Most have heard of the 80/20 power law or Pareto principle that governs the distribution of wealth in the world: one-fifth of the population has four-fifths of the assets, but in turn one-fifth of that one-fifth owns 4/5 of the 4/5 (4% has 64%), and so on.
Most have heard of it, but only to forget it soon, not least because most of the topics with which the mainstream media try to fuck up our minds, from climate change or coronavirus to transgenderism and critical race theory, are reheated every morning to make us forget this fact.
So we have no choice but to get our heads around it keeping the scope in focus until we fully understand what this distribution means. And although I cannot fully unravel the issue here, far from it, I will have already done my part in duly drawing the attention of independent spirits.
Last year a kind reader commented to me that, more disturbing than the successive iterations of the Pareto rule in the distribution of income, was for him the process of informatization/digitalization of being as a “project of consummate control and domination”. I suspect that many people share this same opinion, apparently justified, which nevertheless reveals a too superficial understanding of what this law of distribution implies.
And what this law implies is much more than the scandalous but well known wealth inequality, so often summed up in the phrase “three fortunes own as much as the poorest half of the planet” — they use to put 60 or 62 instead of 3 or 4, but the latter is more credible if one understands the gist of the law. If we are witnessing something that looks so much like a project of consummate control, and which some now call “biodigital convergence”, it is precisely due to the fact that this huge accumulation is not something amorphous, but highly structured and integrated into the social fabric and the instances of power. There is an accelerated project of domination because there is already a situation of overwhelming domination that at the same time supposes an enormous imbalance, not the other way around. This double circumstance has a mathematical pattern reflected in society and it is precisely this distribution.
We touch this point time and again on purpose and with the best of reasons: if economists and sociologists systematically ignore the most remarkable feature of our non-economy and our non-society, or treat it with a frivolity unworthy even of entertainers, we can be sure that it is still more important than it seems. Their silence is doubly informative, and my order of priorities does not depend on what they say is important, but rather the opposite.
I wrote about this rule here, here, and in many other posts. We all know intuitively that an inverted pyramid of wealth is potentially more unstable as the slope of inequality increases; however the graphs and illustrations of this inverted pyramid, provided by the banks themselves, hide much more than they reveal.
The graph above, for example, says absolutely nothing about the underlying dynamics, and one would think that wealth has a natural tendency to rise upwards, while the big beneficiaries at the top, magically isolated, want nothing to do with those at the bottom. There are two half-truths here that serve to cover up the real whole truths.
The 80/20 rule has a self-similar, recursive structure, like that which exists for example in the blood vessels of our body: it is therefore a structure that responds to an optimized function with a high degree of organization. You don’t need to scratch your head to guess what kind of “flow” is being optimized here, for in effect, we are talking about a large suction pump that reaches down to the capillary level. Only money, and in particular debt-money, can achieve in our society such a simultaneous degree of concentration and diversification.
The Pareto distribution has much more to do with a fractal hierarchy like the one below, although this one is simpler and without due proportion; not to mention that the structure alone tells us nothing about the time evolution.
This inverted pyramid is above all a great hierarchy, a highly selective filter in both directions, upwards and downwards, which determines positions, priorities, favors, and obedience. We are told that we live in a “liquid”, horizontal world but they hardly talk about the conduits that use the front of “the markets” for the benefit of the Great Siphon, the vertical hydraulic apparatus that works at all scales.
This “parallel reality” explains the very gradual transition from the fictions of the free market to the actually existing techno-feudalism. What appears to the unwary as a new phenomenon has been steadily taking shape for centuries. This slow forge has so far been the guarantee of its stability, just as it may be the guarantee of its collapse beyond the point of no return.
The Pareto principle remains a mere fact of observation, hanging like a picture in the sky without any apparent reason to justify it. This make it even more interesting to the eye of the naturalist, for this rule governs not only the distribution of wealth, but of many human activities and natural processes, from the size of cities and corporations, to earthquakes, grains of sand or stars.
There are two remarkable things about this principle: on the one hand, it has no explanation, on the other hand, it is ubiquitous in the products of both Nature and Culture, which we assume are separated by a yawning gap.
But the number of iterations of this law, the slope and the spectrum of inequality, depends enormously on the context, or as analysts say, on the constants, variables and parameters of the “system”. Some have wanted to wield the Pareto principle as irrefutable proof that human inequality is just a reflection of natural inequality and diversity, and to some extent, that could be true. But to what extent?
The inequality of gifts and talents is undeniable, and only the most mediocre could dream of universal equalization. However, it is clear that the distribution of wealth is incomparably more unequal than that of talents, because no one is a billion times smarter or stronger or faster than the most impaired, and very often it is found that those who have the most barely reach the average.
The weight of human beings has a normal or bell-shaped distribution, because there are obvious limits to the gain of weight. Power laws can occur at all scales, as there are no known limit on growth.
However, there are limits on the growth of fortunes, and some are approaching them dangerously. There are limits due to the size of the world and due to the fact that monetization is relative: if you have everything, you have no one to sell to, and your properties have no price, even if they have “all the worth”. Needless to say, this system relies more on price than on value.
On the other hand, the 80/20 rule is neither the 70/20 nor the 80/10 rule, and says both that 20 percent has 80, and that 80 has 20 percent; that is, at least ideally, a curious asymmetry in reciprocity and a round reciprocity in asymmetry, so as to please everyone. It is all about the whole, and the question is how many times the joke is repeated and how the balance of the imbalance grows up.
It seems obvious that the “freedom of scale” for capital growth, the condition for its permanent accumulation, is, rather than inheritance, the appropriation of the mechanisms of money and credit creation —for it seems also obvious that the inverted pyramid of financial wealth has as its counterpoint the accumulated mountain of debt of our economies.
Business schools cannot do enough to give us a different idea of the Pareto law. Nassim Taleb asserts and even demonstrates that this is the expected outcome from highly “dynamic” systems; for example, most of the companies on the Fortune 500 list are not the same as they were a few decades ago. Therefore, the law gives us “big winners”, but these big winners change over time, as it is always the case in societies where equal opportunity is paramount!
Some of us have a different picture. By 1835, a single family of bankers controlled the public debt and the finances of the main European powers, from the Bank of England down. This family took control of the levers of the national banks, and on the other hand, it is not known to have squandered or divided its inheritance, nor was it subject to expropriations.
So it is highly unlikely that this fortune would steadily diminish over time, while it is highly probable that it would do the opposite, especially considering that they had no need for risky bets, and that the name of the game is not “innovation”, but the coldest and most ruthless exploitation of any advantage gained.
On the other hand, it is trivially true that in a world in perpetual “creative destruction” new opportunities are always arising, and that those who exploit them by obtaining sufficient financial backing can grow much faster. Therefore, large financial surpluses are always looking for new investment possibilities to diversify and minimize risks, seeking to support monopoly or oligopoly situations as they are the most profitable while diverting the attention from themselves. This kind of “synergy” makes it much easier to explain the irresistible rise of corporate empires like Standard Oil in the 19th century or Amazon in the 21st.
Risk engineering experts like Taleb should know it better. The stock market casino is mostly a front, and large companies, especially since they have the direct support of central banks, are mainly intensive fund-sucking devices to make insiders richer at the expense of the unwary outsiders; under these conditions it is normal for company names to change, as they are not made to last. But with personal fortunes things are very different.
Statistics reveal time and again that about half of the great fortunes in the United States, Western Europe or Russia belong or are allocated to individuals of Jewish origin, a truly remarkable fact considering that they make up about 3 percent of the population. If the 80/20 rule and its successive powers provide us with the most revealing x-ray of the state of affairs in society, this officious 50/50 share or law gives us an x-ray of the x-ray, an additional penetration into the complexion of that which, with very convenient anonymity, has always been called “capital”.
Structurally, it does not matter whether the holders of these fortunes are Jews or not; but historically it does. Especially if one takes into account that most of them, Jews or not, align themselves with the cause of Zionism or use it as a binder, trying to hinder it as little as possible. As the adage goes, the disciple always follows the master, and anything that moves what does not move. The “50/50 law” reflects the internal physiology of this creature, and the delicate balance between violence and deception that has allowed it to impose its rules. What appears to be a mere result gives us, on the contrary, the genealogy and the cause.
The power law is not relevant to our society because 3 have as much as 3.5 billion. After all, in the overall scheme of things the dispossessed count for practically nothing, while the tip of the pyramid counts all the more the less it is visible. What is decisive is not the relationship of the top to the bottom half, but to the top half, and more so as one moves up the ladder. The arch keystones counts with most of the surplus purchasing power, which cannot belong to those who are in debt but to the creditors.
On the other hand, the front men who continually appear in the media and whose names we all know are undoubtedly among those who owe favors, and showing up for others is part of the price they have to pay. The mere recursive structure of debt, operating at all levels and scales, makes the conclusion easy; as much as the mere genealogy and historical logic in the development of capital. If all of them are kleptocrats, between the famous oligarchs and the plutocratic cryptarchy there are more than just quantitative differences.
Why does the cause of Zion serve as a binder between the richest of the Jews and the Goyim? Because the Old Testament provides the oldest and most battle-tested supremacist narrative and can justify everything in the name of the Mission. And given that Zionism was gestated in Puritan England, the term “Anglo-Zionism” is anything but an extravagance.
The Chosen cannot see themselves as a kleptocracy, but as the true creators of wealth. For them, the law of 80/20 is that of “the few indispensable and the many trivial” or dispensable, but there are always some more indispensable than others.
The way in which wealth is measured leads to think that those who have more talent to exploit are the same who create more wealth. But in order to exploit more and better, it must be ensured, before extracting surplus value, that the employees have to work for their subsistence many times more than they would have done otherwise. The benefits of the division of labor, the great lure of society, must be combined with an increased cost of living that can be properly exploited with optimized structures of extraction. Money and its system of creation and distribution meet the requirements to play this dual role, for money and specially debt-money is dual by nature.
80 divided by 20 gives 4; 20 divided by 80 gives a quarter (1/4), so we have a difference of 16. This would be quite close to the difference that may be between the real value of labor and the wages received: elsewhere we said that such a difference should be “somewhere in between” 1 and 100, probably close to a factor of 10. The huge, and for many incredible, difference can only be created by the full-scale manipulation of money, credit and prices, and by the aggregate and invisible debt present at all levels. This in turn facilitates large-scale fraud and plunder, leading to further indebtedness. In the whole picture, surplus value was always a minor issue.
If the rates of extraction and extreme inequality of the pyramid of wealth are already outrageous, the massive dose of systematic division and intoxication it requires for its justification or even for its mere subsistence are equally bad or worse. Such numerical imbalance and inequality can only be compensated for by a extreme weakening and confusion of the population that minimizes its capacity to react —and by an organization of the few only comparable to the disorganization of the many.
The Zion/Babylon code is none other than the old “divide and rule”, but with its own accent and an infallible instinct to corrupt and poison everything, transferring to others one’s own sense of guilt. Once the virus was transmitted with religion and now the media have taken over. Zion is the fortress of civilization that rises the more the rest sinks into dissolution and anomie: again the opposition between the vertical and the horizontal, between the extraction apparatus and the pool.
Of course, this variant of the “spirit”, permanently occupied in converting everything that is not itself into a subordinate matter, is nothing but the most accomplished inversion of what in other cultures has been understood as such: the antithesis of any elevation. However, this projects itself in “Babylon”: the ferment of chaos is sown and then the effects are attributed to the confusion of the “natural state”.
Divide and rule, Operation Chaos and pushing everything towards the order/disorder disjunctive so that “the elite” is presented as the pole of salvation are just different words for the same thing.
The Zion/Babylon code inevitably leads to a syndrome, in which a tiny minority justifies any means in order to maintain its increasingly threatened position —no doubt more by its own actions and initiative than by anything else.
Nothing would be more bloodless, in order to deactivate this situation, than to make public the identity of the highest echelons. The mere fact of putting an end to their anonymity would decisively change the balance of power. On the contrary, all attempts to excite low passions, to seek scapegoats and bloodshed in the name of the “revolution” reeks of subversion organized by the most powerful to appease the anger of the populace and divert attention from the real culprits. We have seen it too many times already, and one has only to look at who is running “activism” in Western countries and in the United States in particular to know what to expect from them. On the other hand, if hardly anything is known about opposition to lockdown measures, massive pseudo-vaccination campaigns, or insane, brainless and disgusting genetic engineering, it is because none of this is sponsored.
The large-scale war against Nature that has been waged from above absolutely coincides with the war against our own nature; it was already operating at all levels and is now being fulfilled in the most concrete and literal way with genetic manipulation. The whole Nature is “Babylon” for those who pretend to give it shape and rules.
It is necessary to know the full names of those at the top, because after all, even if the responsibility is very organically distributed between the 1 percent that decides or the 10 percent that serves to administer the Siphon, the structure of this Organization points clearly to the top. And it is essential because the very anonymity necessary for the impunity of capital is the most fragile point of this steep house of cards. If everything has been rotting from the top down, if the initiative of this war has come from the pinnacle, it is only possible to proceed with total coldness and surgical precision. If the highest pieces fall we will not fail to see the domino effect of this inverted pyramid leveraged to the extreme.
In Bruce Bogoshian’s numerical simulation of the kinetics of wealth with a Pareto law, the system tends towards a singularity in which everything ends up in the hands of a single owner while the rest of the population is completely dispossessed. But the real world avoids mathematical singularities; reality is more “twisted and interesting”, and what we are witnessing is, by virtue of debt mechanisms that are not even mentioned in his study, a transmutation of wealth into top-down influence and subjection. The global effect of the Great Siphon is far more profound and denaturing than what would result from leaving us all with nothing.
In truth, the combination of Number and Verb, of the mathematical pattern of the 80/20 rule with its temporal evolution under “conditions mimicking the real world”, has everything to develop the most absorbing of strategy games: an idea that I propose from now on, and that I hope will spread like wildfire and serve to acquire awareness of our situation and real problem instead of distracting us with the pseudo-problems promoted expressly to keep us away from the issue. Teaching by playing? I think it is more like learning by disgust, as it seems one has be much more disgusted by what is going on before taking action. This game and its metagame will help; at least we will talk and think about it.
Gamers and game developers, you can take note. You have here a whole world of possibilities to emulate the existing sordidness while achieving an incomparable perspective that no business school will give you. Have you ever thought about how many times the 80/20 iterates from the bottom to the top? I leave to the reader the calculus, which will help you to know where you are in the hierarchy, how many “echelons” you have below or above, what are your prospects of climbing or sinking, and so on.
Of course the Pareto distribution is continuous in nature and has no other “echelons” than its successive powers; however, fortunes are concrete and discrete in nature, like any number of individuals. From this circumstance derives a whole cascade of possibilities for the game, which the developers will know how to use with sagacity.
There can be many variants, modalities and levels in the 80/20 game and its Zion/Babylon code, some more focused on the historical inquiry of facts and identities, others on the systematic tactics of division, diversion and disinformation (3D), or on the Assault on the Fortress, the methods of counter-organization against the Organization, the mechanisms of creation of debt-money and its alternatives, an so on. All can be extraordinarily instructive, and the common denominator is the iterated structure 80/20 and the exhaustive exploration of its implications at all levels. This structure is literally the quintessence of the system.
In anticipation of the overwhelming success foreseeable for this “edutainment”, we must count on substitutes, biased versions and the most blatant adulterations. Banks, intelligence agencies and even the Pentagon already have lots of developers at their service, and soon we will see improved versions that will lead us to think that extreme inequality protects us from disorder, or that it is due to patriarchy and insufficient vaccination, or that the suffering of the Jews is as incomparable as the position of privilege they hold.
Nor does it seem advisable to play this game online due to the high degree of infiltration and interference; it is preferable to share the same physical space and avoid unwanted intruders. In addition, its dialectic not only teaches us questions of calculus, but also and very especially about people and the instinct that predominates in them: that of the careerist and the born exploiter, or that of the one who tends to swim against the tide. Between the two lies the majority, who seek to adapt while saving efforts.
Self-consciousness is the name of the game; social self-consciousness, of course, because the other one, much larger and neglected, does not know about structures or calculus. But from a structural point of view, the name of the game is asymmetry. The oppressors exploit the asymmetry with an overwhelming, hydraulic logic; those who want change have to use their mobility for the asymmetric struggle and take full advantage of the profound incapacity for real change of the establishment, whose barrage of “innovations” always ends up flowing in the same direction.
The staged pandemic has served to show us to what extent what we call “Science” is a massive weapon and a defensive wall for the powers that be. Even for those of us who already knew decades ago what can be expected of Big Science or the media in these times, it is hard to believe the levels of propaganda and suppression that have been reached in the last two years.
The different sciences today are mere prostitutes at the service of very exclusive interests, and this does not only happen in medicine and biology, economics or sociology. It is absolutely general, and it affects even mathematics, pure and applied.
A good example of this is the Pareto law itself. The uninformed reader may believe that this distribution is still something episodic, yet another of the countless curiosities of math. But, far from being something episodic, this principle is one of the main issues of big data intensively filtered by tech giants and large government agencies. It is everywhere, from Google rankings to data traffic, logistics, management and administration, marketing, debts, defaults, etc., etc. —as it is key in the efficiency of the exploitation of resources.
Even setting aside for a moment its master role in the physiology of the so-called social body, it still has all sorts of crucial applications in detail for statistics and the selection of data, customers, and problems. And yet the scientific articles available on the subject on the internet are neither very numerous, nor very deep, nor very revealing.
As in many other disciplines, this would be sensitive information and each institution or corporation keeps its findings private to the best of its ability. If data are “the new black gold”, the ways to extract and refine them must be even more closely guarded.
Private interest, once again, prevails over the aspiration to general, open knowledge; that old ideal of science that today more than ever seems a chimera. And yet here too we have a great opportunity, in the most opposite sense to opportunism that one can imagine.
Indeed, we can create some kind of open platform for discussion of the mathematical nature of this distribution and its restrictions in time and any kind of variables, physical, economic or whatever. No prizes or financial endowments are required, because there will be people with plenty of motivation to make contributions, either with their names or with pseudonyms. The problem may seem too specious and unspecific, but there are a few main guidelines that should not be lost sight of.
This discussion should be as completely detached from the institutions and its minions as possible. In passing, it must be said that to get new insights on the subject there is no need of the massive data and computing available for agencies and corporations to get new, valuable insights on the subject, but an independent approach on fundamentals they will never have; which will give us another opportunity to demonstrate the insignificance of their crushing means and the ineffectiveness of their criteria.
On the other hand, many mathematicians will have the best chance to redeem themselves for having to sell their talent for unworthy, sterile toils not only meaningless but radically opposed to any ideal.
The power law distribution seems at first a trivial matter but in reality it has a transcendental value for civilization and culture, since it not only raises the question of the continuity between Society and Nature, but also how far we step away from it or how one kind of optimization develops at the expense of any other.
Or to what extent and degree hierarchies, an inherent aspect of civilization, are inevitable, necessary, or pathological and degenerate processes. It may also have deep relationships with population dynamics, general stability, and many other areas that concern us all and that should not be subject of secrecy but should be exposed to the most frank discussion in the public domain.
In today’s science there is no solid connection between Nature and human society. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism owe their success precisely to being a narrative halfway between the natural and the social, but the fact that it does not have the slightest mathematical signature evidences its little or no entity for knowledge: natural selection can do it all and everything in between. Here instead we have a mathematical structure yet to be explained and that is crucial in population ecology.
By the way, the so-called elites have never really believed in either Darwinism or competition, ideologies expressly created for the masses. They always thought in terms of exploiting niches and ecosystems, and modern marketing or data mining is just an update of that mindset: this is the thread that connects medieval feudalism with post-industrial society and digital neofeudalism.
The expression “big fish eats little fish” has very different meanings depending on the coordinate axis in which we move. The new brand “horizontal ecology” does us a disservice if it ignores the vertical ecology of elitism settled long before demarcating territories. Zion/Babylon code in action: the vertical axis manages resources and creates artificial scarcity, while in the horizontal axis people fight over them.
The discrete, and therefore more concrete, form of the Pareto distribution is the Zipf’s law or truncated zeta distribution, so widely used in data traffic and many other instances. It has been said that if the Riemann hypothesis on the zeta function zeros were solved, all the keys to cryptography and cybersecurity could be broken, which is still pure speculation, since no one has specified how that could lead to faster factorization methods. However, Zipf’s law might be used to trace financial movements, from the anonymous flows of markets and funds to the fortunes of origin.
Needless to say, large corporations and the states themselves, the same seeking for absolute control of each of the movements of the commoner, will do everything they can to obstruct access to data, always being accomplices of the most powerful both passively and actively. We should never accept any kind of digital money with such built-in asymmetries.
To explore it in depth, the 80/20 distribution must be connected in the most natural way possible with change and the time domain. This would lead us to deal with the frequency domain and 1/f noise, but also with fundamentals of calculus and entropy that are outside the scope of this article, but that have a great potential to change our idea of Nature and even information.
For example, this distribution has been associated with the principle of maximum entropy here and there, which is plausible but too vague and general. If even with energy it is impossible to unequivocally determine causes, much less can be done with entropy. In addition, the vulgar idea, originated in Boltzmann, that entropy is disorder still persists, when it is order that produces more entropy, which is in accordance with the maximum entropy principle.
We have recalled on other occasions, citing Eric Chaisson, that the energy density rate is a much more unambiguous quantity for complexity metric than entropy and can be applied to the temporal evolution of all kinds of systems at many scales, from living beings to stars. We also indicated that the loop created between energy density flow, minimum action and maximum size generates power laws; simulations of this loop can be done with a single CPU.
It can be argued that the Pareto rule does not have a definite cause, that “it just happens”. Money attracts money, in the same way that the masses of hydrogen molecules attract other molecules to form stars. But, to begin with, hydrogen molecules cannot clump together to make a star without additional conditions; and as for money, there is no such thing as “money in itself”, as it is already pure contrivance and dispositive. Surely one can not get unequivocal causes for statistical distributions, but this is not to say that we cannot get a much better understanding.
Applied mathematics is still very young, but that does not mean either that everything will become more convoluted and unintelligible. On the contrary, there are only real advances if things are made simpler —but that is not the current trend of big data miners, who protected by ever-increasing technicalities and depending on particular interests tend, like everything else, to an exponential opacity. These are just some of the reasons for the present tower of Babel of sciences.
In the new science of data analytics, another word for massive statistics, “correlation replaces causation”, but statistics and probability have evolved in unison with calculus. In distributions such as the Pareto power law, one can suspect of the quintessential role of grades in Nature, but in the fundamental laws of physics grades lack any specific entity. This is a huge hole in our understanding that can only be addressed satisfactorily with alternative forms of calculus that give a different meaning to the relationship between the continuous and the discrete in change or motion. Although any of the possible approaches to calculus has its advantages and disadvantages, both standard and non-standard analysis are not suited to the task.
For Lao-tzu, governing a great nation is no different from frying a small fish; surely he was alluding here to the relevance of grade in measures, however secondary with respect to Virtue, which consists in interfering as little as possible. For Heraclitus, all things come into being by conflict, but that tension is the same principle of dynamic equilibrium seen from the other side.
The very increasing inefficiency of Big Science, its ever decreasing returns, can be assessed with the Pareto law and its powers; although it is clear that, seen from the other side, what macroprojects tend to optimize is the extraction of funds. If something can be done with a billion, it would be foolish to do it with ten or one hundred millions; moreover, what is cheap does not even count. The point, however, is not that there are diminishing returns, but that objectivity and debate cease to make sense in this context. Money and quality of research tend to be inversely proportional.
But if “cheap science” does not even count in the current picture, it is even more important for those of us who do not want to have anything to do with that picture either. Today experts tend to complicate even the simplest things for their own interest; while others are only interested in complexity because it may conceal simpler ideas. It remains to be seen who has the last word.
Modern science is of such a nature that it cannot use knowledge without an accumulated pile of mediations and complexity, making knowledge and simplicity poles apart. This is so because knowledge is at the service of the government and control of external things, while virtue resides in the government of one’s own.
Biofeedback, the interaction with one’s own biological signals, seems a fairly innocuous subject, and yet it gives us the reverse or antithesis of control theory, since the range of possible control does not pass through voluntary action. Rather, one could speak of a capacity for attunement or receptivity.
Our own body generates many signals with a 1/f spectrum, the frequency or time expression of power laws. And the spontaneous activity of the brain is an ideal source of this type of “noise”, which also appears in the pitch fluctuations of most kinds of music. It is so curious that a pattern that appears spontaneously in our brain and continually in music seems “counterintuitive” to mathematicians. On the other hand, stochastic resonance, which can be adaptive, tells us that the optimal noise level is not zero and that noise itself is part of the signal. 1/f noise seems to respond to the principle of maximum entropy of information, while with stochastic resonance entropy would tend to the minimum.
Biofeedback is a modest but significant indication of how one can “do without doing” and “know without knowing”; if we properly connect this kind of “doing” and “knowing” with the formal, external knowledge of physics and mathematics, something extraordinary will have been achieved.
Having many possessions makes it impossible to enjoy them, while everything comes to the one who has true receptivity, even without wanting. “By 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy”, a well-known forum tells us. Just see how the same people rallying for the privatization and plunder of everything worry about alleviate your burden preparing to carry it on their shoulders. Absolutely logical.
But they should not be so altruistic. The burden can be shared much more equitably and we can relieve them of such a responsibility. After all, they are the ones who need to learn to live more than anyone.
The 80/20 variant that governs our system is obviously a degenerate case, as are degenerate the econometric criteria used to conceal it. But degenerate with respect to what? The monetary system that has been optimized for grabbing must end and be replaced by a completely different one, something that does not present technical difficulties per se. They are the only difficulty.
If today the economy is so important it is only because of how it has created artificial scarcity, and because in symbiosis with the digital world it has become the most “effective” form of control. However, if they have to intervene to such an extent in everything and cause all sorts of crises, there is no efficacy at all, but only the most diffuse albeit all-embracing form of oppression.
What is optimized only for siphoning is surely pessimized for everything else; so they intervine in everything to the extreme because it cost them nothing when it is not profitable, while they can still dissociate and further disrupt the population.
If the pendulum has been pushed to the extreme, the direction can only reverse —if it is true that the way of Tao is reversal. Operating both at an “internal” and “external” level, it seems that the “50/50 law” has more practical meaning than that indicated, and one in particular in which dialectics, Nature and calculus coincide. Modern science goes to great lengths to prevent us from seeing it.