Monday, December 05, 2011

Quantum Entanglement Observations

Quantum Entanglement Observed

It is commonly observed that quantum entanglement is a condition met when two constituents A and B are placed in material contact and associated with one another. That action induces the entangled condition which allows for a particle spin of A to induce a particle spin in B at a distance. The distance itself has no special limit and the interesting result observed is that the spin condition induced in A induces an equaled spin reaction in B instantly; that is trasspassing the limitations imposed by space-time. In short the communication and reaction are instantaneous without going through space-time.

How do the two particles communicate and react with one another while ignoring the laws of physics?

To some comfort physicists have observed that the entangle condition is not persistent but rather that it untangles so that particle A will cease to effect particle B's condition over time; the comforting element being that that implies that space-time has some affecting influence.

If a logical twist to A's spin, over a certain period of time will cease to equally affect and spin B then they are technically unentangled. This becomes a problem if you are using quantum entanglement for things like computing and encryption. If you cannot count on the persistence of the entangled state the logic will have finite potential states and you will get errors when calculating answers to open ended questions. Though anyone aware that you can reconstruct information that disappears beyond the event horizon of a black hole knows that if we can reconstruct that the shadowing of the trails of quantum entanglements ought to be easier to spot; that clearly implies that entanglement is somehow never lost though it might not be detectable.

The easiest way to resolve this is to ignore the laws of physics so as to gain an understanding. Knowledge is always a sign that something is not being understood; anything that is clear and understood requires no learning or explanation because the truth cannot be known and knowledge is just a stopgap measure to that reality.

In the case of particle A inducing a momentum condition in B instantly is true and not true at the same time. What is actually happening is that what is not happening is being observed and described to explain the entangled condition. First the particles are not actually entangled at their first meeting, they are also not yielding to each-others spin condition at a distance, and they are equally not untangling.

What is being observed is not what is transpiring but the “observation” remains in effect for some time and at some point it gets critical and it untangles. That is observation is not persistent. In short particles are never untangled, they are always in a tangled state or more accurately there is no distance between them because there is no space between particles but for the perception of time-space. Thus the observation makes an entangled event possible even though it has never transpired - but it can be observed if one assumes that a particle is untangled and entangled in space-time. In short a condition of separation and synchronicity between things that are identical or actually the same thing can be observed if a categorization has taken place. This is no different than seeing particles, waves and strings all as representations of the same space-time elements.

The categorization is measurement and observation based, the action is responsive and the effect evident as entanglement. If I spin A in one point of space, and I observe B equally spin and then after a certain passage of time it does not spin anymore, what I am observing is different states of observation over the same motivating subject. When I observe a complimentary entangled spin that is what I am measuring, equally, that is what I am measuring, when I observe an untangled state. Any basic mathematics should yield that particles can never be untangled because nothing in the universe is ever untangled from anything else. Entanglement is the nature of the universe but things are not so much entangled as simply they are the same thing being observed differently.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Saturday, December 04, 2010


Quantum and Relativity - it has long been a problem, overexposed, and in present view without a solution. However the dilemma of how to harmonize the disparity of quantum observations with relativity has been solved by me.

If what makes the universe are particles, waves, strings, why does the real world seem so deterministic? Why does it not fluctuate in and out of the nothingness like the subatomic particles that compose it?

Well the answer is that: Reality is the sum of a collapsed wave function that obscures all other potential states.

A subatomic particle can quantum entangle with another particle, it can tunnel, it can behave as a wave or as a particle. A subatomic particle suffering from quantum effects and subjected to the uncertainty principle could be everywhere at once and nowhere equally. The real world, where we play baseball and eat hotdogs does not behave like that. As much as you might like a hotdog cannot be everywhere at once. If a hotdog is in New York it can only be in New York nor can it be polarized to mimic another hotdog in Japan. If you twist a hotdog, with your fingers, in New York, the hot dog in Japan will not entangle twist with it. Sadly there is a strong probability that a hotdog is always a hotdog just like a pig is always a pig. It is unlikely that a hotdog can be anything else, it is unlikely that a hotdog may levitate and tunnel through walls, and yet all of the subatomic particles that compose a two-dollar-and-ninety-five cent hotdog can do these things that a hotdog cannot do.

One can make the argument that the same applies to car parts only backwards. A carburetor, a fuel pump and a gearbox cannot move from point A to point B by themselves but as part of a car they have the physical capability to do so. The process however is not reducible to its lowest level components, the process of moving from point A to point B. The Macro world, made up of cells, atoms or car parts cannot be expected to behave in the same way as its subdivided components. And yet here I hope to prove that nothing could be further from that truth.

A hotdog in Japan can change polarity if I dare twist a hotdog in New York. This can be done through a physical state called quantum entanglement which is as close as scientists can get to defining universal union and love. What they do in the lab is join two particles at the hip and then separate them by 149 kilometers and then, through prodding and poking they change the polarity of one particle and surprisingly the polarity of the other particle, that is 149 kilometers away, changes instantly without taking the time it takes to conquer the space in between them. This is what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” I will just say, for the record, that we were all joined at the hip before the big bang, and anything you do always affects me.


The first part we must understand about quantum is that it is not deterministic. There are no absolutes in quantum physics, in quantum everything has a probability of existing or not existing at all. States and conditions can be met with complete disregard for time and space, and in any direction for either.

In the quantum world you can make something happen but it probably would a happen without you knowing it happened anyway. For instance when a quantum particle goes through a wall and appears on the other side that is not what has actually happened. An engineer, working on a microprocessor design, is sitting there expecting that very result, called quantum tunneling, but in reality nothing of that sort has happened. In quantum physics the particle was on the other side of the wall already, in fact it has always been on the other side of the wall and on both sides of the wall at the same time, so it never has to go through it. The reason why we say that a particle has quantum tunneled is more so that we can explain to the engineer what has happened in her terms.

Particles don’t sit around performing stupid tricks for engineers, which is also why when a scientist observes light leaving a place it hasn’t entered, the only thing that has happened differently in the universe that day is the observation. The quantum dynamic itself is infinitely static and it is not moved or altered by observation but rather measured by it. Measurement itself is what reality is. When you measure something you are baking reality or more accurately opting to observe something that already exists but doesn’t exist for you until you observe it.

The second thing to know about quantum is the most important thing to know about it. Quantum is entirely based on observation. Quantum reality is not like American women that feel insulted when they are observed, it is instead like Latin women who feel offended when you don’t observe them. In Quantum it is what is observed that “theoretically” happens. It is what is recognized and acknowledge that eventuates. Quantum reality is entirely based on observation, this is because all quantum reality is energy based, and energy will not normalize until it is subjugated by an observation. This means that what you believe in, counts as much as what you see because the observer creates the reality that is observed. The macro reality, the collapsed wave function, caused by the observation, yet remains a probability after its proper construction. This accurately implies that all realities can deconstruct if you stop voting. The only reason why there are corrupt politicians and political parties it’s because you are still voting for them.

The third thing to know about quantum is: it does not care what you want to believe. It does not have a preference towards one type of reality or one type of universe or one type of physical laws over another. It will create the universe that you want to observe. This is because Quantum is always in a state of ambivalence until someone touches it. This is critical as it implies that there is a state of quantum where there is no polarity, that is neither negative nor positive, nor good and evil, quantum allows for a more primordial conditions of absolute coherence, in which all states are represented as an infinity, or more accurately nothing at all, as all of their values are absolute and therefore have no way to reference one another.

The fourth thing to know about quantum effects is that, because they are based purely on observation, they are entirely subjective. There is no such thing as objectivity in quantum physics because it is all dependent on observation, and when we talk of observation we are also talking about touch, feel, sensing, smelling, and instinct, mood, colors, etc. All subjective elements. This is critical because if you scale quantum upwards into the macro world it would then have to be equally subjective.

Which raises the question: If quantum is all subjective, why is there objectivity in the macro world? Or shall we call that objectivity relativity?

Relativity has always been the greatest misnomer of all time because Einstein was not saying that things are relative but that things are not relative, that they are fixed, that the universe is deterministic and that observation can skew one’s perception of the universe. In short relativity is the formula to observe the true physics of the universe in the same manner regardless of which point in space-time you are standing on. This is why it is so important to experiment in order to know if what is being observed is accurately representing the given reality. For instance, time can speed up and slow down. To anyone looking at a clock on earth or looking at a clock on the moon, time dilation is not an issue, until you compare the two and realize that the lack of gravity on the moon makes time on the moon pass at a slower pace. Relativity allows you to formulate the discrepancies and know the objective time between the two, moon and earth. It is called relativity because Einstein was trying to obviate the relativistic effects and ground the reality.

Relativity, like science, is objective. In other words in order for relativity to be correct there has to be an observable space-time that is independent of you and I. Einstein is using relativity to show the genuine reality, regardless not only of where you are in space-time but more horrific, regardless of who you are! In Einstein’s relativity the universe and its geometry can exist without you in it! There are fixed laws of physics, why light goes around planets, why gravity warps space-time, drags mass, instead of mass pulling mass or why energy and matter are equivalent to one another and no different than space-time; and why these are knowable things that can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy. So that a physicist’s in Japan and a physicist’s in New York, both eating a hotdog, can derive the same results merely counting on physical properties without ever having to worry about how they each feel that particular morning.


Science, and physics in specific, to no good end have been trying to resolve this odd rift between relativity and quantum. You could imagine a quantum scientist’s telling you: “No don’t observe that!” Because the quantum scientist’s knows that you are going to change everything through observation, where an expert on relativity would tell you that regardless of whether you are there or not, things are going to behave precisely in the same manner, so go ahead and touch it, feel it, look at it, it changes nothing. This is the equivalent of unrequited love. According to relativity the universe does not have to respond to your advances and even when it does it is merely you thinking that it is responding. Succinctly put, Relativity is Einstein thinking that Relativity can exist without Einstein, and as luck would have it, he immortalized himself explaining just that.

The problem is with the nature of science. Science is derived from the desire to explore a singularized and polarized decoherence. Decoherence is that state where things cannot hide from themselves or from one another. That means that science is the study of what is knowable. And yes there is a portion of the universe that is knowable, about 10% would be a good guess though it could be less and absolutely not more.

Science is able to study things that harden, that stand still, that can be dismembered, that respond to probing with tools, or questionnaires, it can study things that answer questions, and it can know things that always respond in the same manner regardless of who is asking the question. The empirical soul of science is there to explore things that can be observed nakedly, that can be taken apart, that can be classified, and that can be named. In other words science can only observe and study things that have lost most of their dynamic, are cooler by nature, will be reproducible in a laboratory and stay still long enough to be photographed.

When Science stumbled into quantum it stumbled into the “unscience.” It stumbled into something that requires a great deal of faith. When you are designing a microprocessor, for one of today’s computers, you have to truly believe what some of these particles are going to do, things like quantum tunneling; it’s like walking through walls only you end up on the other side without going through them; and you, as a digital engineer have to believe it is going to happen, that is all you can do, you don’t know how they do it, you just know it is possible, but no idea why and yet your processing results count on it.


When you are watching a baseball game and you are eating your hotdog, if you are like me, you might wish that your hotdog would turn into a ribeye steak. Since a hotdog is a particular of the generality of meat, it technically has the potential to be a ribeye steak in part because meat has the potential to be all meats. Like a stem cell has the ability to become a liver, kidney or pancreas, we can say, for the sake of this example, that those are all super positions, better called super potential, are held in a potential state until the cell starts to observe itself and it is observed by others as say, a liver. When a stem cell becomes a liver we can say that it has suffered decoherence, that is to say it has lost all other superposional states, it has absorbed a singularity and made it whole. It is now a liver and as a liver it has lost the potential states to become anything else. We do not observe superpotential in the macro world, planets cannot become suns, suns do not become books of matches, etc. In the same manner a particle in a quantum superposition can assume any and all physically probable states. If we say a particle is in a superposition we could just as easily be saying that there is no particle there, it is instead a state containing all possible states that a particle might assume. When we take that particle from its superposition and load it into a supercollider and measure and observe its position the particle loses its hypothetical potential states, and suffers decoherence into the state of a particle that the experiment or the reality have rigged into manifestation. In short everything that is observed in the process of making a hotdog conspires to make it less and less likely that it will ever be a ribeye steak.

Science being a methodology for exploring the singularity of a polarized decoherence has the ability to review any particles that have suffered decoherence in it, but it cannot review or visit the particle states that remain in a superposition. Remember that in quantum anything that you observe or touch with instrumentation will suffer decoherence as based on your expectations; that is the “tendency” of the given reality. Thus the focus of the, default reality, prejudices further observation and reproduces, i.e. reinforces, reality by polarizing the range of observable events into a massive, end-to-end singularity. And this prevents the observation of the fluidity between the macro and micro, quantum and relativity.

The thing that produces science, the micro-world and, the result, empirical observation, is what is preventing science from marrying quantum and relativity. Further, the bridge between quantum and relativity cannot be built by science because it is not an observation a scientific mind can make or experiment with.

We are then faced with a reality that could suffer superposition but doesn’t because everyone is focusing their observations and are comatose by them. The reality, by being what effects observation forces more observation of the same reality and reduces the micro superposition into insolvency. It would require a highly disruptive event to refocus the macro reality to react to its native and inherent fluidity. You don’t exist, you exist, you can go through walls, you can go backwards and forward in time, time does not exist so you exist at once, in some guise in a timeless void, which you cannot observe because you are focusing, observing the linearity of time, and thus creating the forward events that decohere superpositional states as you walk towards them. This may sound fantastic, it isn’t, it is everyday existence subsuming all other potential realities that causes you to adhere to the prevailing view of reality.

Science is in fact something that can only exist in a deterministic universe. This may come as a surprise to you but scientists, in order to make sense of things not only round off, they also avoid the nuisance that is infinity and timelessness. While their mathematics accurately goes on indefinitely scientists normalize mathematics to stop infinity from being a problem to the required results which are always deduced from the higher plane of reality. This devolves from the premise that there are knowables, i.e. knowledge, and that the knowledge can be used and reused as required. That makes science not only a participant in the creation of the knowable universe but it also makes it a conspirator in keeping the radius of the universe only pointed towards the knowable end of the spectrum. Science like a laser beam, not only narrows and focuses reality but through its pragmatic observations makes it logically knowable and thus linear and limited.


The abyss between Relativity and Quantum physics cannot be surmounted by modern science so a Grand Unified Theory is impossible. Science does not have the irrational grasp to be able to accept superpositions, which unify all or nothing at once, and lack all decoherence. It always seeks to make logic out of the universe and its components and limits it to such. It is up to a whole new way of looking at the universe, with a more subjective approach; where the subjective observer realizes once and for all that there are no objective realities only subjective realities. Any apparition of objectivity is merely an agglomeration of recombinant subjectivism which confluences to agree and decohere superpositions towards same principles; and those same principles can be misinterpreted, by a detached observers, say scientists, as objective.

Science by being rational limits its own understanding, and our understanding of the universe. Science reaches the limits of knowledge, either from its own logical limitations, or the more abundant but not less limited circumference of the knowable; it will cease to be able to realize the formulas that power its existence. Yes, science is as limited as knowledge only more so because to explore something you have to be within its parameters. Science can never know everything because the knowing of everything would destroy science, as science is powered by ignorance and feeds on knowledge.

The quantum state of superposition, and the decoherence factor allow a consciousness of any given type to explore those dimensions or states rational or irrational, but at cost in belief, you cannot believe that you are seeing something that is fixed, you must believe in the fluidity of existence to experience the quantum effect at room temperature. As with any fluid calculus the unknowns are too many, and the human not so adventurous. It is easier to watch a sequel of existence or to romanticize about the past than to experience something that could be so completely different that it might not have us, in a conscious framework.

Reality is then a singularity effect of an absolute decoherence that produces the effect of a singular reality because everyone is looking and observing in the same direction intently. From that perspective it is impossible to observe any other realities unless of course one does metaphysics instead of physics and contemplates instead of observing. If you want to marry relativity and quantum, then you will need to use metaphysics, because only metaphysics can turn the water into wine. Or more accurately, it is willing to do it.

Ricardo Correa

Sunday, August 09, 2009


Love is not romantic.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

A message to my friends

A message to my friends

I first I must admit that I was wondering if I was the only one that has noticed that the world ended, (The Clash of Civilizations aside,) that everything was over, that, well what can I add to that that is not already brilliantly summarized in the statement and testament: “the end of the world.” That engraves it in stone nicely.

I think that a lot of the people out there worried lots about the end of the world coming, and they were not looking forward to it, chaos, famine, pests, floods, infestation, mass graves and the gnashing of plural teeth, diabolical manifestations trouncing and baking birthday cakes, man against man, dog against man, fish against man, women raging furiously through the land, children aimlessly throating through the streets, animals, specially pigs, panicked and searching for a safety zone that did not exist, infectious anger, viral hate, guilty happiness, wolfs strolling through the streets, owls hunting babies in broad daylight, chickens and eggs rotting on each other, cows dying of malnutrition, the sun melting from its an overdose of plasma, wickedness in every drop of water, sinning adopted as normalcy, pervasive womb death everywhere, hustlers running out of drugs, alcohol and cigarrettes causing a furious luxury war, not enough makeup to hide all the women's tarnishing auras, dwarfed dreams becoming real, stale bread next to stale love, stolen hearts ripening in death throws. Yes, the end of the world had all the symptoms of depravity and raw hardship. No one wanted it to come, everyone wanted the current world to be saved even if it was and is bad, some went to churches hoping that membership would save them from the end of the world as we know it; only when the end of the world as we know it came, it wasn't what we expected at all.

It was different, so different that no one noticed it.

The Rein of Capitalism ended and I thought I was the only one that took noticed. I felt a celebration was immediately in order, I got a funny feeling all over my countenance, and I wanted to rush out and tell everyone and see them overjoyed at the event, “It happened in our life times!” What a joy. We did not have to wait, it happened now. But I went out into the streets screaming “Oh joy, Capitalism is dead, capitalism is dead, soul revival, the resurrection of feelings, the second coming of emotions, the heart rules, the passions won the cold war, the passions won the cold war.” But everyone just looked at me like one giant crazy plastic pickle walking around the farmers market on a bright Sunday day and way too yellow green.

I wondered if the children knew, they are so naturally intuitive they had to know, I checked. I asked the child in my head: “Is the world different today?” I got a happy face. Children will smile at anything, the world could have ended and they would smile at that, they don't know, they are purely feeling creatures, they just don't know.

I got a little shy about saying anything about it to anyone. Even Domaine, my adorable and insightful wife, would have held me crazy if I had said it, or so I thought, “The end of the world is upon us.” I did not say anything to her.

The spirits, which I have always trusted and which have told me and taught me many impressive things, were not talking either; they left, they were not talking to me, they were gone, gone, they were not within sight, they did not come out at 3 am, they did not rub themselves against me or go within me, not the good ones, not the bad ones, none came into my nights.

The world is empty of spirits, right now the world is empty of spirits, the world has surely ended then.

But you get into trouble when no one else notices what you notice. I pondered for a while: “Did anyone that went to see Napoleon Bonaparte being coronated Emperor Supremo know that they were witnessing the universal capitulation of monarchies?”

“Did the signatories of the Magna Carta know that they were saying goodnight to feudalism?”

“Did the Crucifiers of Christ realize that they had put paid on the Roman Empire?”

“Did those chopping away at the Berlin Wall, causing its collapse, have an inkling that they were collapsing the principal pillar of what America meant to the world?”

Fundamentally my question was: “Are the cornerstones, the pivot points, the metric tensors of history noticeable within the context of their times?”

“Did the French revolutionaries know that Bastille day marked the birth of The Republic?”

To be fair I doubt that the inventors of the wheel thought they were creating a revolution, we may not appreciate our times, we might be too much family to love our own accomplishments, the defeat of capitalism without any great bloodshed or notice ought not be a great surprise.

It has been an usual pattern of our times that there is less and less bloodshed during dramatic changes.

You cannot have watched Genghis's path through now China, or Napoleon's or Hitler's marches through the old world and dare say, “These were moderate fellows,” they were not. Their mark on history was brute and distinguishable from goodness without much of a moral quandary. But the candlelight empire, Britain, undid itself without much ado about it, they dwindled and sunk slowly into irrelevance, largely without the average Britton ever noticing it. Some bloody how within the British psyche there is still some kind of subconscious empire, the lack of blood in the demise, through cost cutting of their navy and of their colonies, seems to not have left a noticeable mark in their blocke. When ever they try to wake up from the dream of empire the “English” always somehow manage to think that because they are favorite brother with Uncle Sam, that somehow that means that they are still world dominators or some sort of thing like that. And this is so much true that they still sell themselves as cohorts to the world power, that they might whisper you wishes into Uncle Sam's ear, in his sleep, or so the rest of Europe thinks.

It doesn't matter, the world is over, I am running through the streets, my arms waving high “The world ended! The world has ended!” my friends call me crazy if you will, but Americanism and Englishnism, capitalism, consumerism and democracy are dead, dead!”

It will take sometime to sink into the mass national consciousness of every country on earth, after all there still appears to be money in the world although all the value has now been artificially manufactured and propped into a pedestal made of hay.

“Hey lucky people find your value.”

One of the key foundations of capitalism is that the value of a good or a service has to be genuine. That is the core foundation of the worth of capital and of its possible offspring profit; the value has to be real, appreciative over time, and negotiable via an unprincipled or principled third party.

The other principle value of capitalism is that all labor can be turned to money. That is that labor, work is convertible into a monetary value and that it can be stored and reused and exploited in such a manner.

Only problem is that when the value of labor or capital is artificially generated none of that is true and all of it becomes autonomously unsupportable, and nothing murder's capitalism more than dependancies. Capitalism's claim to independent resourcefulness gets neutered when there is any kind of social or governmental intervention.

If there were any hope for capitalism that time has cometh to pass. It has passed because there isn't anyone alive that can claim, after you save the capitalists, that there are any capitalists left. The capitulation of capitalism came when the capitalists proactively thought governmental intervention on their behalf and shamelessly took a bail out that favored them without any reagard to the implications. That they did not have the courage to say no, that is when they hanged themselves, that is when they surrendered capitalism into the hands of defeat.

When JP Morgan saved capitalism it was different, it was different because that was a capitalist saving the capitalists. They could save face then though there was some governmental intervention, but today, they cannot claim that government intervention is bad. The free hand has been chopped.

If Serverus can't save you no one else can.

However I think my friends and I have something to celebrate, that the end of a system came and went and hardly anyone noticed is a good thing. Not only does it show how useless it was but how worthless its profit was.

If the world economy can lose 40 trillion dollars in value and not suffer any dramatic emotional cataclysm the genuine value was never there in the first place.

Capitalism is done for, that implies many new and interesting things, we will not known what those will mean any more that those that made the transition from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism knew their fates; however it shall none the less offer new prospects for a greater good, a world consciousness, a more enlightened age, and greater awareness that we are not the prime objective of the universe but for our superlative arrogance.

And perhaps the greatest wisdom may yet come from a realization that there is nothing to save.

I will say no more as my antagonist is gone. As for my friends they might not know but they are aware.

Ricardo Correa

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Economic correction: ABOLISH THE STOCK MARKET!

I don't understand why no one has cometh forth with the logical correction to the current world's economic catastrophe. Here we are suffering the complete collapse of the capital infrastructure and instead of considering the abolition of Wall Streets everywhere governments are opting to finance its subsistence until it is able to again carry its own weight in gold.

Why would we want to save something that is not working and has proven inherently unstable? Since the Stock Market crash of 1929 less than 80 years have passed; and in between we have had other severe crisises such as the famed internet bubble burst and the Savings and Loan debacle to name but the top rated of them. And so how can we stand here today and say that there isn't something inherently wrong with the financial system, there is, there is something wrong with the system, it is obviously not working.

First of all we can all claim that the stock market is a necessity however it isn't. There was a time when there wasn't a stock market and most of humanity at least till the seventeenth hundreds, has actually financed itself and operated successfully without a functioning stock market. Some might argue that before the stock market existed the same mechanisms were in place but had not been formalized and that is very much a proper case to make; and more accurately it points out that there is no need for the stock market. Which is why here we must say that the stock market is more dangerous than any value it accrues.

The reason why the stock market is less beneficial than the value it accrues it's because the value that it accrues is not genuine value, sure at first that may have been the case, the initial stock market somewhere in Amsterdam probably dealt with genuine value, meaning that the investors had more or less a clear understanding of the possible accruals that would befall their investment. This is not because there was something inherently more honest in the character of the participants, those floating stocks and those investing in them, no they were probably suffering no greater virtue than their equivalent in the modern day. However the stock market was young, it was naive as youth is always naive and so discouragingly honest about its ways; and for that matter so were the investors, they were on a new venture together and this meant that the market had not yet created false expectations as it would later grandly do.

However the general propensity of any stock market is to bet on itself, a stock market is nothing more than a formalized gabling casino for companies and investors to bet on each others savvy. Anyone under the conception that the stock market is not a gambling institution would be wise to look at the market now. You can accumulate huge profits and huge losses but it is all based on calculated risk and you are betting that you can beat the house, or more accurately the house and you are both betting that you are going to win against the incalculable number of odds that besiege companies and investors. This is why investors constantly walk away with millions of dollars in loses and don't bother to expect someone to make it right, they know that it was a risk without a safety margin, they are aware that it was a risk they were willing to take.

National and international economic entities are willing to allow stock markets to exist because they realize that this is the only way to finance risky investment propositions that would otherwise not find capital to survive. The Internet was financed by lots of private capital that was lost when the Internet bubble collapsed but the Internet itself did not collapse; in fact the Internet has always been growing even after the Internet bubble went bust the Internet was growing and making millionaires everywhere, however many original investors lost grandly. The same took place with the Telecoms investments of the eighties, many of the original investors lost their shirts but overall the infrastructure that was built up is in used today much to the benefit of all.

On second thought when you think about the collapse of the mortgage industry it makes more sense to have a stock market, and in retrospect the Internet and the Telecoms investments were largely successful over generations of investors that is; so that the overall investment was sound though it took say three or four generations of investors for the profit capitalization to take effect. The same was true with the railroads, most of the investors that financed the tracks had to sell out before they made a profit. Stock markets start to make more sense if you don't look at them in terms of one time investors and start to measure the results over a few generations of investors. What that means is that an investment is not inherently of a nature to necessarily benefit the first generation of investors but rather best looked at as a more glacial investment that accrues its greatest benefits and value to intricate infrastructure projects or large scale enterprises. The stock markets makes sense over time and each generation of investors is sort of the guardian angel, of the moment, on watch till the day arrives when the investment matures to accrue a genuine success and profit.

This is why when you look at the stock market over time it has always performed well, it has always grown, yes it has had its abysmal performances but over time it has grown and blossomed riches from it. That brings us to the great mortgage investment crisis of today. Looked at it from a perspective of the immediacy of the moment it looks like a perfect description of a disaster. Over the last couple of decades the barriers to home ownership have been lowered because the risk associated with mortgages had been logistically diminished by the ability to pawn off the risk on someone else. If you owned a billion dollars in mortgages you could creatively repackage it into a mortgage baked security investment that someone else could purchase from you. The ability for financial entities to offload their mortgage liabilities gave them an incentive to continue adding new mortgages to their books; this created a downward market treasure that logically increased the potential number of mortgage loans. It thus became easier to buy a house because a greater number of, unusual, third party investors were helping the cash flow of first rate lenders to remain buoyant. In a sense what we were seeing was a mortgage investment binge, where foreign governments and local and foreign investors were willing to buy Susie's and Bill's mortgage in Kansas City and counted it as a futuristic asset.

As so many times happens the future failed to materialize the past's version of the future. we only need to go back to the eighties and nineties when homes were being built with all the networking wiring integrated into the walls so they would be ready as the networking home of the future. When wireless networking became the norm by the year 2001 all that walled in network cabling became a future wrongly fore casted. We now know that what they thought in the 1940s and 1950s about the year 2001 would mostly never materialize, their futuristic cars and houses could not have calculated what new materials and different life styles would conjure. In the same way in modern times it seemed right to invest in mortgages, generally not an unsafe investment, what no one could imagine is that the ability to sell mortgages to third party investors would create a huge pool of available loans so that new home owners with riskier credit habits would become eligible to own a house; and as a result it soon came to be that anyone could buy a house and make a good investment a bad investment.

The lure of home ownership is grandiose because it also offers the opportunity to get more credit, once you own a home the ability to get credit cards, second mortgages and instant cash is there for the taking, and people do just that. They get gobbled up by the ability to get instant credit cards and instant cash and of course no house is really a home till you add a second floor, tear out the backyard and remake it in your own image, or make a game room in the basement. As that happens the ability to pay the mortgage becomes strained, aside from the fact that you might have never been able to buy the home in the first place because you didn't rally merit it financially. The catastrophe grows from there.

But there again is another way to look at it, and it makes more sense if you look at it in longer term glacial cycles. Not many of those people would have owned a new home had the regulations not been eased so that mortgage liabilities could be repackaged and transfered to third parties, and in turn allow for the creative idea of sub prime mortgages which basically allowed anyone ignorant enough to take the risk to become a home owner while mildly unaware that their interest rates could double and triple depending on the economy. Moreover many investors that would have usually not invested in mortgage backed securities found themselves amiable to the idea thinking that they were buying safety margins by investing in assets that could be repossessed thus limiting their liabilities; a concept that as a whole was sound for it was based on the assumption that foreclosures would not become the norm; and when they did they turned mortgage holders into property owners of houses that they did not want with assets that could not be sold even at depreciated values.

We are witnessing something rather exquisite in these our times, the free market being unable to self correct proved that it could be bullish against reason and further proving that it does not have a cautious hand at the wheel or any self regulatory interests. Left to its own devices the free hand will always work to churn out the maximum potential of any investment market without much ado about the consequences to any and all.

Of course the very idea of a self regulating market is preposterous but at the same time that does not mean that the results are as bad as some would make them out to be. We have witnessed now first hand, in a clear and concise manner, in the span of no more than two decades what can happen when the freehand is left to its own devices. Now consider the results. First there are the investors that originally thought the whole idea of buying mortgage backed securities a good idea. They have all taken huge losses. These were investment houses, private and some public, the Chinese government may have up to 100 billion of its money in such investments, little towns in Iceland have put part of their portfolios on it, and an infinite set of investors that again may have never invested on the concept of a mortgage rather invested on the concept of mortgaged backed securities and all did lose their money as foreclosures exceeded expectations. What is interesting here is that these are a group of investors that actually entered a whole new creative investment infrastructure and so moved their capital to a new frontier and of course lost. Whereas normally these investors might have put the same money into General Electric or US Savings Bonds they turned to an investment that more directly affected the lives of everyday Americans. Thus the capital was redirected towards a riskier, less traditional client and therefore a more unpredictable market as a result we may have the largest redistribution of wealth ever in the history of The United States, and the world for this was a global investment tree.

At the other end of the spectrum is the consumer, all those persons that bought houses and had dreams of owning a home or of being more accepted as true middle class citizens. Many that could not afford it bought homes and for the first time got an inkling of the responsibilities, duties and economic dynamics that revolve around the concept of owning property. Some of those, a great number perhaps will keep their houses, either helped by relatives, the mortgage company, the local bank or some form of government assistance. As such those that never had a home have gotten an expensive education and those that managed to keep their home, whereas otherwise they might never have owned one, are now up one rung on the ladder to a stable middle class caricature.

In a sense what we have just witnessed was rather beneficial to the global economy because the capital wealth violated all of the possible processes for normal capital transference between individuals and entities and between government and individuals; a general bypass has been instituted where now the capital is going to get to where it needs to go fast and pronto. However that also implies that the capital itself has breached the wall of standard operating procedures within Wall Street and that means that the usual parties have not immediately benefited or received payment in kind for their investments.

Now aside from the obvious redistribution of wealth which will make a great academic study in a decade or two, we also have the other calamity, governments everywhere have had to redirect taxpayers money to guarantee the life of their banks and financial institutions as well as the stock markets of the world. England for instance, has had to guarantee the moneys of its compatriots in Iceland, that is an amazing accomplishment, to get a self centered England to accept external liabilities and to insure them for the sake of stabilizing its economy in relationship to Iceland of all places. And of course they have had to Nationalize their two most important banks so that kind of writes an epitaph for the glorious accomplishments of Margaret Thacher and Tony Blair. As Lady Thacher thought to create a freer market by moving more to the right than was right; and Tony Blair sort of gets banged all over the place as his centrist policies have now been turned entirely to the Left, left obliged. You see now the Government of England is more like the rest of Europe, or as the French might put it now, “Today England is more like the rest of us. And finally none of us can grasp the immensity and drastic change of the last few weeks as evidenced by the fact of a joint international action by major central banks to join in an unprecedented synchronized lowering of interest rates. Toto we are not in Kansas anymore.

In America the problem is more fascinating still, the home of capitalism has had to financed itself by selling securities to the communist Chinese and now it has to spend a trillion dollars of tax payers money shoring up the crisis while Russians can happily bargain shop the world with their 500 billion dollar surplus. And all this happened under a Republican administration; and to add to the irony it was the Democrats that fought hard to pass the bailout bill as proposed by a lame duck president and yet the bill lost on the first called vote thanks to the elephants in the house. Regardless, by default, the American government now owns Wall Street. There is no other way to look at it, the trillion dollars is only part of the investment, there is probably another half a trillion that will be invested via back end alleys to maintain confidence in the economy such as the 25 billion that has already been promised to the national car industry. So the entire system of capitalism has shown that it is unsound and that it needs constant government assistance in order to correct its calumnious vices.

Further how much capitalism can there be left if the government becomes the number one employer and consumer in the nation as is already the case?

But take that another way and this is the good side. We could save capitalism by simply eliminating the stock markets. Stock markets have one interesting value, they create an environment where capitalists can meet with entrepreneurs, they are a central plaza for investors, you want to invest you go into the stock market, instantly you will have access to a long list of companies that are searching for investment. The Stock Market most importantly creates liquidity in the investment process and reduces the investment cycle and by doing so also reduces risk. Money in any guise hates to stay still, the fact that one investor can sell his shares to another investor via a centralized depository is of great value. This allows for savvy investors to quickly best determine where there money is better spent, and it allows for a more evident value recognition based on demand. The assumption is that the hoards cannot be wrong, if everyone is investing in say, Google, they must be right. Still the point is that for the managing of investment capital, ease of capital flow, through a complex tier of investment layers, is essential and that is the genuine reason why stock markets exists and why they make sense.

However that very fluidity of investment also becomes the greatest risk opportunity within the constrains of the market. If investors can change their mind about a stock and sell it at will within a moments notice, instead of creating a more mature and sound market that creates a more volatile market because the short term investor is not interested in long term outcomes; and so what the ease of interchange does is create a rather whimsical market that is steered by the short term investor. The difference between a long term investor and a short term investor is that one is interested in the maturing process that companies go through to accrue the greatest value without having to transfer the initial investment to other investment ventures. The short term investor is only interested in accruing an immediate value by capitalizing on the fluctuations of the market however minute they may be. Thus they profit from instability by a process of increasing gain by selling and buying as if they were walking through the water by hoping rocks, sometimes doubling backwards to go maintain a forward perspective. This invariably, in the large scaling of the process, will destabilize the markets, however its effects are greatly shored up by the steady might of long term investors.

If we abolish the stock market the corrective is instant, without a stock market short term investment becomes an impossibility because without a central process for exchange capital flows will decrease liquidity.

What this means is that no investor would be allowed to go through a third party so as to invest their capital. All investors will have to go directly to the company or entrepreneur that they want to invest in and they will have to then decide if they want to invest based on the particular company strategy. This will mean that they are least likely to be short term investors, this is because they have to manually workout the value of the company, they have to negotiate the terms of the investment with that company, and even if these values are standardized they will still require more time than me going online right now and purchasing ten thousand shares of Google stock. My transaction is complex but not that difficult to execute, and frankly I don't know what Google's real strategy is other than the gathering of the worlds information, but the stock market allows me to invest without my being aware of the intricacies of the stock, whereas if I had to go directly to Google and convince them to take my money, which is pretty much as it sits right now, then it would make a greater degree of procedural detail that would make it both more participatory and also more difficult to get out of the investment; as you would have to negotiate your own terms for the purchase and sale of your investment.

Google is a perfect example of a company that is currently overvalued by any measure of the imagination. I am by the way a fan of the Google Brotherhood but the problem is that their value is pure speculation, if you look at Google today, after the free markets have just collapsed, you can no longer say that just because it looks good and it feels good it is a good investment. In the case of Google imagine that they now have so many investors believing their game plan that they have to execute but for all intends and purposes Capitalism may have ended as an economic engine when the US senate voted to pass the 700 billion dollar bailout package and it is under that guise that Google has to be judged. It's difficult to see how Capitalism could survive such massive amounts of government investment and sustain a fighting chance as a free and unadulterated market glad-handler. You have to consider the implications, if the consumer is not the principal means by which companies employ themselves in their particular business but rather do so through government bail outs of their obviously unsustainable business models, then it stands to reason that showing people the right place to shop via Google search, with uncanny accuracy, will still not yield any serious Google dollars returns to their respective clients. Now you might say but Google is still a sound investment. And I would retort that if investors, financiers and bankers are only in business because they have been bailed out by the government then it stands to reason that your job and my job are also being secured by the government, making any assumption of a free economy ludicrous and thus making Google stock highly suspect.

Thus what this means is that Google being a good investment has been swindle by false speculation about its natural capacity to deliver a return on investment; the natural capacity is just not there, it is only there as speculation which is what drives the price of Google stock. As such it has to at some point collapse, basically around the time that investors realize that Google has mastered search engines but little else. When you think of Google you think of a search engine, what else can Google do for you? It does not produce any information of significant value, it does own a liability in huge data centers that could at any time become useless warehouses of redundant data, as none of the data that Google snakes out of the Internet is Google property, the data is in the cloud at large and it is equally replicated for search criteria by the likes of Yahoo, Amazon and Microsoft to name but a few.

The problem is not however with Google, the problem is with the stock market that allows for such kind of speculation, so take the stock market out of it which in all truth is merely an arbitrage engine that adds very little value to the transactions it generates for the transactions are all speculative, they may never accrue any genuine value, or as happens it most cases, they may generate values that are bought and sold and profited from without the genuine product or value ever being produced. The stock market fundamentally allows for hypothetical values to be traded, that is the core of its business process, to permit entities to exchange equity on perceived values under the assumption that eventually those values are hammered out by a genuine, real world, business transaction. It is in this way that companies can have three, four, seven, one hundred or hundreds of thousand of times their real market value in stocks.

This would not be a problem if the speculating didn't become exponential without a cap. If there were a regulation that said that a company's stock market value could not exceed three times its gross earnings, or three times its capitalized assets, or three times its profits, then you would have a more real market valuation and a more clear headed investment process. But then who are we to say what a company is worth, if a company like Google can convince investors that it is worth hundreds of times its gross asset value. Who are we to say that that value is not real, specially so if Google continues to grow value in both the perceived and the real world scenarios?

Well the answer to that is simple, markets are not rational creatures they are irrational creatures, and are therefore more subject to err than to be right. The time is then ripe to abolish the stock market and to replace it with something more mundane, raw company stock. Each company has the ability to say what it is worth, something that can easily be determined not by potential sales, not by perceived value but by real asset and sales figures, what do you have on hand, and how much of it can you sell this year. It is that simple, based on that formula, you would still have a stock market type environment but without a stock market each investor would have to go directly to each company and bargain the purchase of the stock with them directly and regardless of potential whimsical fortune all market based capitalizations would be based on a maximum of three times asset and sales, assets and profit figures. Now if you think that is tightening the potential value of companies ask yourself how many companies are capable of growing 300 percent? Most companies are only capable of growing 300 percent their first year of business, which is not saying much, after that most companies never manage more than a meager stock market average of 15% growth. That's the reality.

That aside the most relevant change here is that there would be no speculative market, companies would not be able to capitalize via a third party entity so all of their transactions will be managed internally and as a result, will have very little speculative value; this is because it is much harder for an individual entity to increase its own worth than it is for a series of third party financial institutions to create a greater perception of wealth accrual potential. This is particularly so because those that benefit from the actual transactions of share trading have no other means of value accrual than the very transaction. And there is the inherent problem in the stock market, it is the transactions that matter and not the companies, there is no loyalty to companies, products and customers, there is only a value based on the transactions exchanged, remunerated, sold and resold, it is the volume of the transactions which accrues value, not the actual business of business.

The loss of the stock market will cause the economy to lose many jobs and businesses that are based on the slightest of bubble value accruals, that is jobs that are not real regardless of how we look at them, jobs that mislead value instead of accrue it, and as a whole the market would grow at a much slower pace, and you would see companies potential stifled by lack of investments because the only way that they could grow value in their internal stock is to genuinely grow their business.

Of course any action calling for the end of stock markets might just as well be calling for the end of capitalism. A call that has probably already been dealt by the current internal destruction of capitalism by government interference, and more with the support of Wall Street capitalists begging for government handouts. In other words, capitalism's Berlin Wall has smashed Wall Street from within, it is no small amount of irony that the leader of the largest bailout in history, the secretary of the treasury is a wall street lifer from the King of investment banks Goldman Sachs.

The current bail out will probably reach two trillion by the time you add up all the international shoring up that is currently taking place throughout all the major economic zones. Further once you have such huge amounts of artificial investment into a false economic model there is no telling how much hemorrhaging there will yet be to do. After all we have lost the free hand of capitalism and we are now under the bureaucratic hand of government that has a proven anachronistic corrective.

I therefore take no credit for something that has already been done, the destruction of the free market by no lesser free marketer pamphleteer than the American government and all because it lost all faith in market forces, or more accurately because it was frightened into action by them.

Ricardo Correa

Monday, September 08, 2008

Individualism = human energy disruptor

Individualism hasn’t been always with us nor will it be long with us in the annals of the universe it is a phase that comes and goes but has no fundamental basis to sustain an individual existence. Simply put individualism doesn’t exist any more than does freedom of speech but both are very dear to the human imagination as it conceptualizes a perfect version of itself that is capable of putting its personalized stamp within universe.

The idea of individualism can be said to be an endemic part of the human consciousness but that does not mean that it is real, genuine and indestructible. We can say it is endemic to our consciousness, and for that matter to all ergio (emotive) type consciousness, meaning emotive consciousness, because it arises from the disruption of essence wholeness or more accurately the apparent disruption of essence wholeness, as wholeness of essence cannot be disrupted. It is therefore right to say that individualism is as apparently genuine as the genuiness of a disruption in essence wholeness may appear.

Without needing to devolved to the most base standards of an essence wholeness as promulgated before time and space disruptions enter into play, we can say with absolute certainty that all beings are emotive and that their principal essence as it manifest itself in the universe is an identifiable emotive principle; you must sense feeling-being wherever the essence of an emotive being is as one of the same; a feeling we measure starting at the lowest possible quotient of emotion an ergio unit. A bite smaller than a Planck length, as it is not fundamentally dependant on time and space; this is because all fundamental essence types have no sense of time nor space, in fact time and space are an enigma to emotive essence. The fact that mathematicians have, with their formulae, detected that there really isn’t any time and therefore there really isn’t any space only proves that mathematicians are also emotive beings that have not successfully managed their logical escape from emotion.

The fact that there isn’t any time nor space means also that somehow all things are as one even if their perceptions do not acknowledge or allow for a divisible perception. Even if we were to kindly allow for the fact that mathematicians could be wrong, that the mathematics was giving them a wrong result one could still formulate that any universe, by its very conceptualization and realization, has felt all of its parts and therefore its wholeness is based on the symmetry of its parts, a symmetry that can only be obtained by sameness of origins and an absolute simmering of all genuine contradictions. That is to say that the universe as universe doesn’t exist without any and all of the parts that comprise it, the universe is encapsulated as universe only through the tale of aggregation told, but the story itself is unworthy of telling without the wholeness of universe.

None of the parts of the universe make sense by themselves; Atoms, Sun, Moon, Solar Systems and even galaxies are pointless without the conceptualizations of a universe. And the reverse is also true, the universe does not make sense without black holes and quasars and super novas. The relationship continues to invert the Macro and Micro worlds into an infinity of the other; for the universe is not only infinite in length and width and height and breath, it is infinite in the opposite direction into the infinitesimally small, the smallest part of the universe, the lowest possible quotient of energy as it implodes does not have a finite absolute point nor an absolute zero, no. Absolute zero is merely where observation ends, no different than the macrocosm where the furthest reaches of the universe hitherto end where observation ends.

But it would be folly to say that the universe is as wide as perception and more folly to say that the universe stops being at absolute zero, where energy is naught, no universe beyond that becomes an absurd naught. Why it would be difficult to accept for many obvious reasons, one being that perception dominates that assumption and so therefore substantiates its own limitation, no one has ever championed a universe based purely on perception though I grant you that scientists have done their damnedest to say that only what they know and therefore everything else has to prove itself worthy of empirical documentation; I offer that purely rational creatures serve up their own mortality rating. Regardless the point is that infinity runs in any general direction of the universe be it inward or outward or multidimensional and there is no end to that. And there is no end to that because there is no time nor space which is where energy resides but I say there is a ciphers energy beyond the scope of energy.

Now picture yourself in a universe without time and space, there would not be any individualism there because everything would very much be the same thing over and over again to the point of absolute boredom which is precisely why most people are against a world of sameness and why most people prefer to marry their opposites and like to think of themselves as different from everyone else. This is true as long as you don’t closely examine their values and ideals which tend to rhyme with those that they marry and that they harbor in friendship.

The idea that the universe would be boring if we were all the same is of course false, it would not be any more boring than it already is because we are already all the same. The fact that we do not acknowledge our sameness does not eliminate the fact of it. Our diversity is based on ignorance of one another; and our originality is based on our inability to realize the interconnectedness of things. You would not dream of driving a Ferrari if you could not show it off, nor would a Ferrari make any sense outside of social status, nor would the designers and mechanics of Ferraris make sense in a world all to themselves, they make sense in the greater context and the context makes it associative, that is similar if not identical, when a Ferrari is bought it certifies its lack of individual appeal and instead certifies its social appeal, the more Ferraris that are sold the lesser its uniqueness and since Ferraris are not manufactured in mass number one must measured their mass appeal, which is, as you well know, huge; and so there you have a car built more for mass appeal than for mass purchasing though its value is rightly commensurate to its mass appeal.

Individuality if taken to its logical conclusion has no value what so ever, its value its entirely based on perception, Very much like the French and the British before them 350 million Americans feel freer than the rest of the world, 350 million Americans feel independent of one another, 350 million Americans feel that they live in the best nation in the world and they believe that it is such a model of Justice, Freedom, Economics and Governance that they want the whole world to be just like that and so they admirably embark to proselytize and enforce that view throughout the rest of the world; and this they do as religious evangelists, traveling tourists, musicians, artists, entrepreneurs, business people, journalists, novelists all focused on selling the American way of life as the succinct model of perfection for the rest of the world, that is individualism and freedom en mass at work.

There is of course no individualism in mass acts. If I do something original and everyone else starts doing it too it not only ceases to be original but rather it also proves that it never was original in the first place. Common wants and needs and dreams and desires are not unique to any given civilization that has made its mark!

If there has ever been a true individual or an original idea then you and I have not known it and will never know it. This is because in order for an individual to exist esh has to be part of a tribe to thrive. That is to say that the most unique things would be the most disconnected things from everything else and therefore they would not acquire recognition and perish thusly.

The genius of Einstein does not make any sense without the entire scientific community and the world at large to acknowledge it and recreate it. We must be grateful that Einstein never intellectualize the property of Relativity; but then realistically it would not have made any sense either for when property is intellectualized and accredited to a single source you have to deny all of its heritage or more accurately its heritage goes unpaid. Relativity is a product of humanity Eistein was just the fellow that summarized it for us all to understand it.

Individualism as applied in modern life is ever more suspect as commercialization exploits what we have in common, it is because marketers can divine a common ground for their products, candidates and services that they are successful; and the more successful the more they step and step and stampede trample down the notion of individualism. We are not made to think the same but we think the same. Given the choice to be common or unique and different most people prefer to be common, it is not only easier but it also means that you are going to like most things on offering.

Individualism doesn’t exist. It is instead a divider, the idea is, it divides us from the ability to work together as one for a common purpose.

Each nation in this world, I think there are 196 of them, each nation in this world represents one fundamental individual hagiography combined into a nationalistic package, each nation represents an individual will that has contrived to substantiate itself patriotically and has successfully projected its civic mindedness according to shared cultural, economic, wellbeing and religious values; each nation is as closed to an individualist absolute as one can get, and any one person represented under that flag and living under its enforceable geography is part of the individualized national psyche it projects into the community of nations we call world. That is to say that the common belief in the American dream, free markets, democracy, Christian morality, protestant work ethic, is a shared belief agglomerated into a nation-state.

These individual-nations then divine to war against one another for world resources because they see each other as competing against one another for vital resources such as coal, gold, gas, livestock, farmland, water, labor, etc. And this is why there are now at least 7 different space exploration programs in our world today, because no one sees the shared interest humanity has at stake here, and so you could argue, and it is the argument I make that we are losing human energy through repetitive, redundant efforts such as the space program or idiotic efforts to abolish one another all due to our false sense of nationalism-individualism and our lack of awareness at the shared and codependent experience that is existence. Imagine if instead of 7 nations working to build a separate space program there was only one space program to which all nations contributed? Does it seem silly to you or possible? If it seems impossible it is your individualism talking, “It will never work.” And that’s you building mental barriers that become real from shared opinions; after all individualism is a shared experience that denies community.

The amount of human effort and energy that has been dedicated to an individualized framework of existence has detracted from the benefits and true potential of our combined humanity as one. This is not a view that has escaped the business world. Businesses, because they have been allowed unfettered development see the benefits of globalization and integration because they realize that they can do so much more and reach their fullest market potential no doubt in a globalize economy. The Enterprise has now become the champion of globalization, in other words the single most massive attack on individualism comes from the world’s top 1000 companies that all correctly grasp that there is only one, 1 market, not many markets, not many consumers, one market and one consumer.

An idealists business person wants to avoid business regulation and local laws and local think and they want to increase the flexibility of labor so that their cost structures are globally sound; they want to eliminate variances in cross border regulation and taxation so that their goods can flow freely from one end of the earth to another on an even keel; this is not so crazy, even for a bad reason it is not so crazy; sure they want to sell and profit from bigger and larger markets but their intent is actually harmonizing the world, the more you integrate economies the less individualism the less conflict that arises from tribal differentiation, and the greater the revenues no doubt; but the point is that businesses all over the world are realizing that catering to national agendas has little to show for returns on investment. Further businesses are realizing that products are not national goods but international goods; they don’t want to say it is made in America or China, businesses want to manufacture where it is most convenient, they are not nationalistic they are realists!

Monopolies are a logical by product of the internalization of business models, the largest corporations are able to assimilate labor energy with greater ease and because their focused is concentrated in a single-minded philosophy of business principles they are able to out-compete smaller operations and swallow them whole.

By internationalizing labor and its constructs businesses are replenishing the concept of a singular humanity and one world think. This of course is against the nature of politicians which need to keep the world nationalistic and divided, fortunately businesses have been in control of the show and are far wiser for it and so they are indeed running countries into globalize submission because in the end governments have to believe in economy and jobs as they have to generate taxes to maintain the infrastructure of nations and their political careers. The increasing need for flexible labor includes in it the mobility of labor, labor will have to be able to migrate at will for its own benefit and the to the benefit of the conglomerates; and as such the time must come when you will be able to live anywhere without having to ask permission from some local official, somewhere there is a movement arising for the freeing of all peoples to have the substantive right to live and work wherever they please, regardless of geography. That movement however has a preconceptual requirement: we must not think of home as our family, town, or our nation but home must be our world, Earth.

Thus business today, and we must include world religions too as they are monopolies, today these two are the biggest enemies not only to national and cultural concepts of personal identity but also to family. As businesses and faiths explode into the mega church of world they will find that they need a more politically correct labor force or worshiper base which implies a self void of its own opinions and values, a self that can be retrained at will, a flexible individual that brings about a kill of the individual force and if you kill the individual you kill the number one proper upper stage of individualism in the world today, the family. The one that keeps on telling you that “you are special and unique and different from your fellow neighbor” much to the detriment of your humanity.

No one of course is truly special, no baby is better than any other baby, yes preferences are made, and like we bet on horses when the babies fall out and get going in the rat race we all start placing our bets and backing those closest to us, those that identify with the personalized “I”; but that personalization could happen under any other nationality if we are placed there by chance or destiny.

The human condition is a generic condition, the emotional beings that inhabit this earth the whale and the dolphin and the monkey, etc, are by nature like the rest of us, that is to say that they come from the same essence being that brings about existence, there is not a lot of margin for originality in that, two degrees in any direction outside the solar system and you can stop being a whale or a human. What allows our existence is a cosmic microclimate of emotions that are very narrow minded in scope and that in turn make us myopic observers that see mostly self-interest and out of that self-interest is born the conclusion of our Individualism!

The conclusion is wrong, individuality does not exist, it is a self centered expression from a being that has lost direction in the context of existence, through time and space individualism grows because we have given it an extended value due to a felt but unreal isolation, we do not think as a group we think as individuals, to think as a group we join systems which are external from us and that divert our attention from a fundamental emotive that while dangerously powerful and chaotic, as it has no point of reference other than a moment, is indeed our only hope of ever understanding the true nature of our being; an eternal emotive core that has no disparate parts, that cannot talk or live outside of itself and when it enters time and space starts to live and talk as caused by an abysmal indifference from matter to its subject-being.

If humanity learns to think as one, without fearing the loss of identity that is both false and useless, then the energy of combined minds based on emotive essence produce a harmony of energy that could do many, today, unimaginable things, amazing things, things like levitation and telepathy are possible only when beings synchronize as one; like twins we are all the same but individualism has tripped our humanity, and has relegated us into a raw game of survival, where we see only immediate interest without working for the greater good of all.

As a source of unfeeling energy Individualism can challenge the material world but since the creatures that use it are emotive beings every move they make with it has a pyrrhic toll; for it is individualism that causes us to play games against one another, it is individualism that pits us into competition voiding us of the ability to work as one humanity in one world for a common cause. Life.

Ricardo Correa

Saturday, February 23, 2008


It is time to put my prophetic talents to the test on the upcoming election, while it is too difficult to say who in particular might win, why even professional pundits refuse to put themselves out to venture a specific guess on one particular candidate, I am going to be bold and daring as I don’t have a reputation on the line.

First we must interpose some givens to the calculation, one it is not a two party system that we are analyzing, inherently the United States only has one party that is divided into a liberal and a conservative wing, the Democrats and the Republicans are thus part of the same idealistic structure executing predefined characteristic aspects based on a scaling left or right tendency.

As a rule of thumb we have observed that the Democrats tend to remain to the left of the political scale while the Republicans tend to be on the right wing of it. The two parties would have us believe that they offer a full spectrum to satisfy and guide our diplomatic and political needs. The assumption suffices to make it difficult for any third parties, i.e the Libertarians, greens, etc, from acquiring a significant hold within the Washington structure, though it is not necessarily impossible for another party to enter into the political arena, as was the case when the Republican party entered Washington, however it is interesting to note that the Republicans succeeded not in adding another party but in supplanting the Wigs thus proving amply that the political infrastructure of Washington at least as far back as the American Civil War, was already unable to carry the weight of three parties and so silently defaulted and organized itself under the dichotomy of the Democrats and Republicans.

That assumption will seem ludicrous to most people ask a conservative “What do they have in common with a Liberal?” and the reply will come back to instant animosity, they will find it difficult to explain similarities, they will find it necessary to make the Democrats communist and foreign sympathizers, and launch them off the patriotic branch as traitors. The reply will not be any different from a Liberal; the conservatives will always be uptight, xenophobic, money grabbers of uncaring magnitudes. However both parties are undoubtedly linked as one.

We have observed the Clintonesque revolution which was actually when the party of the left went way towards the center if not outright trespassed into Right wing mythology, rule from the center, the left can be business and labor union friendly ambidextrously, it could be equally against excess regulation and Monopoly friendly towards first rate job producers and first rate exporters such as Microsoft.

The revolution did not just happen in such context at a national level, it was visible from the island across the pacific where Tony Blair was able to denude the Tory’s of all pride by displaying a natural friendliness towards conservative economic values while running a savory economy as managed by his star Mr. Brown. It would be difficult to discern valuable differences between the Tories and Labor when the Tony/Brown team was executing, to the point that one could dare egregiously state that from the side lines some Tories not so far from center approved of the Tony and Brown show.

Finally nothing could demonstrate better how far the British Prime Minister had gone over the conservative wall than his support and active lobbying for President Bush’s Iraq war project II. Tony’s indefatigable sale of the war reached comic proportions, against the British peoples and even against the strong on defense Tory’s, some which became doves when faced with a hawkish Labor Prime Minister.

Of course Tony Blair was not setting a precedent when he opted to use conservative values to blur party lines and thus confuse everyone into inaction while Tory and Labor alike fuddle around figuring which PM eject-system’s cogs and pullies to yank. It was Disraeli, perhaps the brightest man to ever rule Britain, while less charming than Sir Winston he, Disraeli was able to judo master his opposition into disrepair with their own arguments. And while I am not going to prove it here, it may well be that Disraeli was the most callous and cunning liberal that ever existed, regardless he did an spectacular job as a Tory Leader, something which still baffles my mind to no end; except for the obvious, once the Tory’s figured that they had a liberal usurper within the clan and they realized that he could win elections, they figured it was better to be the party in power under the leadership of a impostor than to be ruled by the opposing party in any guise.

The point is that while the concept of Liberal and Conservative values have been segmented into stark contrast to the benefit of a chained bicameral party structure that does not mean that they don’t share each others values nor that those values are not to the benefit of their constituency and what is most relevant, what fuels the parties are the voters and they come from the same pool, regardless of class, ethnicity and generation the voters are one amorphous mass, they must all be lured to vote so that the differences and tendencies of the national psyche may be discerned.

Which means that it is the voters that will decide the 2008 election for the United States of America will ultimately decide where the country’s psyche is as regards to the threat environment, economic prospects, social and moral, etc… consciousness. But that leads directly to the prospect choices and how they will stand out from the pack, even in a state of representative government the voters will decide all outcomes.

While all of that explanation may seem out of context it squarely sets responsibility upon each individual voter to state their position and to allow them to participate in the intricate meshing of all varying political positions to be silently recombined into a single possible candidate option that will satisfy the national psyche. Yes, it is a lot of responsibility placed on one by the many, and yes it probably is primitive that we still believe in the concept of one decision maker leading the pack and they having ultimate power over all, and we are thus to patriotically and blindly follow after executing only one vote of trust.

But there is one thing we must take into consideration despite of what the pundits will have you believe the truth is that we do not formulate our opinions overnight, or even in a matter of two year long campaigns, each individual voter is influenced by an infinite set of factors, some radical some not so radical and oddly some not so of this world, so while campaigns can be rather interesting and adrenalin filled they are only there not so much to acquire a following but rather to spit out the candidate that will best spit out the desires and wants of the mass psyches. In a sense it is a campaign for the hearts and minds but in reality the minds and hearts are already predefined by the given number of circumstances and happenings that have already molded the posterity of the national psyche. In that context each candidate is not so much formulating a platform but rather catering to the platform that the mass national psyche has rendered over decades of experiences.

When we look at elections we must also take into consideration the epoch effect, this is not something that can be taken lightly even as it takes centuries to accumulate its effects, it is glacial dynamic and so change is hardly perceptible but eventually there is enough pressure in any given direction to cause your occasional significant tectonic plate shift, in this case we are of course referring to the politics and the accidents that accompany such into a demolition of old into new or old-new political operational models.

Charting the tumultuous of these events is not a simple thing to do and we are not going to do it here, we are instead going to prophesy as that allows us to be wrong in every way and still carry forward a reputation. First the guiding post of the prophesy, we are going to say that “there is currently a movement silently cresting that will cause havoc throughout the consumer based economies and ripple outwards into all other economies in so far and so impact full as they are economically internationally connected. Yes those with the least to lose will be those that have not made it into the international economic stage or/and those, ironically, that have been sanctioned, and thus kept forcefully out of the economic grid.”

That is the first aspect of the prediction we are also going to say that the time frame for it to eventuate is imminent, meaning that many of those that read this will witness the prophesy here within.

Now on to the election of 2008, which may or may not be truly a desirable post to be in. It is herewith believed that the election will be interesting from a historical point of view as it will not be the usual overseen of the superpower and policing enforcement of all of its policies world wide, instead it will be more that management of a severe downturn of affairs; this we mean that even if the hemorrhaging of economy doesn’t overtly manifest itself there will still be a substantial undertow that will drain and devastate entire sectors of the economy bringing necessary protectionisms to an overbearing dimension that will cause more harm than good and cause fanatical oscillations throughout the land with nationalistic and international consequences.

No one wants to be a prophet of doom not only because there have been so many failed prophets of doom but also because no one likes the bad news and so will disdain the prophet for it; but there are times when the burgeoning dimensions touch the prophet in such a way that they mandate telling even if it is merely heart burn. And so we proceed, “The election will be won that best represents the times pending.”

We have a precedent of a woman in Argentina winning the election so we can say with some certainty that there could be a trend towards female rulers developing, thus while everyone will be impressed with an American female president it certainly will not be the first female president of the Americans much less so of the world; we could thus rebuff the claim accordingly.

Currently there is also a trend in the Americas to lean to the left, though the Left is not sure what to make of that because it is still recovering from winning at politics with business, defense, religion friendly politics and by sidestepping traditional social and union concerns. Still we have seen how Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil have elected leaders to the left of the democrats, so there is some form of developing pattern there but we are going to ignore it, instead we are going to use the most difficult gauging parameter possible, the glacial change meter.

“The time has cometh for glacial change drama; people and times will bring about a cataclysm through the urgings of innerving energetic movements in the world political psyche, we are further going to brand ourselves heretics by saying that politics is an accident and not a natural institution, in philosophical terms an accident is something you can do without because it is not part of your pure essence, your eyes are blue, your blood is red, your pretty, but those are accidents of your being, you are none of those things, above those things is your soul, your soul is what energizes your existence, your body, even your body is an accident of your soul, something that happens because your soul enters the world, and here we are saying that when you enter the world your communication with others breaks down, chatters, and the fragments try to realign and communicate again, they start talking and signing contracts and politics arises such is the reproach to one’s and another’s soul. Politics is an institution but it is not natural, entire societies, civilizations, cultures and peoples can live without politics.”

Everyone is of course expecting the democratic party to win the election, Bush is such a stark contrast and so maligned by his handling of the war and his fervent isolationists policies that one does not have to go far to assume that he has lost the election for the Republicans. But that would be too simplistic of analysis, there is ample evidence that the Republicans could win the election again, after all there is a lot of pent up Anger in the American psyche, the American people feel cheated, they think the United Nations and the World bank are using America while employing and helping American batchers. They feel that the European union forgot how it got its start and is now becoming a competitor, so much so that American politicians go out of their way to fragment the EU alliance by catering to British dissent. And then there are those Muslims, no matter how often Americans sacrifice their lives to give them the right to vote and allow their women to drive and to cover their faces with Revlon instead of cloth, they are rebuffed, and then a jihad is declared against them with such furor that one cannot understand how their number one customer for oil can be so ill treated. But even with the plausibility of these arguments the reality is that Bush got reelected even as he had failed not because anyone thought he could fix the mess he got the nation into but rather because he continued to truly express America’s discombobulated anger over foreign disdain for American values and form of governance thus a conservative court overruled democracy, in an election, when it counted.

I put this in a separate paragraph intentionally, the supreme court did not elect a president that wasn’t desired by the national psyche, had there been a coin toss the results would have been the same, the race was close because the nation was jittery and confused, but it leaned on the side of the irrational, “react, react, lets not be reasonable, we are tired of being reasonable.” Gore would have been reasonable because he is afraid of emotion which is why he intellectualizes presuming that what you can know cannot bite you in the ass; Gore was too reasonable, he would have left volumes of national pent up angst unrepresented, given the choice the nation decided to vent via the junk yard dog that could not tell friend from foe.

The question is: “Is the nation willing to endure one more republican?” The answer is as simplistic as it needs be, “No.”

Regardless of how emotional Americans can be at heart they are more pragmatic and reasonable, they are afraid of runaway power, they want power to be controlled because they are afraid of how power corrupts and may then wrecks havoc upon the mass, for the most part the two party system has been the biggest check and balance against power mongers, and it is highly doubtful that Americans feel that they can allow the war prone party to rule for another four, the political propensity should lean away from the Republicans because of chance or due to the natural pendulum of political movements, or most likely because it just does not make sense anymore; the rampage period has come to a close.

We can eliminate Bush, and we can eliminate Rudy from the equation, I like Rudy, he seems to be a charming enough fellow, he could carry on the Bush legacy, his human factor is high for he has ample flaws and, marketing wise, is willing to admit to it, but he has that little bit of: “I love myself more than I love you.” And I think we will all have a problem with that.

Thompson, his tired, he doesn’t have a plan for the rest of his life so he decided to run fro president as if it was on the list of: “What do I do next?” Aside from that there is nothing original about that and presidents do not win elections because their wife’s are more competent.

I think we are all aware that the truth talking candidate has a truth talking candidacy but nothing else and in the real world it does not matter if you were proved your patriot soul by being in a Vietnamese jail because you went there to kill them, there has to be more than that, such as policy other than defense, there has to be an international and an economic policy, besides patriotism is becoming a liability and not an asset in an advancing world economy and freer labor flows. Sorry Senator McCain but unlike you we are all not still fighting from the perspective of Vietnam, this in no way ought lessen your suffering or sacrifice, we are just dealing with European, Russian, Asian economic markets that have nothing to do with weather we like our own country.

We could go down the endless row of republican candidates and you can argue that it is pointless; no one is going to win because the republicans are going to lose. We can then examine Obama the charming fellow coming almost out of nowhere to capture serious attention but equally proving that a charmed front can be subdued through substance. Yes there is something not there about his approach, he didn’t read enough, he forgot that charming can be deadly if ennobled with a real agenda, instead he allowed Hilary to prove that whatever she lacks in charmed she makes up by being prepared and able. This could be an argument for competence, the American people have had enough incompetence from their President, they are ready for someone who is going to mend fences and build relationships with the international community while keeping a strong sense of defense, there is something mighty and righteous about Hilary Clinton, she doesn’t seem to be a push over, and she certainly has had to battle, sometimes with her hands tied behind her back as when she was first lady, and others with the full arsenal of the senate in hand and no one can say that winning a New York senate seat is easy, she did it. Of course some will say she is riding on the coat tails of her husbands supreme political capital as he is a master at the craft of diplomacy, frankly I still don’t know if there is such a thing as Clinton doctrine but if there is it is probably I am happy with the way things are but sometimes bad things make me cry, I feel a lot.

Yes I think Clinton was sort of the Left’s response to Regan’s immense popularity with the electoral, but Regan had a very codified platform both in Economics and International policy, his expenditure on defense in a relative peaceful time for superpower politics should have seemed senseless, and it probably was, but he orchestrated well and then took the credit for the fall of the soviet union in a single sweep public relations coup that could have had little basis in reality. After all we now know that he was miss informed about Soviet Potential and capability. Where he did cause great impact was in not interfering with the disintegration, it must have been tempting, his national security advisors and secretary of state must have been tempted to proactively scavenge for the leftovers of the Soviet Empire, Regan didn’t go there, he dint cause any unnecessary friction, he let the twilight of the cold war go unsung, perhaps his greatest achievement. However Clintonesque politics did not call for change or high minded agendas, they called for equilibrium between the left and the right, he blared the last trumpet for discourse between the right and the left, and more remarkably he was able to do so even as the Republicans unleashed an all out attack, but Clinton held the middle ground in his politics and when he left the middle ground caved in and Right and Left when at each other in every platform and arena possible, the slug fest continues.

The colossal nature of the battle between the two camps is interesting because they are indeed part of the same concatenating political machine, but it helps us to conclude that the barometric pressure is set to blow, it is possible to imagine that the two party system is at an end, that it has run out of ideas or that the post cold war order calls for something else, that we are indeed facing a pending change in how politics are done at home and abroad, and we can question if it is feasible to have an Executive Branch, so much power concentrated on the whims of one elected official seems anti democratic and dangerous indeed, perhaps the day of the republics are coming to an end, its possible. If that is the case we may use that criteria to further narrow down if our next candidate will be an Elephant or a Mule.

Reality time, if a liberal wins the election, which is most likely, it implies that there are is still potential energy in the context of the capitalistic and democratic system as we know it today, that is to say that Democrats are more likely to take risk and spend callously and to take care of people, as they are naturally insecure and think that caring for others will some how imply that those others or the system will eventually care for them, thus they make the argument of socialize health care, nutrition programs and hand holding till old age. Any election that elects a democrat not only means that there is still potential in the current existing system but further that there is still hope, hope of changing and modifying the system enough so that it can keep going on from here to eternity.

There are plenty of people that think that the constitution does not need to be modified that it is some kind of perfect conceptualization of the ideal politic and can therefore remain unchanged and unchallenged for eternity. This might be a bit naïve considering that so many emperors and kings thought that there could be no alternative to monarchy and even the people that they subjugated respected such ideal, at some point though the concept of monarchy failed to fit into the national political psyche and it was thus abandoned.

It is most likely, based on the historic record, that our ideals of government, constitutions and even justice will be outmoded by new ideas and manners which we have not predicted, and so here we have a firm hard rule judgment to make, has the time come for a change of mind sets, have we reached a point the history of histories where we can no longer operate on the set of standards set forth more or less around the French revolution and the Greek foundation of rock voting democratically?

How then are we to tell that the time has come for such dramatic change?

If the time has come for change then it follows that the conservative forces will have to dominate the political arena, and I think that there is plenty of evidence that everything is shifting to the right, again it would be difficult to think of Clinton or Blair as left wingers, it would be impossible to say that they were not pro business, further they were willing to sacrifice ideals so as to reach compromises and master the art of statistically popular governance.

There is then enough evidence before us to say that if the Left has begun to lost its idealism for socialistic principles, if the unions and regulation have lost support within the Democratic party, if Hilary Clinton is willing to rethink her health package so that it is healthier on hospitals, pharmaceuticals, the American Medical Association and Insurance, then we can say that the discerning eye would have a difficult time discerning Right from Left.

It is not, and this is what we are saying, it is not a compromise, the country has shifted left, even its liberals are shifting gears for the Right, so that you can say that there will not be a valid sense for good old liberal values, what Hilary Clinton and Obama will be doing is looking to the center or the right for guidance, and their electorate will feel more comfortable if they do that, after all it is not like unions can sit there and argue that jobs can be created in the American car market when the cost of labor and production overseas can clip the value of American labor in half.

Which implies that we could argue that if the Left wins the election it is still somewhat as if the Right have won it, that they Left have successfully stolen the platform from the left, that in fact they have made themselves giraffes that can eat on either side of the fence, the implication is that if the nation is getting conservative as a whole then the stamina and potential of its institutions is used up. However ff Hilary Clinton gets elected it will not imply that liberal values have won because she has mastered the art of staying as close to the center of opinions and values so that everyone may can of say, “Well she might not be that bad.” As oppose to Obama that only has one position on the war in Iraq and so would have no option but to be against the war and could not back down from it, Hilary can turn towards the necessity of the occasion as warranted.

The problem is not one inherent to the candidates but rather one inherent within the confines of the system the political parties have not only matured but are in their twilight, we know this because they have perfected their arguments to the point of paralysis, they are out of new ideas nothing that a Republican or a Democrat tells you is going to surprise you. Some people will argue that there is still a lot of steam in their engines but these are the same people that would look at a combustion engine and think that because it only outputs about 40 percent of its energy towards locomotion that we can get to 90 percent efficiency, that is of course a fallacy, the basic principles and architecture that define the combustion engine capitalize all of its true potential at about forty percent, to gain efficiencies in output you have to change the concept an turn it into a hybrid, or base an engine on entirely new technologies and principles, which means that the best researches on engine power aren’t dedicating their energies to combustion, the system has been perfected, regardless of how many flaws are left.

In the same way we can see that anyone could say that there is still a lot of room for improvement within the framework of a bicameral democratic system, and equally and more accurately say that as things are you are not going to get anymore out of the two parties that drive this political machine, the time is ripe for a change, the question is will that change come now or later, and if later how much later. Again the stagnant nature of ideas of both parties indicate an imminent change, no one has found the third way or if the current system will just morph into a hybrid of some sort. But regardless we must take that into consideration as to who is going to get elected.

If the system still has potential in it then it should be a democrat, if it has close to zero potential it should a conservative or a overall conservative democrat, thus our choices are not easy; besides that there is another factor, Hilary is a woman and Obama is a black man, people like to make history or more accurately to participate in historic events, either way it would be history in America, since we still make distinctions based on national borders, we can discount Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Germany, Argentina President Cristina Fernandez, and Liberia’s Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, so women in America and some men will cast their vote based on gender to break the glass ceiling, others, blacks, minorities and liberal whites might side with Obama as they would cast a vote to put the first black president in office, in the end these type of voters will have to draw their choice from the leading member candidate up to the election but doubt not that it will be a perceived value aggregator to the one of the two that makes it to the finals.

The thing is that there are no accidents as to who gets elected, the national psyche will make corrections till the very last minute like an owl homing in on its prey never letting the beak break center from the quarry jetting right or left, ascending or descending .000003 second adjustments accordingly, however prophets make predictions and move on and are therefore prone to philosophical accidents, i.e. things that are not natural to their predictions happens.

We can then predict that, since it is not a two party system but rather a two stroke engine, the people will raise to power the appropriate politician for their times and hungers. If the parties had a possibility at all, of losing to a third party the engine would be more diverse, complicated and dynamic, but party creation is not an instantaneous process, and well structured systems have rightly, or wrongly, a focused vision. Two eyes are always better than one, but not two right eyes nor two left eyes.

As a final note I will unveil my vote of no vote for either party. I will not participate in the national spectacle that has become the political arena because my consciousness is not reflected in it. The belief that we have to vote for at least the lesser of two evils is not for me a realistic approach to making a serious difference in world affairs. The fact is that when peoples are in harmony they are the least political, it is not to the advantage of political parties to see solutions beyond the political realm, thus it is objectionable that they will have us think that we are by some endemic nature political beasts. By denying the energies of my vote to the political process I am limiting the scope of their mandate and perhaps adding weight to the unveiling of other possibilities.

Ricardo Correa