“…To make the worker’s share in production the sole basis for his claim to a livelihood – as was done even by Marx in the labor theory of value he took over from Adam Smith – is, as power-production approaches perfection, to cut the ground from under his feet. In actuality, the claim to a livelihood rests upon the fact that, like the child in a family, one is a member of a community: the energy, the technical knowledge, the social heritage of a community belong equally to every member of it, since in the large the individual contributions and differences are completely insignificant.

 “[The classic name for such a universal system of distributing the essential means of life – as described by Plato and More, long before Owen and Marx – is communism, and I have retained it here. But let me emphasize that this communism is necessarily post-Marxian, for the facts and values upon which it is based are no longer the paleotechnic ones upon which Marx founded his policies and programs. Hence communism, as used here, does not imply the particular nineteenth century ideology, the messianic absolutism, and the narrowly militarist tactics to which the official communist parties usually cling, nor does it imply a slavish imitation of the political methods and social institutions of Soviet Russia, however admirable soviet courage and discipline may be]. [The italics and brackets above are his.]

 “Differentiation and preference and special incentive should be taken into account in production and consumption only after the security and continuity of life itself is assured. Here and there we have established the beginnings of a basic communism in the provision of water and education and books. There is no rational reason for stopping short at any point this side of a normal standard of consumption. Such a basis has no relation to individual capacities and virtues: a family of six requires roughly three times as much goods as a family of two, although there may be but one wage earner in the first group and two in the second. We give at least a minimum of food and shelter and medical attention to criminals who have presumably behaved against the interests of society: why then should we deny it to the lazy and the stubborn? To assume that the great mass of mankind would belong to the latter category is to forget the positive pleasures of a fuller and richer life.” Mumford, Lewis, Technics and Civilization, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1934, pp. 403-404.


I don’t know if Karl Marx had a well-developed sense of humor. What little I’ve read of his writings show none; and of his biographies, the dimwit guffaw of fart jokes. Only a nation with a hearty sense of humor could stomach classical Marxism.

During the mid-1800’s, Marx’s family subsisted in a Londoner’s poverty while he exhausted his paltry income on foreign newspaper subscriptions. Poor guy, poor family.

He thought the proletariat’s inferior status was based on financial hardship in particular rather than lack of valid information in general. He concluded this despite the fact that high and low finances are mere subsets of total information content and flow.

The Victorian media’s gee-whiz reports of high-tech telegraph and railroad marvels convinced him that human communications had reached a new pinnacle of perfection. If world communications had in fact reached such heights, Marx could have gotten his high-quality news for a few coppers a month.

Still today, we are not so fine-tuned. So-called “free” information is the most heavily distorted. It takes a lot of time and money to obtain objective news without a toxin load of negative bias and special-interest agenda. Indeed, information is bias and agenda, it must be. But couldn’t we fine-tune that info flow such that its bias and agenda were those of peace: a positive spin and a general-interest program?

In an optimal communications milieu, Marx could have bartered his analytical brilliance for a more than comfortable salary. That was not the case then and is not so today, I assure you. Tightening down the screws of unemployment in every medium, the monetary powers-that-be have made life difficult for all but their most sold-out propaganda parrots.

He hoped his penny-proletarians would refuse to fight against brother workers from foreign countries. After all, they had more in common with each other than with their gold eagle elites. How wrong he was! Across Europe, Worker Party bosses caved in to national/corporate chauvinists and got their followers to massacre one another during two “World Wars” and many more rubber-stamped since.

Labor union leaders are at the forefront of ecological devastation, organized crime and status-quo militarism. They defend these shameful activities in the name of “saving jobs.” They have great difficulty agreeing with their progressive “allies” (even though both of them are just as incompetent at peace) and confronting their common “enemies” among corporate weapon management. It is easier for them to oppose progressive ideals and submit to corporate tyranny, easiest to fatten on dwindling union dues and swelling corporate payoffs—and do as little as possible otherwise.

Growing numbers of rank-and-file workers have voted – with their feet and their wallets – against them and their insane policies. Those who didn’t, saw their jobs go overseas in the name of “global economic efficiency.”

The powers that be in the USA neutralized the labor movement by permitting organized crime to infest it without constraint, while suppressing the mafia mercilessly elsewhere. Any real Left was cauterized from American politics during a century and a half of nazi-like police and media suppression. This has cleared the field for ineffectual centrists (vilified as “the Left”) and raving reactionaries to swing the country more and more toward corporate fascism, the way a child might try to sail over the crossbeam of a swing.


Famous holdouts against this militarist insanity were Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and their Spartacist disciples. They were brutally murdered. Given this salutary example with that of Jean Jaurès prior and M.L.King, etc., etc., etc. afterwards, no labor organizations and activists remain to fight for World Peace. Instead, mighty struggles are waged for second- and third-rate considerations—those “acceptable” to weapon managers.

Marx never explained how his proletarians could agree with each other about him and his extraordinary conclusions. How could they, without communicating freely among themselves so as to soak up all the information he had collected so painfully? In most cases, that kind of exchange was forbidden. The police of the day made sure that it would not happen, and Communist bosses made just as sure that Party discipline would forbid it.

The key to proletarian subjugation has been info starvation and it remains so. Lack of money is just a symptom and consequence of information starvation. No one has gotten this message out prior to Learner, and no one has paid enough attention to it since.

We have been deprived of the following information: we are powerless because we’ve been deprived of vital facts. What’s more, it never occurred to us to demand better information. We were satisfied with the facts (mostly junk info, like junk food) we were allowed to collect in spite of every institutional obstacle placed in our way while we struggled to acquire them. It seemed neither possible nor practical to collect more and better data. Any transformation of society to make that happen seemed unimaginable.

This oversight was Marx’s gravest one. Given this error, his conclusions are no more valid than those of other ideologists before and since. We can no more dismiss the weapon/peace dialectic from a valid analysis of the politics of information, than discount gravity from an accurate reckoning of orbital mechanics.

Otherwise, we must be satisfied with the last two thousand years of misdirected political analysis disseminated persistently since, even though those models are just as valid as Earth-centered epicycles and stars embedded in concentric crystal spheres.

We require a new political system the equivalent below of a Copernican analysis above. We must replace the central Earth of weapon mentality with the majestic Sun of peace mentality. Emery Reves scooped me on this analogy in his Anatomy of Peace, Harpers & Brothers Publishers, 1945 & 1946, reprinted in 1995.


Another weapon myth attributes “freedoms” to economies bound by weapon requirements. We will discuss a few economic implications of the weapon/peace dialectic in another chapter of Learner.

A weapons economy can be hunter/gatherer, it can be herder, agricultural (“First Wave” according to the Tofflers of Future Shock fame), industrial (Second Wave) or informational (Third Wave). It can be decentralized or collective, openly or secretly militaristic; it can be particularistic (favoring a few individuals) or totalitarian (favoring no one for long). Weapon management can be based on precedent, authority or self-interest. Each alternative fosters mass coercion, injustice, warfare and wastage of talent and resources—regardless of (and directly contradicting) the cant weapon managers use to promote themselves.

Pandemic unemployment, homelessness, statelessness, refugee status, famine, epidemics and genocide through national-ethnic warfare (at once barbaric-primitive and techno-sophisticated) are routine methods of mass human disposal these days. We dub these government-accelerated catastrophes “complex disasters.” As if they could be anything but complex? As we harden our heart to this infamy, our leaders endorse our heartlessness so they can stuff their pockets with unearned wealth. The end result is a “lifeboat philosophy” that consigns the weak to the sharks.

What were we thinking when we shackled ourselves us to this slave galley? If we find ourselves crowded in a lifeboat, let’s not waste any more time choosing whom to drown at gunpoint. Instead, we should set every hand to bail or row, every stick and stitch to the wind, and the prow for the nearest sea lane/landfall. Then, praying to any God we choose, row like hell!


What is the basis of human exploitation? Marx lists several periods of exploitation: the slave/master, serf/lord and proletarian/bourgeois. Parenthetically, to those who complain about the recent enslavement of their ancestors: every human being alive today has a history of genetic ancestors and prior incarnations enslaved in the past: every white, every black and everyone else. Painstaking histories of noble lineage have been feeble attempts at sword point to keep one’s feet dry above this floodtide of servitude, at least for a few generations.

Had he imagined today’s global corporate dictatorships, Marx could have described us as individual isolates versus government-corporate bureaucrats and their pensioners. The future may pit helpless, jobless and more or less terrorized human majorities against sovereign artificial intelligence management systems sloppily programmed by tiny info elites to manage them, supposedly with the best intentions but really on the cheap and with the highest profit, as usual.

Learner lumps these rivalries under the headings Info(rmation) Proletariat and Info(rmation) Elite. This word-pair forms a dichotomy and a dialectic that Learners must understand with absolute clearness.


Marx filled many a page to narrate the economic shell game played by wily bourgeois (boorjwah, burghers, middle-class people) when they inflate the value of labor’s handiwork beyond its production costs. They enrich themselves from the difference, at the expense of the proletariat.

Well, duh.

If upper classmates had merely fattened themselves in idle opulence, everyone could have benefited from trickle-down wealth. After all, comfort-loving bourgeois would pay a pretty penny for superior goods and services, fully employing the rest. They’d hardly begrudge a few more pence to secure precious law and order. Welfare states are much cheaper to mismanage than ruinous, ham-fisted police states. More profitable too, except compared to peace states. Nations at total peace would be much more profitable and therefore wealthy, but equally vulnerable to military aggression.

Instead, most of this wealth gets thrown away – deliberately and pointlessly – and is never allowed to circulate. Marx never noted this wastage. Despite his exhaustive analysis, he offered no safeguard against the next rabble of wasteful opportunists: Mafiosi, arbitrageurs, Communist apparatchiki, “deregulated” corporate managers, corporate/governmental/labor leaders, politically correct politicians (gratifying the needs of the rich: see our last dozen Presidents), and like parasites. He refused to distinguish good administrators from bad ones.

According to the German social scientist, Robert Michels, there is an Iron Law of Oligarchy. As soon as human beings assemble into an organization, its power gravitates to its permanent officers. Regardless of the organization’s original purpose, its primary goal will become the development of that organization and of its oligarchy, no matter how corrupt that tendency may become.

No-one, prior to Learner, figured out how to take advantage of this hierarchical tendency and benefit the greater good instead of submitting to its corruption. Like an old judoka master confronting a younger and more powerful contender, we could use the opponent’s tendencies and promote the common good.



Similarly, Marx wrote a lot about the “alienation of labor.” He gave no reason why members of the proletariat must hate themselves and their drudgery. He merely described this self-loathing as another example of the bourgeoisie’s broad-brush, vicious and unreasonable abuse.

Learner shows a clear reason why members of the intellectual proletariat must despise themselves and their place in the scheme of things. Alienation produces political powerlessness quite reliably. An info proletariat, alienated to the point of powerlessness, consents to maximum weapon technology.

Emotionally secure people, in love with their world and with each other, would find a thousand reasons to challenge weapon mentality. They would sabotage weapon technology and block its managers at every opportunity, in a way we would never dare, since we are so thoroughly alienated. If a nation must defend itself militarily, it must forbid this sabotage, make it impossible. Mass alienation is an effective way to prevent mutinous pacifism from uprooting protective fascism.

Let’s discuss this alienation some more.


“The new economic order (of the 19th Century) was indifferent to every form of community or association, destroying the customary associations of village, guild and peasant community.” Roland N. Stromberg, Redemption by War: The Intellectuals and 1914, The Regents Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1982, p. 90.


This alienation is cultivated during decades of pecking order sorting, cultural mediocrity and philistine materialism. Once warfare erupts, it congeals into its antithesis: a passionate and awesome tribal ingathering to sacrifice the fearsome Them at a cut-rate sacrifice of Us.

Rich and poor, plebian and elite, reactionary and progressive, illiterate and intellectual: every citizen feels the tug of this holy ingathering that trivializes past differences and re-imposes a sense of community banned during peacetime. When two countries go to war, its peoples on each side will harmonize their internal differences and social contradictions before coming to blows against each other.

The reasons and justifications to go to war may be trivial, absurd or a tissue of lies; its consequences, appear disastrous to anyone who cares to note them. Thoughtful voices may speak out against it. Reasonable people, who might see through this mess under other circumstances, will fall into step in any case. The same cultural, educational and newsgathering institutions that promoted stupid and spiteful alienation during peacetime, will jump at the chance to rekindle atavistic tribalism. Everyone experiences an exalted sense of belonging that he or she could never feel (was never encouraged to feel) under normal circumstances.

This emotional earthquake rocked Europe at the beginning of World War I, and America right after 9/11. It’s most remarkable feature? Perfectly rational people, the entire intellectual elite tasked with safeguarding society’s collective conscience, jump from routine cosmopolitanism and tepid pacifism, (“Shouldn’t we go to war less often and only for the best reasons?”) straight into bigot nationalism and warfare hysteria.

Once war has claimed its blood price of victims, these same intellectuals will revert to their default, mindless, middle-of-the-road mediocrity. They could not, to save their lives, describe what possessed them to turn into such blaring warmongers. Their recall of this transformation will leave them speechless. Quietly, they will forget their exalted fugue—as if it had never happened.


The only practical outcome of each communist revolution has been a traumatic transformation of feudal societies based on subsistence agriculture, into well-armed military-industrial states that could hold their own against any aggressor. Otherwise, feudal states could never defend themselves against industrialized nations that had nurtured their weapon technologies at long and bloody leisure.

Western colonial expansion was based on the military imbalance between industrial states, on one hand, and feudal societies and pre-feudal peoples on the other. Pampered feudal dynasties and their military elites were too busy suppressing local revolts and peripheral native uprisings. They never developed a good defense against better-armed Western armies. Subsistence feudalism never produced the vast economic surplus, the despised and under-employed workforce and the smokestack industries those armies required. Yet – at tremendous sacrifice and virtually overnight – Communist states managed to produce those things quite reliably, then checkmated Western aggressors from any provenance.

Communism is a toxic vaccine that feudal societies must administer in to themselves order to acquire immunity against the hyper-organized assault of weapon National Capitalism.


“Virtually every aspect of the development of capitalism, from the rapid advance of technology, transport and communications to the evolution of new class forces and the political and ideological responses to them, had a major military significance. To adopt the traditional sociological terminology, social changes had both the socio-economic functions which were “manifest” to contemporaries and social theorists, and military functions which were much more “latent.”

“Mass militarism can be seen, as it was for example by Karl Liebknecht in 1907, as the form of warfare appropriate to capitalism. But there is also a sense in which industrial capitalism and parliamentary democracy were the social and political forms required by a new form of state militarism. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was clear that both political nationalism and direct military needs would have social implications. Imperialism begat social reforms; the inadequacy of the labour (sic) supplied to the armed forces (for example, in Britain during the South African war) stimulated concern at the health and diet of the working class. Warfare had always had implications for welfare, but at the beginning of the 20th century it was a recognizable motor for change. The First [sic] World War greatly accelerated this change, particularly by expanding expectations among working people themselves – expectations which were to be disappointed in the aftermath of the war.” Martin Shaw, Dialectics of War: An Essay on the Social Theory of Total War and Peace, Pluto Publishing Ltd, London, 1988, pp. 74-75.


With respect to the impact of war on the development of the State, please consult Bruce D. Porter’s very convincing War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics, The Free Press, Macmillan, Inc., New York, 1994. Nailing his analysis down with hundreds of historical examples, Porter lists the political effects of war as follows: 


Formative and Organizing Effects


    Territorial Coalescence

    Unifying Effect

    Centralizing Effect

    Bureaucratizing Effect

    Government Growth

    Fiscal Effect

    Ratchet Effect (prior effects don’t disappear after each war)

    Opportunity for Leadership


Disintegrative Effects


    Total State Destruction

    Catalyst of Revolution

    Diminished Capacity

    Fiscal Collapse


Reformative Effects


    Integrative Effect

    Socializing Effect

    Social-leveling Effect

    Spur to Social Reform


I hesitate to quote more from Porter; I would wind up filling a Volume II of Learner with citations from his work.

He throws the following sop to academic orthodoxy before he packs three hundred pages of his books with confirmations of the exact opposite.


“What this book will not do is postulate a military dialectic of history. War is a profound agent of historical change, but it is not the fundamental driving force of history. Whatever causes war – economic factors, class conflict, human nature, modes of production, technological change, divine will – is by definition [how convenient!] a more basic causal agent than war itself. No matter how ubiquitous or profound the effects of war may be, war itself is a derivative and secondary phenomenon, never [sic] a prime moving force. By the same token, war should never be seen as an exogenous force that acts on states and societies from without; it derives rather from within them. When we say that war causes a given political effect, we should keep in mind that this is only a convenient shorthand; what really happens is that state leaders, governments, military officers, armies, and populations, in waging war and in coping with its myriad challenges, cause those effects to occur.” p. 4.

[NOTE: In the same way, I suppose, that apples, planets and stars, in coping with gravity, cause motion to occur without being directly affected by it as an independent force; or animals, in coping with evolution, cause corporeal development to occur in the same way. What undilute academic crap!]


These last few lines from Porter sound a lot like the retraction submitted by Galileo to the Catholic Church, written for the same reason of bureaucratic survival. Some friendly reviewer must have warned Porter, during his appraisal of his partner’s manuscript: “You had better insert a denial of ‘military dialectics’ no matter how summary and telegraphic; otherwise, you run the risk of being blacklisted by academia.”



Recall the weapon maxim, whether mouthed by capitalist or communist lips: “Arm yourself to the teeth beforehand or submit to enslavement.” Never mind that the enslavement of weapon mentality and that of military defeat are identical. In the final analysis, we cannot separate nationalist sovereignty and personal enslavement. One leads the other. But we could favor the emancipation of PeaceWorld over the enslavement of WeaponWorld.

Do the unknowns of PeaceWorld seem more terrifying than the familiar bloody-mindedness of WeaponWorld? So what! Get over your hypnotized panic.

Communist militants never intended to create a socialist paradise. That was just another weapon myth carrot dangled in front of feudal info proletariats. The revolutionary vanguard’s real goal was to crash-optimize homegrown military technologies, despite the backwardness of feudal populations and especially of their elites.

Despite Marx’s warnings, every so-called Marxist society became equally tainted with weapon dogma. Peace idealists were gulaged and/or executed—just as often, in practical terms, as they were disempowered and marginalized in Capitalist societies. Like other weapon societies, Marxist ones supported wasteful and forbidden forms of weapon parasitism: elite dictatorship, class privilege, internal and external genocide, slave labor, secret police, premeditated mismanagement and worker alienation; actually, universal alienation cutting valid communications, most especially between the info elite and the info proletariat. These contradictions rotted out every Communist society.

Thus, every Communist experiment turned into an exercise in barracks Communism, despite all the ideological cant written against barracks Communism. Every contradiction Marx deplored will exist in every weapon state, whether it adheres to National Marxism, National Capitalism, National Fundamentalism or any other form of militarist self-deception.

The same thing happened during the French Revolution. Marx noted it and then forgot about it.

Power-drunk American elites never tire of toasting their “triumph” over Communism. Yet, despite their ragged masses, Russia and China have amassed enough nukes to protect themselves against all but suicidal opponents. Communism has served its main purpose. Consequently, it is being sloughed off like an old snakeskin.

Even though Capitalism is just as necrotic, we refuse to let drop this rotten appendage and graft something healthier to the stump. We persist instead in absorbing its gangrene toxins, and intend to transfuse that stinking pus into ex-communist societies, to their obvious detriment.

By rational accounting, weapon societies are tainted goods destined for the scrap heap of history. Capitalism’s fantasy “victory” over Das Kapital has not reduced the class struggle by one iota. It has merely made the conflict murkier and more intractable.


What is the basis of government power? Government vigor is not in capital, as Scandinavian socialists have proven and the Great Depression confirmed. Capital ebbs and flows at the whim of the very rich.

By “very rich,” I mean those whose wealth is so old and huge, it’s made them transparent to journalistic and legalistic review. They are so rich that their insider trading on the world’s stock market is not only legal but expected, so rich that the best-paid corporate CEOs and the grandest government dignitaries are their errand boys.

I doubt if enough people understand the incredible cumulative power of interest compounded over hundreds of years and the unimaginable wealth that would place in certain people’s hands. It is illegal to do that kind of thing today – harvest the fruit of multiple generations of circular interest without touching any of it or the principal in the mean time – but it wasn’t so in the past. Interest rates could have been very low and thus certain; their current beneficiaries, unfit to control their accumulation. None of that would matter. They would be enormously wealthy and powerful in any case. Learner addresses them in particular—even if we benefit from this transformation, they will benefit more than we.

Here is the relationship that the very rich hold with info elites they tower over, and with the info proletariat that sprawls beneath their telescopic spire:


·        Info proletarians are like animals in a zoo. They are under total control and have no idea what’s going on beyond the reassuring routines they value above all others. They are trained since infancy to value nothing else.

·        Weapon managers are like the attendants of a zoo. They have near-total control over the animals under their care and some awareness of what’s going on, but very little over their own decision-making and job security.

·        The very rich resemble the board of directors of the zoo. They manage the two lower orders while remaining remote from them, invisible and essentially unsympathetic.


What is actually in charge of the zoo? You could call it a mental value hidden in some recess of the human spirit, which esteems above all the satisfaction of its curiosity and dominion over nature. All three layers of actors, their class settings and future depend on the commands of this spiritual value.

Each tidal surge of finance – inflationary or deflationary – enriches those peak Conspirators of Greed at everyone else’s expense. Each surge of militaristic panic strengthens weapon managers at the peril of everyone else. Each information manipulation, deprivation and degradation seems to simplify the task of controlling the inferior class. Weapon mentality is the spiritual value that drives this process.

Government power is not a matter of military might, either. Muscle-bound military states (Napoleonic France, Paraguay under Lopez, Hitler’s Germany) so threatened their neighbors that they were overwhelmed by numbers, or so overtaxed their economies that they drove themselves to ruin; as did Russia a few years ago and as the USA is doing today.

When I mention “weapon technology,” please avoid the caricature of stomping jackboots, bad brass bands and power-drugged demagogues. Please don’t confound weapon mentality with its subset of fascist militarism. Humans have attempted this sick parody all too often. Its unforeseen consequences have always wound up being disastrous, as predicted by those whose good judgment everyone else managed to ignore.

Do you dare maintain that no-one warned the German people that the Nazis would turn out to be the worst news for them ever? Or that anyone of any importance paid attention to these warnings while he filled his change-purse with the gold teeth of Jews? These days, while adding zeros to his bank account by stoking the heat-death of the world.

If armies of barracks bullies and pampered thugs replace competent police and effective administrators, they lose their military edge against a foreign army, even an equally rotten one.

Even the deadliest of modern weapon states must hoard a substantial measure of peace technology. As paradoxically demonstrated in Western republics, the more lethal a weapon state, the greater its perceived distribution of peace benefits. The music of Mozart and Peter Gabriel, kindness and light, gardening, ersatz (fake) forms of political empowerment: a hocus pocus of civility must be artfully compartmentalized and subordinated to the primary, killing goals of a weapon society.

The actual key to political power lies in communications—just as the key to individual empowerment resides in information acquired. When conspirators plot an insurrection, radio stations, TV broadcast companies (and major Internet servers?) will be among their first targets for takeover. Thanks for this illustration, Paul Lackman.

According to Thom Hartman, the Press is the only industry mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and protected by it. Corporations are nowhere to be found, much less the idea that “corporations are people.” Recent, anti-constitutional Supreme Court rulings are absolute betrayals of its mandate.

Weapon states assert their sovereignty by restricting and simplifying social transactions internal as well as external. Civilizations grow as mighty, rich and free as they allow their communications to grow complex. This happens in obedience to an Armchair Formula we shall review in its own chapter.

Weapon states sabotage civil communications systems, “the better to control them.” This fantasy control of info flow requires that current communications be subverted and their future growth be delayed. This deterioration must induce additional poverty; its reversal, abundance in direct proportion to the military vulnerability it induces.

A sophisticated people may operate by virtue of “liberal” laws (in the positive, “generous” older sense of the term, since inverted by weapon mentality into its “mercenary” antonym in English as well as French), and call itself free because of them. However, its dialogue can be homogenized by sports worship and televised soap opera trivia; by patent discord between the polarized adherents of black-and-white pseudo-ideologies that cannot be resolved; by paralyzing legalisms; by some mechanical doctrine, church liturgy or ideological dogma; by a tyrant’s mad ravings (Trump); by the obsessive narration of trivial but dramatic crimes; or by a tsunami of commercial blather. Anything will do to distract public attention from the weapon/peace dialectic and drown out commentary about it.

See the top five hundred key words searched on the Internet: (http://www.searchengineguide.com/wt/2011/0118_wt1.html, I don’t have the stomach to uncover the silliness of the most recent list). You might be surprised how trivial the majority of them are ; if not, too bad for you!

These intellectual contaminants are broadcast most readily through monologue (one-way) mass media. All by themselves, monologue media reduce communications by at least an order of magnitude. Exactly the same transmission channels, adjusted such that half the info flowed in each direction, could carry at least ten times or more (perhaps a thousand of times more) useful information.

The same goes for global digital spyware such as PRISM. Its suction dredge of data from the bottom to the top turns out to be comparatively trivial from a Learner standpoint, since restricted to one direction. It may be nationally treasonous and politically lethal, sooner or later, but qualitatively trivial.

These communications equal info flow and societal wealth: how many hundreds and thousands of times more real dollars each of us could dispose of without inflation—regardless of the ideological cant that affirms otherwise. This huge number of personal interactions and complex dialogues generates peace technology’s abundance.

Divided, please note, by the sum of harmful communications.

As these dialogues spread out beyond centralized control, they threaten to destabilize a weapon hierarchy by increasing its vulnerability to internal and external extremists.

To forestall this destabilization, weapon propagandists boost the volume, saturation and repetition of official monologue; they simplify public reality until it turns into a caricature of nature. This is how the info proletariat is overawed into dead-end weapon dissidence, hysterical paralysis and social autism.


Apparent distinctions between National Capitalist and National Communist weapon states are strictly situational, which is to say based on the perception of geo-strategic threats.

Set the U.S. population between Europe, Turkey, Iran, South Asia, China and Mongolia; and that of the former Soviet Union, between Mexico, Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Americans would have become militaristic bullies sooner, while the Russians would have baked a slightly more liberal flavor into their tyranny, if only temporarily. Leaving them in their own homelands, the Russians would have liberalized sooner if they could have blocked every invader far beyond their borders; and the Americans would have turned into overt totalitarians sooner if they had fought their climax defensive battles against external aggressors on the banks of the Mississippi—the way the Russians had to, on the banks of the Volga.

It is merely a question of the nature, size and proximity of the armed hordes we think we have to hold out.

Apply current threat levels posed by transcontinental nuke, chemical, scalar and biological assault. It doesn’t matter whether those warheads are rammed through by ballistic missile, broadcast and triangulated by highly energized scalar antenna arrays (like laser holograms), or borne in cheap suitcases by sweat-soaked fanatics. Watch both societies, plus all the others on Earth, surrender to cumulative military despotism and eventual omnicide (“Kill everything that lives!”): the ultimate simplification of information flow…

…Unless, by some 3rd Millennium miracle, a critical mass of wise ones across the planet sets off Learner transformation.

Thanks to the World Wide Web – the semi-dialogue system that allowed you to whistle up this text, and me, to send it to you freely – we may hope that such a transformation takes place despite all our worst fears and prejudices.

Will you and your friends facilitate the transition into a peaceful 3rd Millennium? Will you remain placid spectators to it—or worse yet, dogmatic antagonists in favor of weapon mentality?

Read on, Learner activists …




As for the rest of you who came here querying a search engine for the name “Carl Marx,” I believe you have a term paper or some other distraction to get out of the way.

It will soon be time for us to part. Think of placing Learner’s chapter index page among your Favorites. Please come back to it and to its hundred-odd web mates, once you’re hungry for a good political analysis and once I’ve finally knocked them into shape.

Those pages outline the Why, How and What of the World Peace that awaits us. This book is not about sermons but about results.

Does that interest you?

If not, ask yourself “Why not?”




Learner, begin