a letter to a politician

Why I Won't Talk Much About Politics: Anything I can say in Politics, I can say elsewhere, and I get the opportunity of being able to take my time with it, instead of drying out under a microscope. They ask challenging questions when they want to crack your egg shell of a defensive private mind, and draw your yolk of being and true self-expression. I'm only just learning about the music of linguistic exchange, that allows you to set up premises in someone else's mind and then use the premises to draw a story from their own minds in the direction you want with nothing but suggestive mechanics. I think it's how synchronicity is permitted and blocked from flowing in our hive mind consciousness / awareness network. And Tony Jones is a massive egg cracker. He sits there asking questions on behalf of the Left and the Right to cut to the chase for the dominant home viewers. And I don't stand for the Left or Right, because the common ground of both of them is what needs changing, and a Majority Rules system means only the biggest bully wins, whereas I want to grab the bully by the ear and fuck him up the arse and give him a virus that makes him crave it so much he bends the knee to me, and goes on to be vehemently disposed of so that he runs off craving that love and passes the virus onto every other major bully and teaches them a lesson, not the hard way, as they would teach us, but the easy way were they become distracted, instead of by money and power, by presence and pleasure. But I don't know how to master that by just walking into a TV Show recording room, without projecting some kind of masterful gambler that can count the deck as it turns and mathematically determine the single best calculable strategy for dominating everyone in that room and glued to the TV behind it. All for the people watching it ready to write the articles about the news from the show can pick up where I left off and actually make a difference rather than just wine about the times. Do I boil down the Drug War situation into perfect paradoxes, do I explain things enough that they become ultimatums of Belief, and therefore Choice, and therefore Action? Do I reframe Capitalism in terms of a simulation of ethics and evolutionary information theory, to show that it's Business Regulation that's the only thing that's behind the time, and the crucial indicator of the functioning of a society, because it's the sole cause for whether or not profits remain in the hands of manipulators, or whether automation benefits only those who create it, those who own it, or those who implement it's regulation. And then to say that the regulation that would fix things must necessarily be that a percentage of all money invested must be invested into the development of publicly owned automation in the form of Open Source software, that is both publicly owned, privately copiable and then privately owned. The profits from this automation must go into the hands of the public, and the private, but a percentage of the private must also go back into the hands of the public. ie. Tax, Majority Rules bully mechanics. The hands of the rich can advertise to represent the many, take from all according to income and redistribute to the policies of the rich. Or, as it is currently being implemented by the hands of the private actually *for* the public, by their own hands, without advertising for anything other than their own gain, as a self-less person would do, because they are acting on behalf of the public and say "All my assets are yours, but how useful it is, is how much I determine it that I am rewarded, that is, how much the public values it is, is how much you reward me, that is, your valuation is my only reward." That is to say, "All I have is yours, and All I care is that you like it." That's what publicly owned distributed ledger open source software will do. That is what it is, and that's what we need, and it has come just in time. So now from me, instead of from what the implementors of this Business Regulation are saying, well, "it doesn't need regulation" is all I hear from politics. If only they knew that Software Engineering can indeed be regulated, should be regulated, and only if well-regulated, that is, there is only one solid line you can cross with Software Engineering regulation, is it going to Extinguish the Species? or just some of us? What happy medium is in between these two? Because it's used for weapons right now, whether or not we use it for Human Genetic Engineering (currently banned) to advance the defensive side and the biological side of ensuring Nuclear Weapons don't kill us. It's ethical to kill the enemy, but it, for some reason, is not ethical to dedicate your life to ensuring we aren't killed. Our power to do the former is currently at the capability of being able to destroy ourselves probably around 100 times over, in 100 different ways. Our power to do the latter, of human genetic engineering, to defend ourselves, we can't do at all. We are caught in a maximally self-destructive system with bully mechanics and AI is about to trample us. What we need is to regulate who can write software, to guarantee cyber-security, and to allow humans to be genetically engineered, let distributed open source computing take off, and only allow prove-ably safe free-roaming AI, test them offline on secure networks, and only allow them to be open source. That'll fix equality, that'll fix automation, that'll save our species, and that is on it's way. And then to go back on harping about the rest political sphere: Whether the discussion of the "oh woe is us" that we regularly go into of WW1 and WW2 can be boiled down to Socialism vs Capitalism, or whether it can be a justification for Improved Disability support and Mental Healthcare, or more to the life and death line, a discussion of whether Jewish economics, count and save every penny, or Gypsy economics, disregard ownership to the point of sharing and only the bullies we love live, are two ends of a spectrum to which we know both are or aren't an answer, no one is left that has the balls to decide, and that we should move on from Economic Theories of the past into a Popularist approach, which ultimately is what "Democracy" is as just some Mask of a word to hide being completely Popularist. All of which is irrelevant compared to a future with cryptocurrency. The waste of tomorrow can save us from yesterday.