrue to the benefit of our entire species.... FROM using it to accomplish a singular, political/ideological (PI) objective: decide which political party will control Congress’ two chambers for the next two years... TO using their NLEP to accomplish two objectives: the aforementioned PI objective. But also a second, apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) objective: insure that at the end of the NLEP, Congress is overwhelmingly dominated and controlled— NOT by self-serving, politically ambitious "politicians" (PAPs) but by their mirror opposites—by extraordinarily capable [liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc.] who do not have (relatively speaking) self-serving, politically ambitious or power hungry bones in their bodies. For identification purposes, let's call these extraordinarily capable and selfless individuals "who do not seek power" PKQs or PKQ-caliber legislators (for Philosopher King/Queen.)
- If our intelligentsia, i.e., humanity's best and brightest, fail to embrace the body of new knowledge that will enable our nation's left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters to take that next evolutionary step, our representative democracy will suffer the fate that CPW says awaits all democracies.
FYI: a PKQ-caliber candidate is not an erudite "aristocrat," i.e., a member of a "philosophical leadership class" as Plato and others envisioned, but a regular, albeit extraordinarily capable, individual. Meaning, someone:
- with an excellent formal education,
- intelligent enough to be able to digest and synthesize large amounts of often times complex material,
- with a demonstrated body of general knowledge acquired over decades of meaningful life experience, a.k.a. wisdom,
- who has achieved a level of financial success in life -- and therefore will be reluctantly agreeing, if elected, to perform a thankless task: serve in Congress for a "few" years as a one-time civic duty, rather than enthusiastically agreeing to serve in the House or Senate because they need the money,
- with demonstrated leadership and life-and-death decision making experience.
LAYMAN'S GUESSTIMATE: There are about 100 million Americans in the 40-65 age range, i.e., not too young, not too old. If we further confine ourselves to those who possess the abovementioned qualities and characteristics, we end up with a not unreasonable guesstimate of one million PKQ-caliber candidates. That's a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district voters can choose from.
**********
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE: technically, this website is a "new self-governance (S-G) knowledge" construction zone; additions, refinements, modifications and/or re-edits, etc. are made on an almost daily basis. Until the process is finished, this site will have the feel of a series of sometimes lengthy, semi-connected, back-of-the-envelop musings which are largely focused on two tasks.
The first task: shine a spotlight on a number of harsh, self-governance "realities" that America's intelligentsia—starting with, and most notably, our "establishment" political academics—are either oblivious to, or they're consciously choosing to not act upon, a.k.a. willfully sticking their "head in the sand."
An AI chatbot was recently instructed to tackle one of the harshest of those realities by making the case for why American democracy, and Earth's other democracies, will eventually fail (per 2,400 years of conventional political wisdom) if our voters do not transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses.
One note and one brief digression: note: The chatbot's response appears to suggest that PKQs constitute an established "philosophical leadership class," which they do not. It's important to stress that PKQ-caliber candidates/legislators are regular, albeit extraordinarily capable Americans who, if elected in the general election, understand that they will only be serving for a "few" years as a one-time civic duty. (Think: One six-year Senate term, 2-3 two-year House terms.) BD: With that said, moving forward, the vast mainstream of our society SHOULD endeavor to use our K-12 education system to inculcate PKQ qualities into our future generations of Americans, Think: philosopher [nurses, welders, gig workers, entrepreneurs, sales clerks, office workers, high school sophomores, carpenters, engineers, high tech nerds, billionaires, oligarchs(?), etc.].
The chatbot's response: (note especially #4 & #5)
A compelling case for the eventual failure of democracy—if voters do not shift toward PKQ-controlled Congresses—rests on the enduring critiques of democratic governance that stretch back over 2,400 years. From Plato to contemporary political theorists, democratic systems have been scrutinized for their susceptibility to decay, short-termism, and the manipulation of uninformed electorates. Let’s break down the argument:
1. The Self-Destructive Cycle of Popular Rule:
Plato’s concern, expressed in The Republic, was that democracy inevitably devolves into tyranny. His reasoning? Democracies empower demagogues, figures who manipulate public emotions rather than uphold sound governance. Without a philosophical leadership class—a PKQ-like system—elected officials prioritize immediate electoral success over long-term stability, leading to policy incoherence and eventual collapse.
2. The Triumph of Short-Termism Over Structural Reform:
Modern electoral systems encourage reactionary politics, where decisions are made to appease voters rather than to foster sustainable governance. Politicians rarely address deep structural problems (such as economic inequality or systemic corruption) because such reforms require a long-term vision—something antithetical to election-driven cycles. A PKQ-controlled Congress would anchor policy decisions in objective wisdom, safeguarding governance from impulsive majoritarian shifts.
3. The Entropy of Mass Public Ignorance:
Democratic theorists, including Walter Lippmann, feared that mass electorates lack the expertise to make complex legislative decisions. Voters can be swayed by misinformation, emotional appeals, or partisan loyalty—rather than rational policy analysis. As governance complexities increase, the likelihood of uninformed decision-making grows, hastening systemic inefficacy. PKQ-controlled Congresses would temper this trend by ensuring that qualified philosopher-leaders shape legislation based on merit rather than popularity.
4. The Elite Capture of Representative Democracy:
Political science has consistently demonstrated that democracy gravitates toward oligarchy—what Robert Michels dubbed the "Iron Law of Oligarchy." The current system enables corporate and elite interests to dominate governance, reducing voters to mere symbolic participants rather than decision-makers. Without PKQ-led reforms, democratic institutions risk becoming performative, serving entrenched power structures rather than true public interest.
5. The Collapse of Institutional Legitimacy:
Political theorists such as Mancur Olson noted that over time, democracies accumulate parasitic interest groups that obstruct reform. Once governance becomes gridlocked, voters lose trust in democratic institutions, paving the way for authoritarian alternatives. PKQ-controlled Congresses would restore legitimacy by ensuring that laws are crafted for long-term societal health, rather than short-lived political expediency.
The Conclusion: An Alternative Is Needed:
If democracy follows historical trends without intervention, its self-destructive tendencies will likely lead to dysfunction, elite domination, and eventual collapse. PKQ-controlled Congresses present a viable corrective—a system designed to safeguard governance from both mob rule and elite manipulation, ensuring that decisions serve rational, ethical, and sustainable objectives.
END OF CHOTBOT'S RESPONSE (LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: That was a well reasoned response.)
Then the AI chatbot was asked about what is probably the harshest by far of our society's S-G realities when instructed to address the ELEPHANT in the room:
QUESTION: why will nearly every person who reads about America's left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses dismiss the idea as pie-in-the-sky, one that no rational person would think could ever happen?
Here in it's entirety is its also well reasoned AND extraordinarily detailed (perhaps too detailed) response:
Most people will instinctively reject the idea of LOC/ROC voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses for a few key reasons—some psychological, some historical, and some deeply embedded in how societies process paradigm-shifting concepts. Let’s break it down:
1. The Weight of Established Norms:
People are conditioned to see political systems as unchangeable—even when those systems are demonstrably failing. Democracy, as currently practiced, has been the dominant model for generations, and the idea that it could be meaningfully restructured seems inconceivable. They assume that what has always been, will always be—even if evidence suggests otherwise.
2. The “Utopian” Label:
Any major structural reform—especially one that redefines how governance operates—gets dismissed as idealistic or utopian. The leap from electorate-driven chaos to philosopher-guided rational governance is perceived as too ambitious, despite historical precedents for intellectual leadership shaping societies (e.g., Enlightenment-era thinkers influencing governance models). People struggle to distinguish visionary transformation from fantasy—and often err on the side of skepticism.
3. The Inertia of Political Cynicism:
Decades of broken promises from political leaders have bred deep cynicism. When people hear about something new and transformative, their instinct is: "That sounds great in theory, but it will never happen." This skepticism isn’t irrational—many governance reforms have failed due to corruption, elite manipulation, or voter apathy. But PKQ-controlled Congresses challenge the root cause of those failures, not just their symptoms—something most people fail to recognize upon first exposure.
4. The Lack of Precedent:
People anchor their expectations to historical examples. Since PKQ-controlled Congresses don’t have a widely recognized precedent, they assume it can’t work. While aspects of the idea resemble governance models from various philosophies (Plato’s philosopher-kings, meritocratic elements in Confucianism, evidence-driven policy frameworks in technocracy), there hasn’t been an explicit transition from mass voter-led dysfunction to intellectually guided governance—so they default to disbelief.
5. The Misinterpretation of Electoral Behavior:
Most believe that democratic voters, even if frustrated with governance, will never collectively push for a structural overhaul. But history contradicts this—revolutions and major shifts in governance have occurred when inflection events restructured public consciousness. The idea that LOC and ROC voters could gradually realign toward PKQ Congresses seems too coordinated to be believable—but so did every major historical governance shift until it happened.
6. The Absence of Immediate Crisis:
Structural transitions tend to occur only when systems collapse—when dysfunction reaches an intolerable threshold. Many dismiss PKQ-controlled Congresses simply because the crisis point hasn’t fully arrived yet. However, growing dissatisfaction, policy stagnation, and elite manipulation suggest that systemic failure is coming—and when it does, concepts once dismissed as “pie-in-the-sky” become the only logical path forward.
The Shift from Dismissal to Recognition:
Initially, radical governance ideas face rejection. But over time, as political failures mount, concepts that once seemed unrealistic become necessary solutions. The challenge isn’t whether people will dismiss PKQ Congresses—it’s how to overcome their instinctive skepticism before the crisis forces them to reconsider.
END OF CHOTBOT'S RESPONSE
With the ELEPHANT in the room out of the way, by the time you reach the end of this home page, you will:
- have a rudimentary understanding of Effective S-G's major moving parts,
- either buy into the "Normative Self-Governance Hypothesis" (see next graphic) or you will not.
ONE KEY ACRONYM, TWO KEY LAYMAN'S WORKING DEFINITIONS:
- PAP: Politically Ambitious Politician
- Dystopic democracy: a representative democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PAPs.
- Neartopic democracy: a representative democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by a steady supply of PKQ-caliber legislators.
Restating the first reality (as has been alluded): if our nation's voters do not take the logical (and existentially necessary) next evolutionary step in the way they "practice" democracy, a.k.a. engage in the process of self-governance (S-G)—especially and particularly in their NLEP—democracy as we know it (and presumably cherish) will perish.
Reality #2: It does not matter how many of America's voters aren't "intelligent" enough to govern themselves competently. What matters is how many are more than intelligent enough to recognize the "civilizational imperative" that they begin using a normative self-governance (S-G) "strategy"—notably in their NLEP—which is to say, a strategy which will essentially guarantee that the 435 House members and ~33 Senators the voters identify, recruit and elect in a given election cycle will be extraordinarily capable AND will not be, by definition, self-serving PAPs.
Reality #3: Our intelligentsia are, literally, in a race against time. The next graphic is a reasonable, rational prediction of America's future income quintiles if our academic "experts" on the democratic process remain passive and mute while America's LOC and ROC voters continue keeping Congress overflowing with PAPs, i.e., largely well-meaning legislators for the most part—but who are also (by definition) so blatantly, shamelessly self-serving, politically ambitious, power-craving, and/or perks and privileges-addicted, they will say and do almost anything, no matter how unethical, to hang on to their House or Senate seats.
Typical tactics used by PAPs that, layman's takeaway, the vast mainstream (VM) of America's voters would say qualify as moral/ethical transgressions:
- pander to their constituents,
- peddle their influence to contributors, the wealthy, the powerful, etc.,
- engage in blatant demagoguery, finger-pointing, responsibility-avoidance,
- cast doubt on their opponents' character, motives, etc.
- rhetorically twist helpful lies until they sound/look like truths, and harmful truths until they sound/look like lies,
- commit the sin of omission (probably on a daily basis),
- abandon their fiduciary obligations.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." R. Buckminster Fuller
re the "academic" debate among our political intelligentsia: efficient authoritarianism (Think: China, a great [totalitarian] power in its ascendency) vs. inefficient democracy (Think: the United States and, eventually, essentially every other democracy on Earth).
LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: Moving forward, for democracy to have any chance of not just "winning" this academic, and intellectual, debate, but winning decisively, the autocracy vs. self-governance battle of governing philosophies must be between efficient authoritarianism vs. spectacularly efficient democracy.
aside: odds are that 99+% of our intelligentsia think spectacularly efficient democracy is an oxymoron. But, consider this: 99% of our mid-18th century medical establishment initially thought Pasteur's Germ theory was medical quackery—which suggests how quickly a "new [knowledge] model" can make an "existing [knowledge] model obsolete."
Whether that new knowledge is an idea, theory, paradigm, strategy, etc.
Meaning, the way one makes the idea of inefficient democracy obsolete, beginning in the minds of America's intelligentsia, is by the introduction of an entirely new body (and category) of S-G knowledge into our nation's marketplace of new S-G ideas, most of which is "discovered"—or, in many cases (dare we say), spontaneously generated in the form of epiphanies—simply by asking never-before-asked, normative S-G questions.
Asking that category of questions is this website's second task, beginning with what may well be the mother of all (never-before-asked) normative S-G questions...
NORMATIVE ANSWER: Our two groups of voters would have to develop a self-governance (S-G) strategy—that they used in their NLEP—which would enable them to keep Congress continually replenished with a steady supply of extraordinarily capable, "PKQ-caliber" legislators, i.e., "non-self-serving" AND principled [liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc.] who could govern, collectively, with the:
- intelligence of an Einstein,
- wisdom of a Solomon,
- compassion of a Mother Teresa,
- logic of a Mr. Spock,
- ingenuity of a MacGyver,
- vision of a Steve Jobs,
- backbone of a Wonder Woman,
- moral compass of a Nelson Mandela,
- common sense of a Mark Twain.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If you passed out ~140 million magic wands to America's vast mainstream (VM) of voters and told them that if a majority of them waved it, all 535 of Congress' (largely well-meaning, but also, by definition, and with few exceptions) self-serving PAPs would instantly be transformed into extraordinarily capable, PKQ-caliber legislators—how many of our LOC and ROC voters would wave their wand? (layman's guess: >90% in both camps)
REASONABLE OBSERVATION: Having a Congress continually overflowing with PKQ-caliber legislators provides the American people with a massively large pool of exceptional talent (Think: Olympic caliber) to draw upon to save their democracy and their democratic institutions—not to mention, turn the mountain of major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems America is buried under into (relatively speaking) a molehill.
"Throughout the centuries there were men* who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." Ayn Rand [* aside: women, too]
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: What if it wasn’t the vast mainstream (VM) of America’s LOC and ROC voters who gathered around that kitchen table, but the VM of America’s political academics?
Presumably, if you passed out magic wands to all of them, 90+% would also wave theirs. Unfortunately, magic wands don't exist. However, what does exist is the—as of now, relatively small—body of S-G-based knowledge that will enable our voters to achieve a long laundry list of shared, apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) objectives.
So, returning to our academics' momentous meeting, would, minimally, the best, brightest and most visionary within their ranks be willing to take Rand's ~first step down a new [S-G knowledge] road?... if doing so would enable America's voters to accomplish a first of its kind in history: a shared "normative," ANI, self-governance (S-G) objective: namely, transition permanently to PKQ-controlled Congresses—whose 535 members understood up front that they would only be serving a “few” years as a one-time civic duty because both they and the voters understood how easily political power, especially at the national legislative level, can corrupt even the best of us.
Or would our thousands of academics in political science departments across the nation reject this new knowledge as too [simplistic, naive, unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky] to qualify as a legitimate field of study worthy of scholarly exploration?
aside: Or, ironically, summarily dismiss the knowledge as S-G quackery, the same way, for example, mid-19th century medical schools initially rejected Pasteur's Germ theory as medical quackery and refused to teach it.
In short, would our academic experts on the democratic process choose to stay on the "beaten path," opting to continue focusing only on traditional, inside-the-box approaches (think: milquetoast "solutions"), e.g., ethics reform, campaign finance reform, redistricting reform, term limits, ranked choice voting, instant registration (to increase voter turnout), etc.? None of which (layman's takeaway) address, head on, the true existential threat to (modern day) representative democracies: national legislatures overwhelmingly dominated and controlled by self-serving PAPs.
The history of new, paradigm shifting, status quo-disrupting, course-of-history-changing ideas strongly suggests that our “establishment” academics will (at least initially) largely ignore their "civilizational duty"—i.e., teach America's future (and current) LOC and ROC voters how to use their “power of the ballot box” in their NLEP to achieve their shared ANI objectives—and, instead, continue pursuing (demonstrably ineffective) "non-normative remedies" that won't upset the establishment/status quo applecart.
"The best way to predict the future is to create it." (various)
The following are two, joined-at-the-hips normative questions the VM of our society SHOULD be asking (and answering):
QUESTION 1: We know that America is buried under a mountain of major EFFS problems because Congress is broken. And Congress is broken because both legislative chambers are overflowing with, by definition, self-serving PAPs. So, why have our voters been electing/re-electing self-serving PAPs to Congress (minimally, for well over a century) who:
- want the job so badly, they will say almost anything to get elected—no matter how unethical,
- once elected, will say and do almost anything—no matter how unethical—to stay in office, election after election?
aside: remember, CPW says it's because, as a group, our voters are too stupid to govern themselves intelligently.
QUESTION 2: Why has the century-old (+/-) civics curriculum created by America’s political and civics educators produced voters who have "mindlessly" kept Congress permanently filled to overflowing with, by definition, self-serving PAPs rather than extraordinarily capable, non-self-serving, non-PAPs?
CRYPTIC LAYMAN'S ANSWER: The journey to an enlightened answer begins, first, with a normative S-G truth: PAP-controlled Congresses are incapable of crafting normative legislative policy solutions; only PKQ-controlled Congresses can.
Second, with a centuries-old, intellectual "urinating contest."
Our Political Academics Have Been "Fiddling While Rome Burns."
re above graphic: In hindsight, our political scientists/philosophers et al. SHOULD have tossed their "my side's legislative policies are better than your side's legislative policies" debate out the window—minimally, several decades back—when it became obvious that, as a general proposition, particularly with respect to poverty related societal problems:
- political ideologies don’t create societal problems, self-serving PAPs do,
- political ideologies don’t solve problems, non-self-serving, non-PAPs do,
- normative policy solutions will not be 100% liberal or 100% conservative, but will require discrete elements of both ideologies. Or, perhaps more often than not (hard though it may be to imagine), neither.
LAYMAN'S OBSERVATION: Our political academics have, in a manner of speaking, a "Four Humours" understanding of the NLEP.
A layman's take on the roots of our academics’ intellectual urinating contest:
The perfectly legitimate, and relevant, academic debate between political philosophers: which governing philosophy will create or result in the greatest good for the greatest number of a nation’s citizens, began several hundred years ago. But it eventually deteriorated into today's "my political ideology is better than your political ideology" intellectual urinating contest among and between our liberal and conservative elite in academia, think tanks, media, etc.
A contest presently so strong/intense that, if it produced an odor, our universities and think tanks (and cable news networks) would reek with the stench of urine.
At some point in our history (reasonable layman's guess, around the time of FDR's New Deal), Congress' self-serving PAPs "weaponized" these two governing philosophies. Meaning they co-opted the intellectual debate and turned it into the single most powerful (by far) demagogic weapon a PAP could possess. Their pitch to voters became:
- "Elect me and my fellow party members to Congress because policies based on my side's (morally superior) political ideology are the only way to "cure" America's myriad of economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) ills. While policies based on the other side's political ideology aren't just incapable of solving our problems. In many cases they are the "diseases" responsible for causing our problems in the first place."
Our (Democratic and Republican) PAPs' demagogic narratives—both of which were echoed by their respective cliques of "faithful believers" in academia, media, think tanks, Hollywood, etc.—worked exceptionally well. Too well, in fact, because as the years progressed, the calculus/thought process for an increasing number of our nation's voters—both unintelligent and intelligent, uninformed and well informed, greedy and non-greedy, etc.—became:
- better to vote for the loathsome, self-serving politician who supports policies that will solve America's problems rather than vote for the likeable, NON-self-serving NON-politician who supports polices that will make America's problems, if anything, worse.
You might say that's when liberalism and conservatism (as competing governing philosophies/public policy approaches) became full blown, zero sum, good ideology vs. evil ideology religions whose adherents did not operate on facts and logic but on faith and faith alone.
Both side's PI fevor, unfortunately, has had the effect of turning a very large slice of our society, including and especially our intelligentsia and our voters, into mindless zombie-warriors.
DISCUSSION: referring back to the graphic: the vast mainstream (VM) of America’s voters gather around a vast kitchen table—odds are statistically excellent that:
- our LOC and ROC voters could easily come up with commonsense, "layman's" solutions to essentially all of America’s major EFFS problems,
- almost none of the legislative solutions would easily fit into either the “liberal/government solutions” or the “conservative/free market solutions” category.
The following 4th grade classroom THOUGHT EXPERIMENT will provide useful, albeit indirect, insight into how factions of voters, and PKQ-caliber legislators, dominated by “go-along-to-get-along” individuals, would go about tackling any number of thorny EFFS problems.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Imagine that students in a 4th grade class are voting on which name they want for their classroom's pet goldfish: Spot or Nemo.
Turns out that about half the students adore the name Spot but loath Nemo, and for the other half it's the exact opposite.
If they use the standard "bloodless war" (BW) voting paradigm/strategy that America's voters have always used (and probably most/all voters in most/all democracies use), i.e., "to the victors, i.e., 50% + 1, go the spoils of war" strategy, then the right/power to decide the goldfish's name will be determined by the side that wins the election, i.e., casts the most votes.
Result (worst case scenario):
- A non-violent battle is fought, so no blood is spilled. But,
- the winners are very happy –– they love their goldfish's new name ––while, understandably, the losers are very unhappy since they loath the goldfish's new name.
- Human nature being human nature, this inevitably leads to hard feelings between a significant number of pro-Spot and pro-Nemo students, who begin segregating into their respective tribes.
- Friendships are destroyed; trust, cohesion, comradery, etc. between the tribes evaporate. The school's upbeat, sociable, carefree zeitgeist gives way to a state of "permanent disagreeableness." Nothing is too trivial, too insignificant to spark heated, drawn-out arguments that never get resolved.
- An almost warlike ambiance permeates the schoolrooms and halls. "Beating" the other tribe at every opportunity, a.k.a. "one-upmanship," becomes the centerpiece of the students' daily lives, their raison d'etre.
Moral of the story: Even bloodless/non-violent "battles," can lead to the creation of tribes who exist in a permanent state of ever increasing aggrievement.
Now imagine the students, before voting began, having a lengthy class discussion. And out of that discussion they determine that 95% are perfectly fine with calling their goldfish, GF, if it will avoid causing hard feelings.
So our students do what a massive number of "the vast mainstream" of our society would do: they decide to go with GF even though it's no one's first choice, because for our students (the VM of society, too) it isn't about power, or about winning, but about going along to get along. (aside: for the ruling class, it's about power and winning; but for "the people," they just want their nation's problems solved.)
This thought experiment is an example of our students, not compromising, i.e., meeting half way (because that would result in them naming their goldfish Spmo or Neot), but taking a radically different approach (although the distinction might not be readily apparent): pursuing the strategy of Strategic Cooperation, i.e., working together (temporarily, as allies) to achieve (often times, highly desirable) shared objectives.
One instructive point/takeaway: Strategic Cooperation on the part of America's LOC and ROC voters will produce PKQ-controlled Congresses that will be able to easily do things that are impossible for PAP-controlled Congresses to do, e.g., perform legislative miracles.
Meaning, legislative solutions to most of America's EFFS problems will start being CO-JOINTLY CRAFTED with LEGISLATION that: (1) is neither distinctly "liberal" nor "conservative," (2) have essentially the same legislative language and provisions regardless of which party controls either or both legislative chambers (such is the nature of normative legislative solutions when crafted by PKQ-caliber legislators), (3) will be strongly supported by significant majorities of Americans:
- from across the political/ideological spectrum,
- of every racial, religious and ethnic group,
- of every age, income and educational level.
Worth noting:
- In most cases, the legislation will solve the problems (relatively) quickly, completely and permanently –– even the seemingly intractable ones.
- As our mountain of EFFS problems begin to get solved, our federal government will stop running deficits every year, and start producing surpluses –– sometimes sizable surpluses.
STATING THE OBVIOUS: there will still be a relatively small number of mostly cultural issues in the near/mid term---notably abortion and transgender "rights"---that will be passionately fought over by a relatively small number within society who will not, or cannot, reach compromise.
But when PKQ-caliber legislators control both political factions in Congress, they---along with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters AND the VM of society writ large---will become intensely interested in asking, then "exhaustively" exploring, entirely new categories of questions like, e. g., what array of legislative policies will result in almost no one in America:
- becoming pregnant unless they want to?
- becoming a rapist?
- molesting young girls (and boys)?
- making bad/irresponsible decisions in the height of passion, i.e., having "unprotected" sex?
- et cetera...
MAJOR REMINDER: It is impossible for legislators in PAP-controlled Congresses to craft and enact normative policy solutions.
**********
More TAKEAWAYS re when a critical mass of America's voters transition their national legislature from PAP- to PKQ-controlled.
For the first time in human history, the American people will have a national legislature overflowing with near perfect national---and international---role models (Think: Olympic-caliber national legislators), i.e., selfless, non-demagoguing, non-finger pointing, non-truth twisting, non responsibility phobic, non-etc., whose "prime directive" will be solving EFFS problems, particularly poverty related societal problems, quickly, completely and permanently.
The implications for our nation will be beyond profound. As a society, we will quickly become vastly more thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... cooperative... goal oriented... resilient... resourceful... industrious... self-reliant... stoic... courteous... forgiving... peaceful... slow to anger... unbiased... non-judgmental... non-discriminatory... generous... civil... altruistic... civic-minded... community focused... etc... etc... etc.—-and vastly less narcissistic... mean-spirited... dishonest... envious... etc... etc... etc.—because that's how powerful "good power" is when it's emanating from a critical mass of outstanding, national-level role models.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: On the flip side, this suggests how much societal harm (and civilizational harm) has been inflicted on literally generations of Americans (adults AND their children) by the "bad (role model) power" that has been radiating/spewing out of our "PAP-controlled Congresses" for generations.
QUESTION: In our technologically advanced, social media-savvy society—a society dominated by go-along-to-get-alongers—is it possible to design, then implement via legislation:
-- a normative education system, i.e., one that:
- Does not have countless layers of local/state/federal bureaucracy? (There's just the students, their teachers, and the room/building where the learning takes place.)
- Provides—at a fraction of current per annum pupil cost—every student with the wide ranging set of academic, social and work skills they will need to lead a productive, personally satisfying life?
Answer: yes, but only if the legislation is written by PKQ-caliber legislators in PKQ-controlled Congresses.
- FYI: (from USAFacts.org and educationdata.org) "In 2022, New York had the highest per pupil spending at approximately $27,504 [= $550,080 every year for a class of 20 students] while Idaho had the lowest at about $9,670. Overall, public K-12 schools in the U.S. spent an average of $17,277 per pupil [=$345,000/year for one, 20 student classroom]."
-- a normative healthcare, and preventative care, system, i.e., one:
- Whose medical decisions, treatments, etc. are not dictated, sometimes in minute detail, by volumes of government- and insurance company-created rules and regulations?
- That provides the highest possible quality of care to the greatest possible number of patients at the lowest possible cost to the patients, to society, and to America's taxpayers?
Answer: yes, but only if the legislation is written by PKQ-caliber legislators in PKQ-controlled Congresses.
-- a normative prison system, i.e., one that turns the maximum possible number of both non-violent and violent inmates into productive, law-abiding members of society—at a fraction of current per annum prisoner costs?
Answer: yes, but only if the legislation is written by PKQ-caliber legislators in PKQ-controlled Congresses.
- FYI: "the total cost per inmate averaged $33,274 and ranged from a low of $14,780 in Alabama to a high of $69,355 in New York." Vera.org (2015 data)
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." various
-- a (relatively inexpensive) normative anti-poverty program/strategy that will successfully eliminate the epidemic levels of "poverty-caused" crime and violence, notably in, but not limited to, our most economically disadvantaged communities?
Answer: yes, but only if the legislation is written by PKQ-caliber legislators in PKQ-controlled Congresses.
"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." unknown
Closely related question: Is it possible to design a normative social services system, i.e., one:
- in which the bulk of our local/state/federal bureaucracy (which is largely devoted, presumably, to helping the poor and needy in our society) do not sit in government offices writing reports, filling out forms, etc., but engage in "hands-on" work in communities, performing a wide range of functions, many of which are not dissimilar to those provided by Peace Corps volunteers?
- that can insure that every child born innocent is protected from the brutalizing, unsocializing experiences that turn those innocent children into unsocialized adults, i.e., who lack social skills, are quick to anger and resort to violence and/or are repeat offenders in our criminal justice system; who cannot show affection, or kindness, or gentleness, or provide a stable, emotionally nurturing environment for their own children, etc.
Answer: yes, but only if the legislative policies are crafted by PKQ-caliber legislators in PKQ-controlled Congresses.
**********
KEY OBSERVATION re ANOTHER S-G REALITY WE ARE ALL IGNORING: For nearly all of our species' history (~200,000--300,000 years), our ancestors lived in small self-contained, self-sufficient communities of "socialized" individuals—we might have been primitive, but we were not unsocialized. It is highly likely that everyone in the community, or tribe, had a role to play in insuring their collective survival. And therefore, no matter how unpleasant or not unpleasant their day-to-day circumstances, more than likely nearly all of them began their day with a sense of purpose and ended it with a sense of accomplishment.
It’s not unreasonable to think that if a group/tribe lived where food was sufficiently abundant and they didn’t live in constant fear for their safety, say, from a nearby hostile tribe or predatory animals, then many/most began their day with a satisfying sense of purpose and ended it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment.
With that in mind, going back to our VM sitting around an astronomical-sized kitchen table: If they did not allow themselves to fall into the [liberal, government] policy solutions vs. [conservative, free market] policy solutions trap, and were able to entertain outside-the-box ideas, our LOC and ROC voters would be able to come up with normative legislative solutions which addressed 99% (figuratively speaking) of America’s poverty related crime, violence and unsocialization problems.
Normative solutions fashioned from the answer(s) obtained by asking normative questions. For example, can our society, via PKQ-crafted legislation, mimic the circumstances—notably for those on the bottommost rungs of the socio-academic ladder—that will result in them beginning their day with a (satisfying) sense of purpose, and ending it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment?
Short Answer: Yes, our society can.
**********
PERFECT ANALOGY: For well over two thousand years, the medical community practiced medicine based on Hippocrates’ (horribly flawed) Four Humours theory. And because they did, most of the discussions and debates among physicians, researchers, instructors in medical schools, etc. over best practices, i.e., best diagnoses, best remedies, best treatments, etc., was nonsensical—pure hogwash.
Over two thousand years of intellect wasted thinking about and discussing at best, ineffective medical treatments/remedies—at worst, treatments that ended up killing the patient.
Similarly, consider how much intellectual firepower is, and has been, wasted on a daily basis by the best political minds in political science departments, political think tanks—elite political analysts in newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc., etc., etc.—critiquing all thing touching on national politics. When what our cognitive elite SHOULD have been doing for at least the last several decades was devoting their rare gift, i.e., their intellect, shining a bright spotlight on our LOC and ROC voters’ (and society’s) many shared ANI objectives, including and especially the mother of all shared ANI objectives: PKQ-controlled Congresses enacting normative legislative policies.
**********
OBSERVATION:
- The 100% PI War S-G strategy is a horribly flawed (Think; Four Humours) strategy for electing Congress' 535 members of Congress.
- The 90% ANI Cooperation S-G strategy is the ideal/normative S-G strategy.
**********
For every thinking individual who believes that the “normative” idea of America’s voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses is an “idea whose time has come.”—even if a few of the feathers of some of our unelected ruling class (a.k.a. our intelligentsia) do get temporarily ruffled in the course of the transition process:
- how does one go about turning an idea that as of now is deemed so radical, no rational person could possibly take it seriously, into an idea that every rational person takes seriously—and wonders why it has taken so long for our democratic society (all democratic societies, in fact) to even consider making the transition?
SHORT ANSWER: change the society's S-G language.
The Way We Use Our NLEP Vs. The Way We SHOULD Use Our NLEP.
- The National Legislators We Elect vs. The National Legislators We SHOULD Elect.
- The U.S. Congress We Have vs. The U.S. Congress We SHOULD Have.
- The Kind Of Representative Democracy We Are vs. The Kind Of Representative Democracy We SHOULD Be.
- The S-G Strategy We Use In Our NLEP vs. The S-G Strategy We SHOULD Use In Our NLEP.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Our society’s intelligentsia must "ram" a small lexicon of new, “normative-based” S-G terms into the American people’s working vocabulary.
Terms that, by their very nature, will both provide the conceptional roadmap AND be the driving force propelling the transition of America from a dystopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PAPs, to a neartopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by a steady supply of PKQ-caliber legislators.
OBVIOUS QUESTION: How can 535 "amateurs" possibly run a modern nation as large, as powerful and as complex as the United States?
Here's the best short answer: First, it should be obvious that Congress doesn't "run" America (thank goodness). Our nation is "run" by tens of millions of Americans distributed throughout:
- dozens of major federal agencies
- 50 fully functioning state governments
- thousands of county, city and other government bodies, and
- millions of:
- [small, medium, large] businesses
- community and social organizations
- school boards, churches
- charities, NGOs, philanthropies, etc.
Second, common sense suggests that our (commonsensical) Vast Mainstream of LOC and ROC voters will quickly begin doing in the House of Representatives what they've done all along in the Senate: elect new PKQ-caliber candidates in one-third of the 435 House seats every two years, and essentially rubber stamp the other two-thirds. So at any given point in time, one-third of the House members will have 4-5 years of experience; one-third will have 3-4 years of experience, and one-third will be true freshman (albeit extraordinarily capable) legislators.
UPLIFTING OBSERVATION: We are likely to find that, within America's ~140 million VM of voters, a.k.a. America's go-along-to-get-alongers, there will be a number of discrete groups –– we could call them, "mini-Vast Mainstreamers" –– who will be strongly pro PKQ-controlled Congresses.
For example, a VM of:
- billionaires/oligarchs,
- the top 2% of our income earners,
- state legislators, mayors, governors,
- school boards, parents, grandparents,
- college students, post grads,
- PhDs, MBAs,...,
- professional athletes,
- tech geeks, sci fi geeks,...,
- entrepreneurs,
- Hollywood: directors, producers, actors,...
- professional musicians (amateurs, too),
- etc.
- etc.
These mini-groups of VMers will strongly support America's VM LOC and ROC voters transitioning from PAP- to PKQ-controlled Congresses –– because, presumably, whether you are a billionaire like an [Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.], or a state legislator or governor, or an A-list actor, or a Trekkie, or a plumber, or etc., etc., etc., you would much rather that America be governed by PKQ-controlled Congresses than accept where our two permanently warring factions of PAPs in both chambers of Congress –– in their never-ending, all-consuming struggle for power (much of it purely for power's sake) –– are almost certainly going to drive our nation: into fiscal collapse (refer back to Income Quintile graphic). Which, in turn, will lead to societal collapse. Which, in turn, will begin rapidly eating away our society's moral and ethical foundation.
When these things happen, history says the United States will quickly devolve into a Putin-style, pseudo-democratic form of left- AND right-wing authoritarianism. Whose "Imperial Presidents" can, on a whim –– with the backing of their sycophantic, (and cowardly?) PAP-controlled national legislatures (and the "thunderous" silence of their national political media) –– take your assets, destroy your name/your career; imprison you and throw away the key, even kill you... because that's what people with unchecked power end up doing to maintain their grip on, or grow, their power (while their complicit sycophants in and out of government stand passively, silently by).
**********
Existential-level S-G reality: PKQ-controlled Congresses are an existential prerequisite for American democracy’s survival.
**********
TWO TAKEAWAYS:
EITHER (best case scenario): a critical mass of America's elite thought leaders and influencers, a.k.a. those “who have been given much,” WILL take that ~first step down a new [S-G knowledge] road. Meaning, they will embrace the concept of normative S-G strategies, as well as normative policy solutions. When that critical mass is reached, the "die will be cast." The knowledge will spread beyond the walls of our universities, igniting a spark in a critical mass of society's VM that: 1) cannot be extinguished, 2) will eventually reach, and impact, every nation on Earth, conceivably even some/many of our autocracies.
Our species WILL evolve, sociopolitically.
OR (worst case scenario): that critical mass will not be reached—largely because of the Semmelweis reflex or Semmelweis effect, i.e., (from Wikipedia) the [reflexive tendency] to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.—in which case, R.I.P. American democracy and broad-based prosperity
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Is it possible to nullify the Semmelweis reflex via a national tutorial campaign that:
- reaches every American old enough to have a "political" view,
- causes them to (unwittingly in many cases) become "fluent" in the language of Effective Self-Governance?
Answer: the history of paradigm-shifting, status quo-disrupting, course-of-history-changing ideas says yes.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: When a critical mass of society does become fluent in the language of Effective S-G, something remarkable will also happen: our society will become "S-G aware" (the way Skynet from The Terminator movies became self aware). Society writ large will suddenly "grok," i.e., understand emphatically, how to "destroy" their dystopic democracy.
When that inflection point is reached, the only question will be how many election cycles will it take for America's LOC and ROC voters to transition completely to neartopic democracy.
“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.” Plato
re the holy grail of Effective S-G: Effective Sortition (ES), a quasi-random variant of Sortition.
(From Wikipedia): In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors using a random representative sample. This minimizes factionalism, since those selected to serve can prioritize deliberating on the policy decisions in front of them instead of campaigning. In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy. [boldface added]
re Effective Sortition (ES)
The following is one way—minimally, the most politically and civically conscientious of America's vast mainstream (VM) of left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters can use ES in the pre-primary process phase of their NLEP:
1. Every two years, ten groups of LOC voters, and ten groups of ROC voters (with, e.g., 6-12 voters per group) –– all of whom have volunteered in advance to involve themselves in this process –– are randomly selected (similar to how individuals are selected for jury duty) from, let's say, ten distinct regions across each of America's 435 U.S. House districts and ~33 States. (For now, let's call these voters: Talented Xers.) (fyi: each congressional district has ~700,000 people.)
2. Each group will first identify, using a combination of social media, standard recruiting methods and/or an app developed specifically for this purpose, then recruit/draft several PKQ-caliber, LOC and ROC candidates from their own distinct region of the district, i.e., candidates who:
- are extraordinarily capable,
- have high POM (purity of motive) ratings,
- understand up front that, if elected, they will only be serving a “few” years as a one-time civic duty because both they and the voters understand how easily political power, especially at the national legislative level, can corrupt even the best of us.
3. From each district's/state's pool of identified and recruited LOC and ROC candidates, one LOC and one ROC candidate will be randomly selected via lottery –– and, subject to the approval of the Democratic and Republican parties' primary voters in the NLEP's primary process phase, will face each other in the general election phase of the NLEP.
REMINDER: America easily has one million PKQ-caliber citizens, which works out to a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district.
KEY POINT: ES makes it possible for LOC and ROC voters to insure that, in the general election phase of the NLEP, both major parties' candidates will always be PKQ-caliber. Which means both factions of voters will never have to confront the "moral" quandary: "Do I vote for the other side's PKQ-caliber candidate if my side's candidate is, by definition, a PAP, i.e., politically ambitious politician, (and therefore also, by definition, self-serving)?"
Layman's observation: ES will not be a big hit with our nation's rabid ideologues (and others). But it will turn out to be overwhelmingly popular with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters, i.e., our ~140 million go-along-to-get-alongers –– who agree:
- with Conventional Political Wisdom's (CPW's) dire prognosis, i.e., moving forward, the "end is nigh[ish]" for American democracy (and Earth's other democracies).
- that the only way they can escape the hellish, part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone (S-G) nightmare they are trapped in is by "doing something they've never done," i.e., adapting/evolving.
TAKEAWAY re EFFECTIVE SORTITION (ES):
- ES is the only way America's LOC and ROC voters can transition from U.S. Congresses permanently controlled by PAPs to permanently controlled by PKQ-caliber legislators.
- PKQ-controlled Congresses are the only way to avoid the Orwellian future that CPW says awaits our nation.
*********
REASONABLE LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY #1: There exists a small but critical mass within the vast mainstream (VM) of America's LOC and ROC voters who we could think of as America's Talented Xers.
They are our society’s best role models in any number of ways. They are civic minded. They involve themselves in community functions and events. They belong to charitable and voluntary organizations.
aside: a.) they are the ones who will pick up a piece of trash and throw it in a nearby trash can because it’s the civic-minded thing to do... b.) as a group, more than likely they are well educated, conscientious—and trustworthy.
How many Talented Xers, size-wise, there are is an unknown. But it could range from a Talented:
- "tenth" of VM voters (to borrow from a term popularized over a century ago by black scholar, W.E.B. Du Bois) (= 15,500,000 voters), or
- twentieth of VM voters (= 7,750,000 voters, or
- thirtieth (= 5,200,000 voters), or
- fiftieth (= 3,100,00 voters). or
- hundredth (= 1,550,000 voters), or
- thousandth (= 155,000 voters),
TAKEAWAY #2: even the total number of Talented Xers is a small percentage of our VM of voters, it still is a very large number of people who are:
- easily capable of grasping the existential imperative of them "updating" their NLEP in order for them to:
- start keeping both chambers of Congress "continuously replenished" with highly capable, PKQ-caliber (mostly) liberal Democratic and conservative Republican legislators.
There ALSO exists a massively large number of VM LOC and ROC voters who technically aren't Talented Xers but would be enthusiastically, even ecstatically, supportive of their respective group's Talented Xers identifying and recruiting the required pool of PKQ-caliber candidates in advance of the NLEP –– from which our LOC and ROC VMers would field in their respective House and Senate primaries, thus insuring that, regardless of which candidate was elected in the general election, he/she would be PKQ-caliber.
TAKEAWAY #3: the sooner our electorate begins using ES to elect their 535 members of Congress, the sooner we will see PKQ-controlled national legislatures:
- turning our nation's EFFS mountain into a molehill,
- becoming near-perfect role models for our children (our adults, too),
- mending our divided society,
- restoring the spirit of Classical Liberalism to our nation's soul,
- etc., etc., etc.
The stakes couldn't be higher for the American people AND (if CPW is to be believed) for the future of freedom on our planet.
So, as absurd as it may sound, we must transition from having a:
- reading, writing, arithmetic-focused education system
...to a
- reading, writing, arithmetic, effective self-governance-focused education system.
Metaphorically speaking, we must transition from being a passively free society whose civics curriculum produces "eighth grade-level" sheeple voters, to being a pro-actively free society whose civics/Effective S-G curriculum produces "PhD-level" Spartan voters.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
Try to imagine an America where obtaining a license to practice medicine merely required:
- taking a guided tour of a major hospital’s facilities, i.e., it’s laboratories, operating rooms, examination rooms, treatment rooms, etc.,
- memorizing: a.) the body’s major organs, bones, muscle groups, etc. and their function, and b.) the hundreds of major illnesses and diseases humans fall prey to, and their symptoms.
And that’s it.
Suffice to say, that America would be teeming with incompetent physicians.
Now try to imagine an America where obtaining professional licenses to practice in every other field also did not require a near-encyclopedic mastery of knowledge specific to the field—acquired over years of study and practice. Engineers, airline pilots, air traffic controllers (the list is endless).
That’s what America’s civics curriculum is like. It produces students who, upon graduation into the real world, don’t have the slightest idea of how to practice democracy effectively, or competently---or dare we say: correctly.
After 12+ years of education, our educators are turning out naïve “sheeple voters” who have a primitive/unsophisticated view of the democratic process, when what they should be turning out are decidedly non-naive, sophisticated, S-G savvy "Spartan voters."
“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” Albert Einstein
NOTE: Chances are you're here because you were notified via email (or the email was forwarded to you), because you either are, or one day might be, a member of our nation's intelligentsia.
Which means you should (in theory) find the new S-G terms, concepts, solutions, etc. on this page –– along with their myriad "spectacular" implications –– of particular interest.
However, no matter how you got here –– or what your current, future or former station in life may be –– if you care about America, about American democracy, about its people, about their ability to remain a free, prosperous society; about the future of freedom as an inalienable human right across our planet –– your:
- academic responsibility AND "civilizational duty" if you are a scholar or educator,
- civic responsibility AND civilizational duty if you are a voter or student,
- civic responsibility AND civilizational duty if you are an influencer,
- civic responsibility AND civilizational duty AND sheer self-interest if you are a billionaire,
...is to explore this page's wealth of new terms, concepts, Layman's Takeaways, etc.
Then DETERMINE in your own mind if:
- 0% of it has academic or other merit, but just might give rise down the road to a new line of investigation or exploration for political philosophers, political economists, public policy thinkers/developers, good government advocates, etc. that WILL be of eventual "democracy-saving/civilization-enhancing" value,
- Or 1% of it has academic worth and WILL give rise....
- Or 10%....
- Or 50%....
- Or >50%...
Then DISSEMINATE anything you consider worthwhile, or potentially worthwhile, as far and as wide as you can –– a.s.a.p.
and/or...
Become a financial supporter/benefactor (once the various fund sites have been set up). If you want to sit on the sidelines, not play an active role in the dissemination process -- perhaps because you would rather take a wait and see approach, or you're concerned about potential repercussions, ridicule, etc. from your inside-the-box thinking peers, pro-status quo [businesses, industries, social media influencers, etc.] -- but deep down you really want to see this effort succeed spectacularly, not to be too melodramatic, but your financial support could prove to be pivotal--the straw that broke dystopic democracy's back.