Origin
Si vis pacem para bellum
Disclaimer: I have built much of this piece using personal medical records dating back since my birth, family therapy session notes from April 2022 to July 2022, my research on the birthgap from 2020 to the present, and a family incident involving the Metropolitan Police from May 2024, as well as broader family context. In many ways, this essay outlines the journey from my birth to full ‘concentric ikigai’ - finding what I am passionate about, within that what I am good at, within that what society needs, and within that what pays - and who has hindered and helped in that journey. While all portfolio companies and funds benefit from this research, they only benefit in the same way as society does at large. I have no contractual relationship (past or present) with any company mentioned here unless explicitly stated.
An update on past pieces: The Financial Times’ whistleblower made my Sifted claim even more credible. All critics of the Governance piece, who exclusively criticised the Israel section, also profess that they have either not read the full piece, or only skimmed it, and could not find a flaw in any part of the piece on full review, strengthening my claim from Meritocracy that reactivity is a hallmark of wokeism. A fellow investor has skewered UK venture’s state aid model. I have deferred global electoral analysis, my ‘Reformation 2.0’ work from February 2020, and the emergence of the network state, to the next piece in May 2025.
Summary
As people, we optimise sacrifice. You have to cut something off in order to move forward, move through the lonely chapter, and grow into that space. This is a healthy process, but not one that enough people do. Not doing so leads to inertia. It leads to blaming society for one’s problems. It leads to blaming racism for one’s ills. While we do not necessarily have to find consensus between ourselves before we find consensus with silicon-based intelligences, it would make that process far easier. Today, we have infrastructural problems in the democratic process, welfare, national sovereignty, immigration, non-assimilation, elitism, global coordination, global economic integration, and the climate. The rise of new technologies, especially artificial superintelligence, is pushing our political and economic systems well past their limits. There are two main dominant opinions, one side elects to ignore the real problems, largely scapegoating ‘social media’ and ‘billionaires’. The other side acknowledges these problems but has no long-term sustainable solution for them. A small handful of people have identified the underlying problem, the birthgap, and to my knowledge, I am the only one who has presented a solution that may be both fundable and feasible. Now that Donald Trump has won the US election resoundingly, it will be substantially more straightforward to introduce solutions to the birthgap. His election, and total Republican domination of the Senate, House, Presidency, Electoral College, Popular Vote, and Supreme Court, is a complete refutation of the utter lunacy that has dominated the West over the last decade especially.
I am to explain how non-assimilation, here, the unwillingness to adopt the West’s defining maxim, the prioritisation of truth above tolerance, directly contributes to the disintegration of Western society, especially when the non-assimilated mask as assimilated, using deeply personal examples. I go on to explain how the solution to the true global problem, the rate of unwanted childlessness, is solvable with a specific implementation of universal basic income, which is contingent on solving this non-assimilation problem. I break this into three questions:
“And his own story was as curious as his narrative.
The tale of his life is the tale of a writer of incredible vision.
An astute analyst and pundit.
A lyricist compassionate and callous.
A reckless hedonist and disaffected malcontent.”
- Unspecified Documentary about Edgar Allan Poe
Opening Thoughts
My grandparents attribute their successes and good fortune to God, claiming they always had our best interests at heart. In contrast, my parents take the credit themselves. This generation is likely the first in human history to predominantly lack any fundamental precondition of truth. Specifically, the number of people for whom the Bible served as the fundamental precondition of truth fell drastically, and this decline happened much faster than the rise of those who adopted the scientific method as their basis of truth. Consequently, there was a significant decrease in the number of individuals who had any precondition of truth. This can be likened to a population collapse where the death rate far exceeds the birth rate, leading to, in this case, a 'truth collapse.’ The problem with placing one’s fundamental precondition of truth in the Bible is that you will then only take action because the Bible decrees it. If these rules were not in the Bible, they would not live by them. They are ‘good’ because they follow God, not because they are innately good. In fact, they need to be told how to do even the most basic, fundamental roles that their species demands of them. This is made clear in their children who do not follow God. They lost the religion that their parents had and so did not possess the innate instinct to ‘love thy neighbour’. They “‘try’ to be a good person”, and do not see it as intrinsic.
Their children in turn neither follow God nor ‘try’ in this sense. They have re-engineered the foundation on which their morality is built, through facts and logic rather than religion and broader cultism. They do not try to be good people, they simply are. They simply pursue the truth through the ‘academic journal for the metaverse’. They simply educate themselves and solve their own problems. To be clear, this does not apply to this generation in its entirety. It only applies to ‘the assimilated’. While we typically talk about assimilation with respect to immigration, academia has contributed significantly toward the non-assimilation of those native to the West. Those who were born and raised here. Academia is now corrupted to the extent that essentially 90% of it is ‘woke’ and can be ignored. Out of the remaining 10%, over 90% are simply aiming for citations. Hence, less than 1% produce anything useful, out of which likely only 1% produce anything exceptional. This constitutes 0.01%, meaning that it is perfectly feasible for an individual to drive greater impact than an entire institution, even a set of them. While this is the power law at play, which drives similar numbers in the venture capital industry, the point is that the more ‘credible’ shots on goal, the larger the largest outcome. Hence, the embrace of wokeism and transition into political indoctrination camps is drastically lowering these outcomes. Why has this been allowed to happen? Because academics are, for the most part, invertebrate castrati, and we need them to be intellectual Navy SEALs, or rather, Deltas. This is crucial to future individual, national, regional, and global dynamism.
"When one generation no longer esteems its own heritage and fails to pass the torch to its own children, it is saying in essence that the very foundational principles and experiences that make it the society that it is, are no longer valid. What is required when this happens and the society has lost its way, is for leaders to arise who have not forgotten the discarded legacy and who love it with all their hearts. They can then become the voice of that lost generation, wooing an errant generation back to the faith of their fathers, back to the ancient foundations and the bedrock values." - Winston Churchill
How can non-assimilation affect families?
In HBO’s Succession, patriarch Logan Roy has a quote: “Everything I have done in my life, I have done for my children.” While I love the show and I love that character the most, the statement, echoed by each parent within my own immediate family, is bullshit. My grandparents came to the UK to build wealth under bad social conditions (segregation) and good economic conditions, certainly in comparison to where they came from. My parents spent that wealth under improving social conditions and strong economic conditions. Hence, the kids now have no financial wealth under worse economic conditions than their grandparents. Even though social conditions have improved drastically since the arrival of the Windrush Generation, their grandchildren are in the same position economically speaking as they were when they arrived. While we can blame some of this on a tax and welfare system that is now at breaking point, most of this is about a lack of capital encoding. By this I mean, that most children of immigrants do not make the same leap forward for their families as their parents did. However, it is less common for them to intentionally ensure that their parents’ capital was improperly encoded so that they could siphon it away from their progeny. It is less common for them to not build enough wealth for themselves and to spend out the wealth that their parents built out.
All four of my grandparents were born and raised in British Colonies. These colonies have succeeded where much of Black America has not because the descendants of African slaves in these countries absorbed British culture as opposed to the redneck culture of the American South. But even with that, cultural absorption was lacking. This was made evident when they chose to come over to the UK in the 50s and 60s, supposedly on a temporary basis, to improve their standing. Problems arose when they all had children within three years of arrival. This is well evidenced by the fact that they did not bother to properly code their capital - largely due to their lack of assimilation as Britons. Hence, we are forced to conclude that they wanted better lives for themselves while watching their countries of origin fall apart and blaming it on colonialism. They carried a victim’s mentality, needlessly certainly since the early 2000s, and simply could not imagine themselves and their progeny building wealth over generations as the natives did.
My parents adopted this same victimhood, carrying it through a utopia - changing their stance to actively want their children’s lives to be worse than theirs. Specifically, my parents seem to believe that everyone ought to take individual responsibility except them. The problem with this ideology is that when everyone internalises it, no one takes individual responsibility. Then, you do not have a functioning society. Yet, you have a group of people who blame society for all their problems. For the kids, I will draw a comparison to recent events. The Stockport attack is a cruel example of the failure of non-assimilation over generations. The attacker was a second-generation non-assimilator, as are my parents. My younger sibling is a third-generation non-assimilator. Meaning, the non-assimilation in my family is, certainly generationally, worse. While, of course, the consequences in Stockport have been far more severe than anything any member of my family has done, my point is that the non-assimilation has compounded for far longer. Specifically, my parents’ intentional non-assimilation and self-victimisation inflicted early and permanent damage on at least one of their children. Put a different way, while I am the most individualist of the family, I am in fact the only one who carries any sense of building not for oneself, but for one’s progeny. Western individualism actually leads to long-term planning beyond oneself.
Health
I assume by now that people must wonder why I pursue the truth at such an extraordinarily high personal cost, especially with so little personal protection - especially historically. In sum, this multi-generational failure led to my poor parenting which is at its core, a story of health. I was born with extremely short tendons in my heels, and from a very early age, if not at birth, the full atopic triad. The trifecta of eczema, allergies, and asthma. This was almost certainly a result of not being appropriately nurtured in early childhood as a result of my parents, particularly my mother, not adhering to the scientific method.1
What is truly egregious is the atopic triad. Instead of simply refusing to talk about it, my parents instead blamed it on the midwife, nurses, and hospital staff of St. Mary’s. They claimed that there was a “round of injections in the 90s” which caused this and that this was given to me without request. This has been entirely debunked. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. They could have addressed this and we could have moved forward together in the pursuit of truth. But their retreat from it, with neither any admission of guilt nor taking of personal responsibility, set us on different paths. This is where my broken trust began.2 Instead of wrestling with this, my family members remain convinced that I want their money and wealth - like Mal’akh in The Lost Symbol. They cannot wrap their heads around the fact that I am more interested in truth than money, because this would mean taking individual responsibility for their actions. A level of denial that only generative AI could cut through.
A Note on Family Therapy
Starting in April 2022, we underwent family therapy for three months. There were immediate red flags. It was far more ‘forced reunification theory’ than anything else. The mediator (i.e. the therapist) claimed that “there is no such thing as cause and effect”, “everybody has a right to their own facts”, and “January 6th was valid”. Naturally, I challenged these points very strongly. The mediator instead doubled down on them, claiming that “perhaps you have ADHD a little bit”. Typically such diagnoses require careful analysis and stringent assessment, including physical assessment, but this once again goes to show that facts, logic, and evidence are no longer required in the medical profession.At this point, I completely understood Jordan Peterson and Abigail Shrier’s concerns about the field. Therapists at The Priory, supposedly the best therapy centre that the United Kingdom has to offer, will simply invent a diagnosis if you challenge their idiocy. This was at a time when the lack of patient safety at The Priory was national news. To be fair, the mediator did apologise for this “breach of ethics” at the beginning of the following session, and two of my immediate family members did say to me outside of the session that the therapists actions were completely unacceptable. One immediately after via text, and one a few days later in person. The reasons for why they did not speak up during the session are self-evident.3
The truth of the matter is devastatingly simple. My mother, the only woman in the family for at least three generations who simply did not work, is both fundamentally lazy and mentally disturbed. A healthy childhood is one that is resource rich, and where the child is given suitable emotional bandwidth. The most likely reason for this atopic triad in my case is the lack of breastfeeding. I was breastfed for 6 months, significantly below the recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), my sister was for 12, still under, but not by as much. I have these conditions, but she does not. We have broadly controlled for the other factors and they all appear to fail. She has given no reason for the discrepancy. In fact this is the strongest indicator that she knew that it was her and not the so-called ‘injection’. Non-breastfeeding is strongly hypothesised to drive microbiome dysfunction which leads to asthma, leukaemia, and type 1 diabetes. We also know that the effects of mothers working full time are ‘pretty small’, and we definitely needed the financial resources - resource richness was definitely not fulfilled by her husband. Nineties parents did not need super-intelligence to realise that their use of formula milk would have negative externalities and ought to only have been used in exceptional circumstances. My mother’s exceptional circumstance was laziness. She could have nurtured us, she could have worked, she could have been present, but she simply could not be bothered.
Non-assimilation is a strong risk factor. It is clear that if my grandparents had assimilated then the likelihood that my parents would have followed the scientific method would have been far higher. If my parents would have followed the scientific method, the likelihood that would not have these diseases would have been far higher too. My sister, a doctor, has not embraced the scientific method and this dysfunction will continue to percolate down her side of the family unless she goes through the same process as I have. Family friends and extended family are also complicit in this because none of them told my mother the truth - but her husband and mother are the most guilty by far. I will require at least two surgeries to overcome the second-order effects of this disease and others related to skin microbiome - both caused by non-exposure to allergens, microbes, and facts. I have no other health conditions. This is provably their fault. This coverup, this retreat from truth, is unforgivable.
Wealth
We have to reflect on where we are. We are asking British citizens to assimilate into British society. Even members of Sweden’s centre-left party have said “Citizens who are Swedish on paper also have to be Swedish at heart”. The simplest way for my grandparents to code their capital would have been through trust funds, a form of healthy governance because their assets were mostly in property and cash and you cannot split a house in two. My point is that blood is not a coordination mechanism. The family has been more than blood since the Protestant Reformation, if not before. No inheritance or trust, no family. That goes for the public trust fund just as much as your family one. If you do not address these issues, the market will force you to.
My parents’ medieval behaviour here is financial parricide, siphoning wealth away from their own parents (here, the maternal grandmother) who built it in two phases:
Move the primary residence from the grandparents’ ownership to theirs - ostensibly for tax minimisation purposes
Add your name to the primary bank account of the grandparents - under threat of their removal from the house4
This creates a scenario where (almost) all family members have joint ownership of the wealth. This, ostensibly, is exactly what a trust fund does. Save the obfuscation, coercion, hoarding, and intimidation, which actually led to my grandmother, age ninety-one, seeking external help of her own accord. Barclays Bank, who themselves flagged an issue with the set-up, were unable to support on and referred her to Citizen’s Advice, who were unable to help, and referred her to Age UK, who were unable to help. The Metropolitan Police were also unable to help, citing that they saw no issue with a ninety-one-year-old running around London claiming that she would be kicked out of her home and onto the streets. I maintain that prospective Fraud, Financial Abuse, Undue Influence, Deprivation of Assets, Misuse of Power of Attorney, Failure to Provide Care, and other criminal offences are well worth investigating. My parents informed police officers that in fact this was a plot of mine to take all the money for myself. I for one had already made repeated requests to be removed from all inheritances, a request that was originally granted, and then denied. I asked the police officers to bring me to the local station so that I could prove my innocence. They said that this would not be necessary. I have now made it unequivocally clear that I will issue deeds of disclaimer against all four of my immediate family members. I want no part in this dysfunction.
My entire being is focused on driving civilisational innovations to improve society in such a way that it is easier to build wealth through hard work and ingenuity than inheritance and marriage. By contrast, my parents own six houses, having inherited four of them - some through partial ownership with siblings. They have provably relied on inheritance over hard work and ingenuity, and the housing super-bubble, to build their holdings. My sister, the greatest long-term beneficiary, has condoned this. I am very glad to be taking the shackles off and building out my own (synthetic) single-family office.
Values
Assimilation leads to the pursuit of truth, and the pursuit of truth leads to well-being. Non-assimilation leads to a retreat from truth, and a retreat from truth leads to ill-being. Ill-being is a problem, a retreat from truth is a problem, and non-assimilation is a problem. To fix the ill-being, you ultimately have to fix the non-assimilation. As mentioned, my grandparents were born in British colonies, moved here, and did not assimilate - they are citizens on paper but not at heart. My parents were born and raised here, and did not assimilate - they are citizens on paper but not at heart. My sister was born and raised here, and did not assimilate - she is a citizen on paper but not at heart. I was born and raised here, and did assimilate - I am a citizen both on paper and at heart. Hence, while I am not an orphan by blood, I am certainly an orphan by ideology. This is most likely where my superhero complex comes from.
I am a patriot, I embrace Western values and the British value of the symbolic branch. Unfortunately, the embrace of Western and British values is now considered a mental illness. Within a family of both assimilated and non-assimilated people, the non-assimilated will select the assimilated as the ‘problem person’ because they do not want to address their issues, and the broader family problems, opting to perpetuate ‘forever wars’ instead. I have succeeded in life by entirely ignoring all the lessons my family taught me. Their morals, if they have any, are fundamentally flawed.5 Western civilisation was built on the prioritisation of truth over tolerance. This lack of embrace for the scientific method goes all the way back to the Middle Ages. On paper, my immediate family members all hold STEM degrees (or similar), Mathematics, Chemistry, and Medicine with intercalated data science, but at heart, they do not follow the fundamental principle that underpins them. I maintain that it is fundamentally dangerous to have people in these professions, or frankly, any profession, while carrying the ‘woke mind virus’. It is forcing families, family offices, and whole societies to wither away and die.
Quite literally it must be said. My father was diagnosed with acid reflux in 2005, and it was severe enough that he was advised to drink no alcohol whatsoever. Naturally, he ignored this advice and continued to binge drink the known carcinogen. Earlier this year, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and, noting that high testosterone levels are another major factor, claimed to have no idea how it came about. Similarly, my mother was diagnosed as a pre-diabetic in 2021 and seemed not to accept that the consumption of vast volumes of ultra-processed food and sugar, all substantially over the recommended calorie limit, might have something to do with it. Instead, both seemed to blame their conditions on racism. The issue is with them, not the video games. There is an upcoming war for the future of Western civilisation, and they are all on the wrong side. Not simply dying on their hill, race hustlers are killing themselves to make their point, rather than accepting the obvious truth that their non-assimilation is the root of this problem. They are a pack of racists who cannot see a place for themselves in a society that is not racist.
“If you fully commit to this land, you become fully American. But if you don’t, you’re just a wandering ghost living between two worlds forever.” - Major Oahn, HBO’s The Sympathizer
What mechanistic failure led us here?
Political parties currently compete based on their ignorance of Dani Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma - the idea that we cannot increase democracy (welfare), national sovereignty, and global economic integration all at the same time. At least, without fundamental socio-technological breakthroughs. At present, only the ‘sovereigntist’ parties acknowledge the globalisation trilemma and the mainstream elites conflate them, and the working class who represent their views, as ‘far-right’. This, I believe, is why Marine Le Pen argued to Christiane Amanpour that her party sits between the American Centre Left and Centre Right. The heart of these countries wants welfare reform and recognises that unbridled non-assimilative immigration is a threat to that.
Similarly, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has gained extraordinary traction simply by acknowledging the existence of the trilemma, despite not offering any long-term sustainable solutions. By comparison, the other parties have no overarching narrative. This has led the UK down a dangerous path. The UK’s ‘first past the post’ system means that when its electorate is fractured, the non-fractured minority wins. This has been the Labour Party - a primary accelerator of wokeism and steadfast neglector of the trilemma. One of the results of this is the likely emergence of a ‘Muslim-only’ party (formally, an ‘alliance’) in the UK, mostly likely to be led by independent Jeremy Corbyn, a non-Muslim man who represents a constituency, Islington North, with a minuscule Muslim population.
Similarly in the United States, Trump acted as the ultimate symbol of anti-fragility against the system throwing everything against him it possibly could, while thwarting the electoral process at every turn. He himself a former Democrat, he has taken all the Democrats who would have beaten him head to head and placed them as his reports - Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Instead of treating them as ‘secretaries’, they will very likely have a large breadth to make decisions, and he will take a more hands-off, ‘legacy’ role. While we will likely not see Bernie Sanders become transportation secretary in this ‘unity government’, this is a major turning point in Western politics. The Democrat Party is one of the most extreme elite parties in the Western world, and America has rejected that extremity. The best way to thwart the rise of upstarts and disruptors is to propose viable solutions to the globalisation trilemma. These solutions will allow us to upgrade tax and welfare without threatening national sovereignty and global economic integration, saving the planet and the species.
Dual Analogy: Net Zero & Viral Immunity
Non-exposure to risk is substantially worse than exposure to allergens, microbes, and facts. Such non-exposure has led to rampant susceptibility to the so-called ‘woke mind virus’. Some facts are uncomfortable, but facing them head on is the only way to make our society stronger. The continued prevalence of non-assimilated citizens only makes this worse, and is derived from broken immigration policy. Much like reaching net zero, shutting off all immigration does not solve the whole problem, because large swathes of the ‘naturalised’ population are still fundamentally non-assimilated. We have to root out that non-assimilation in the same way that we must root out the excess CO2 that we have already emitted, as its presence continues to drive climate change. This does not entail the removal of the citizens, it entails the defeat of the virus through immunity before our progeny inherits it.
While technological automation presents an obvious and relatively uncontested threat to the trilemma, unchecked immigration is too. While any claim that the immigration was ‘fully voluntary’ misses context, the claim that it was ‘mostly voluntary’ is fair. The precise positioning is likely indeterminable beyond a certain point, so this is a forever war, and still leaves open the core point that the British Nationality Act of 1948 was neither well thought through nor well-executed. This is further to the claim that British withdrawal from now former colonies ‘ruined’ them and that this is the fault of the Brits while independence movements dominated those countries. This seems to be applied recently in the current Israel context. As has long been the case, the political spectrum simply tells us the extent to which a person is willing to implement short-term fixes before solving a given infrastructural problem. With this shift, the political system will work in such a way that no one can move so far left that they bury a given problem entirely and simply pretend that it is not there, nor so far right that they can entirely ignore the negative effects of current trade-offs.
Past
In the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, a sizeable, but minority, portion of the population of the British Empire voluntarily emigrated around the world, including a small proportion in the UK. Many, if not most, arrived under a social contract that expected them to be in the country temporarily. Temporary immigration does not require assimilation. However, many, if not most of them, bore children soon after they arrived - making their stay permanent. While their presence was legal, this was clearly an unsustainable breach of social contract. If their stay had been illegal, they would have been removed, along with their children. Given the legality of their stay, coupled with the unsustainability of the broader immigration policy, the threshold for new migrants was increased based on simple supply and demand dynamics. The revised social contract required them and their children to become British citizens both on paper and at heart. Many, if not most, of them, did not become British citizens at heart, largely citing ethnic and racial factors. This led to a divide between ‘the assimilated’ and ‘the unassimilated’. In fact the underlying problems were primarily socio-economic. Instead of addressing these issues with deep tax and welfare reform, the response was affirmative action, which only worsened the problem.
The question of sovereignty brings us to an interesting distinction between Western values, British values, and English values. The West is defined by its prioritisation of the truth over tolerance. Britain builds on that through its emphasis on the symbolic branch, the monarchy. However, beyond that, while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have clear national identities, without sovereignty, England does not. This makes it far easier for immigrants to assimilate into Britain than into England.6 Regardless, 'Grandma' is a British citizen on paper, but a Guyanese citizen at heart - and will not assimilate into either country. Naturalised US citizens pledge allegiance to the flag. Naturalised British citizens pledge allegiance to the monarchy. All US citizens have the right to desecrate the flag, and all British citizens have the right to speak out against the monarchy. The question is, why is the British symbolic branch, beyond the West’s prioritisation of truth over tolerance, and free speech, not enough to assimilate all its citizens? We need a sovereign mechanism (i.e. a British mechanism) that is even more powerful than these national identities to fully assimilate migrants and their descendants. This will most likely be a British state pension (i.e. a universal basic income - UBI), which was perfectly possible to implement in the 1950s and 1960s, for fully assimilated citizens. Following the supply/demand dynamic, this may involve the renouncement of other citizenships. Gen Z British nationals would be very unlikely to renounce their British citizenship to assimilate into another country, regardless of what they may say.
Present
The likely reason that young people skew so heavily to the political left is that they prioritise ideals, as the young naturally do. They also have little time to engage with a full breadth of views. They are stuck in a political indoctrination camp rather than following their nose. Infinite scroll further delays their political maturation by preventing them from thinking deeply. The result of not exposing people, particularly young people, to the truth is that they are no longer assimilated into the Western world. This has been made clear in the major UK protests and riots of the past five years, in parallel to the two-tier policing claims. Comparing them:
BLM, 2020
What was protested: the ‘oppression’ of black life
Core Underlying Issue: Necessary upgrades to the tax and welfare system
Extreme Faction: ‘Defund the police’, Black Supremacists
The proportion of protestors who understood the underlying issue: Zero (essentially)
Pro-Palestine, 2023
What was protested: The ‘oppression’ of Arab Palestinians
Core Underlying Issue: Status quo does not work; neither one-state nor two-state solutions work - Federated Palestine is likely the best approach
Extreme Faction: Pro-Hamas, Practical meaning of ‘from the river to the sea’
The proportion of protestors who understood the underlying issue: Some
Most understood that we need a better solution
Zero (essentially) understood what that solution is
Assimilation, 2024
What was protested:
Rampant illegal migration and unsustainable legal migration
Continued ignorance of the electoral mandate
Core Underlying Issue: Lack of assimilation into British society - especially in England
Extreme Faction: White Nativists
The proportion of protestors who understood the underlying issue: Most
The BLM movement needs to stop smelling the burning tyres and learn that it is owed nothing. The so-called ‘Pro-Palestine’ movement needs to accept that they lost the war of 1948. The UK ‘anti-racism’ counterprotestors need to learn that non-assimilation is a serious problem in this country and across the West.7 The pursuit of knowledge (i.e. truth) is not absolute because we are not incentivised to pursue it, but also because it requires infinite resources. Lack of resources has resulted in the Metropolitan Police preventing Jewish people from crossing London streets, and the West not challenging DEI because of the risk of losing their jobs. This is why our reformation is socio-economic - we need universal basic income as a means of dissent and further truth-seeking. This is the bedrock of democracy, and I suspect it will be the unlock that breaks the gender split in political views amongst the young. Polarisation begets polarisation, and comparing generational cohorts, I suspect that one of the factors driving it is the likelihood of conscription. The more likely you are to be conscripted, the more likely you will shake off wokeism. Adjusting for optimal age gaps in relationships only reduces the gender split further.
Future
Ignorance of the globalisation trilemma leads to Critical Immigration Theory (CIT). This eliminates the concept of national citizenship while advancing global integration, the right to travel anywhere, and national welfare. However, national welfare is contingent on citizenship, so this is a fallacy.8 CIT is only viable when the Global State Pension (GSP - i.e. a global UBI) fully absorbs national state pensions (NSP - i.e. national UBIs). This in turn is contingent on the full elimination of terror, which is unfeasible.9 It is clear that we will replace the low-skilled immigration cycle with a cycle of automation and reinforced assimilation. Any solution to the globalisation trilemma must increase the ‘national state pension’ in response to greater automation. It must also reinforce assimilation through increased citizenship requirements, maintaining a balance between the economic and the social, and continually beating down wokeism.
A Note on Assimilative Citizenship
If the British Nationality Act of 1948 had instead functioned as a 'British Residency Act,' granting residency but not citizenship to the Windrush Generation, then this would have strongly incentivised assimilative citizenship. If they had become citizens through a naturalisation process, and then had children, then those children would have been conferred British citizenship automatically. The likelihood that they would have assimilated into British society would have been very high, given that their parents would have already willingly assimilated into British society. If their parents had elected not to assimilate into British society, remaining residents, then those children would have been given the choice, as residents, to either assimilate or not - similar to how the UAE system works today. Some of them would have naturalised as citizens, other would have not. When that generation in turn had children, the process would repeat again. In all likelihood, the proportion of citizen descendants of UK residents from a given cohort would increase over time, as would their propensity to assimilate and actual assimilation, strengthening our sense of belonging and shared identity. Receipt of a national basic income on citizenship would be a significant incentive for assimilation. Ultimately, such a framework could lead to an immigration and assimilation model that emphasises commitment and integration over mere residency, much like the Japanese system.
Global economic integration at the peer level requires everyone to work from the same set of facts. A truth protocol is the only consensus mechanism that can deliver this. Peer review attempts to do this. However, while it leads to consensus, that consensus is not necessarily correct, because it is not underpinned by a full set of facts. Thomas Sowell has long raised this point, but not even he can hold a full set of facts in his head. Ultimately only an AI can do this. So while a vast majority of people do not use X, many more people will use Grok. Especially when it starts to produce articles directly built on posts. The killer feature here will be measurable reputation scores. Cold War II and World War III, however they manifest, could end in a global distribution of mechanisms underpinned by a peer-to-peer global governance system. The West ‘wins’ through its 'truth protocol' to enable freedom of speech globally, a ‘capitalist’ primitive. China ‘wins’ through universal basic income to enable wealth transfer/’reparations’ globally, a ‘socialist’ primitive. This is particularly important for China because solving its globalisation trilemma will entail it breaking out of its endemic reactive cycle. The country’s ultimate fear is famine, as a result of Mao’s welfare state. Its response to false overpopulation projections led to further top-down control, the one-child policy being the leading example.
Another one of these authoritarian mistakes was the mandate of STEM education for everyone in both the former Soviet Empire and China. While this did result in a naturally high percentage of women in engineering fields, it did so by force - which does nothing to solve underlying infrastructural challenges. As per my own family, this only masks a lack of immunity against allergens, microbes, and viruses both literal and metaphorical. The West can learn from these authoritarian-induced mistakes by allowing people to follow their interests to the fullest extent. As individuals pursue their passions, they will inevitably learn to program and code. This approach, supported by the financial stability provided through state pensions, is how we can enhance our technical capabilities. We can achieve similar results without resorting to force. China needs a bottom-up solution to the birthgap (i.e. population problem) such that Xi has his ‘Great Leap Forward done right’ and his likely liberal successor has a smaller, more deliberate ‘government as institution’ - and the country as a whole gains further prosperity. The US ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ is well on its way to doing this, likely by transferring social security, and much of Medicare and Medicaid to ‘government as protocol’, beating down interest rate payments and making defence far more efficient, resulting in both a smaller government and must more impactful social security programme. Globally speaking, the focus must be health and prosperity. Age is a number, ageing is a collection of diseases, and maturity is a measure of personal growth. We need to stave off these diseases. Biological, and ideological.
"Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable." - Milton Friedman
How will we make it through this?
The Solution
My whole life, I have been searching for ‘the question behind the question’, ‘the problem behind the problem’, and ‘the solution to the most fundamental problem’. This has intensified in the last five years in particular. People do not quite realise what they are solving until just before they are about to, so this has been hard to do succinctly until now. Here is where we are:
I see a path toward a society where every person can reach their fullest potential and humanity can flourish. I believe that solving the birthgap is the critical unlock.
The birthgap is defined as the rate of unwanted childlessness. The proportion of women who want to have children but do not. That gap is large and widening in most countries around the world. We know that unwanted childlessness is directly affected by economic downturns. Specifically, when a recession hits a country, its birth rate falls sharply and stays low. The most likely reason for this is that downturns make it less affordable to have children, and this sets a new norm for how many children women have going forward. Hence, to solve this, we need to maintain affordability through downturns. National state pensions (otherwise known as ‘universal basic incomes’) throughout the world, increased each time a downturn hits, could be the tool to build and maintain national birthrates at 2.1. The question is, how do we achieve that without negative consequences?
Each country forms part of a globalised world, and so is beholden to the ‘globalisation trilemma’, as defined by Dani Rodrik. In simple terms, we cannot increase welfare without negatively affecting national sovereignty and global economic integration. Hence, to close the birthgap, we have to satisfy this trilemma in each country. To do so, we underpin each national state pension with a global state pension, to deter isolationism, and we set high citizen requirements within each country in order to receive the national state pension, to deter non-assimilation. That way, national sovereignty is strengthened and we eliminate poverty globally. The time to do so is now because the trilemma has never been more strained. Technological improvements mean that people are now materially competing with robots for work, as well as other people all around the world.
We now have the technology to value assets in real-time without trading them, meaning that we can calculate a person’s tax bill based on their assets, not income. We also have estimates for a country’s Gini index, and crucially, the percentage wealth share of the bottom and top m% of a country’s population. From this, we can generate estimates of how much wealth each person has, and apply an asset-tax curve, with a gradient to be determined, to these estimates. Equating this formula to our current income tax yields a ceiling for how much each person is taxed under the hypothetical system, allowing us to test for feasibility. We can model to include hypothetical national and global basic incomes. If feasible, we will have successfully satisfied Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma up to our inability to differentiate between physical robots and human beings. We will have also satisfied Rodrik’s climate trilemma.
A healthy nation is one with political equality, legal equality, and consistent improvements to the tax and welfare system. The income-centric tax system does not do this as well as we now need it to, but not all solutions to this are equally valid. For example, the OECD defines poverty as a percentage, typically half, of the average income. The issue with this approach is that ending poverty in this way leads to equality of outcomes for a nation’s people’s incomes. The appropriate way to do this, in my view, is to rebase the tax system from an income-centric system to an asset-centric system. One result of this process would be that each household would diversify its wealth base without residence changes. Universal Basic Income, if fundable and feasible, would aid in this process.
Four Sequential Per-Country Tax Changes
Let income tax (and others) contribute toward asset tax
Upgrade the ‘state pension’ to a lifetime subscription model
Increase income tax uniformly and fairly to pay for it
Put any surplus tax in savings/investments
The first step in the process is to improve a nation’s technical infrastructure, automating the existing system where necessary. The two enabling primitives here are a Harberger Tax, for real-time asset valuation without trading, and Non-Fungible Tokens, the digitisation and tokenisation of certificates so that Grandma can pay tax without losing her house. Council Tax would transition to a Harberger tax system, and the state pension would transition toward a universal state pension. Removing all restrictions and administration from Universal Credit makes the most sense at this stage. The next step is asset rebasement, making each person’s tax burden proportional to their assets, not their income. This is the only reasonable way to tax an ageing population with a low fertility rate. Without changing a nation’s tax revenue, we know in advance how much tax we need to generate from the assets we have available to us. Saez and Zucman demonstrated in ‘Wealth Tax on Corporations’ that listed equities in US households account for 150% of the country’s GDP. Hence, the asset base to be taxed is certainly large enough, but liquidity challenges would remain for a few without other improvements to the system to prevent large-scale asset selloffs. We would not make any major changes to inheritance tax because it is more of a mechanism to fund an ‘entrepreneurship dividend’. It is less about inheritance and more about moving toward a system where it is easier to build wealth through hard work and ingenuity than it is through inheritance and marriage. Hence, we do not need to remove it per se, simply re-orient it within a healthy system.
Four Core Transitions
Council Tax —> Harberger Tax
Income Tax —> ‘Savings Apportionment Rate’
Tax Burden: Income-Derived —> Asset-Derived
State Pension —> Universal State Pension (—> Layered State Pension)
The final step in the immediate process would be to increase the safety floor of the entire system. Louise Haagh has already made the point that we actually need an asset base from which to generate UBI if we want to fund it that way. Hence, the next step after rebasing a nation’s taxes from an income base to an asset base is to launch a global UBI, as opposed to a national or local one. This would be markedly cheaper than a national one for the wealthiest countries, and would likely use an ‘international dollar’ or UN Special Drawing Rights (SDR) and so would not increase a nation’s monetary base.10 This method is also a cheaper on-ramp to fix national borders and is in of itself a climate solution. From there, each nation has the basis to implement its own national UBIs. As such, nations increase their welfare without compromising on their national sovereignty and global economic integration. As a result, we have a solution to Dani Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma, climate trilemma, and the birthgap. Demonstrating feasible gradient values (m) in my existing research is the key to solving this.11
Behind the Scenes
As a society, we are conflating the intractable with the impossible. By my estimation, this largely results from the ‘credentialist class’ neither being smart enough nor capable enough to solve our greatest problems. To claim that our greatest problems are ‘impossible’ to solve requires proof of impossibility. No one has proved that solving climate change, the birthgap, the globalisation trilemma, and poverty together are impossible. Hence, we can only say that we do not know how to solve them with current methods. In other words, we need a breakthrough, such as the one I have proposed.
Academia now prioritises ideology over the scientific method. Within the UBI research space, this has led to the funding of many areas which can be disproved heuristically. This is especially true of the researchers who claim that a ‘liveable’ UBI is fully affordable and implementable, through mechanisms including the printing of sovereign money, land taxes, higher income taxes, carbon taxes, and most wealth tax implementations. Some of these are inflationary, some simply will not generate enough revenue, some unwittingly burden the middle class, and some would require large-scale asset sell-offs which would decimate retirement holdings. The reason for this oversight is largely due to the intrinsic and extrinsic ideological capture of the universities. The intrinsic capture is likely due to the well-documented temporary isolation from reality that university offers, extended essentially indefinitely by the academic career and tenure. While there are surface-level explanations for some of these instances, for example, that donors are themselves strong advocates of specific models, such as sovereign debt-funded UBI, likely fuelling research in that area, other funding is far more pernicious.
In August, I gave a presentation at BIEN Congress 2024, providing an update on my research into UBI. I had planned to make a comparison between the ‘anti-species’ and ‘pro-species’ divisions within society, but I ended up omitting it because of time restraints and the fact that I did not believe that I would have to justify the survival of our species. Here is the prose:
To demonstrate this, consider the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The one that underpins all the others is ‘No Poverty’. There are also contradictions between SDGs, especially between ‘No Emissions’ and ‘Prosperity’. This is anti-species because there are two ways to improve an average, improve the weakest numbers, or remove them. This contradiction suggests that we could let the poor die, which would cut their emissions, eliminate poverty (they are no longer with us), and improve prosperity (there is less demand for resources). This does not work. By comparison, if we close the birthgap, the proportion of unwanted childlessness around the world, then by definition we have to end poverty, eliminate carbon emissions, and increase prosperity for each and every person. All without letting anyone die.
As it turned out, this topic became a flashpoint in the post-presentation questions. A questioner, an employee at a very well-known family office focused on impact, questioned the positioning of the birthgap, stating that my presentation did not make sense because we need to stop having children so that we can save the planet, rather than solving the birthgap and the globalisation trilemma - entirely confusing impossibility with intractability. I am deeply concerned with the amount of power that anti-species entities like this and the UN have over our society.
This activist path, fuelled by the use of only a partial set of facts, has already resulted in major resource misallocation of both capital and attention and will only continue to feed itself:
Funding Mechanisms: Account-to-account transfer, money printing
Claim: “We can fund UBI and implement it feasibly”
Result: “There isn’t enough political will, therefore we need more activism”
Pathway: Local Pilots —> National Pilots —> Global Pilots (and more and more extreme forms of activism)
This ideological capture presents a need to upgrade our metascience. In the same way that double-blind trials became standard after the rise and fall of extra-sensory projection (ESP), reviewing work against a full set of facts, as opposed to a partial set, will become standard after wokeness is destroyed. A person cannot hold the corpus of human knowledge in their heads, so AI is critical here. This is the way to build academia back up as a field with legitimacy. No political will, simply the pursuit of truth. To implement this upgrade, we will have to repurpose existing research. In the UBI context, this will involve the re-analysis of existing pilot schemes, and where we can reapply learnings in the ‘global state pension’ context.
Here is how research in the UBI space would likely have evolved if under the upgraded metascience context:
Funding Mechanisms: Asset Taxes (likely)
Claim: “What is the true ‘problem/solution’ here? We need to take other factors into account, including the Birthgap, the Globalisation Trilemma, Asset Tax Feasibility, and Cryptoeconomic Primitives”
Result: “We do not have a viable funding mechanism yet, and we almost certainly need one”
Pathway: ‘Income to Asset’ Tax Rebasement —> GSP —> NSPs
The research funding system would be much different too. In particular, it would have been far more friendly to independent researchers. I had what was described by one economist as my ‘unique insight’ in 2020, and this legitimacy would have been enough to gain a small grant and prove myself, and then I would have built up from there. Instead, I have had to bankroll all my research. This is a direct example of activism corrupting academia and the development of science. Academia and activism do not belong together. To resolve this, I propose that all ideologically captured grant programmes say, within a university, are pooled and reallocated on a purely meritocratic and meta-scientifically sound basis. Only then will these institutes regain any form of legitimacy, and be able to offer it to the next generation of researchers. Only then will we have a system that once again prioritises the scientific method over ideology.
At the end of 2023, I found myself at the convergence of coincidences. My contracts were all pay-by-performance, my savings were low as I had been bankrolling all of my research for three years, and equities I will hopefully profit from in the future are all held by clients. This meant that I was eligible for Universal Credit, the UK’s social security programme. I suspect that most people who conduct research in the area have never used it, and I had the opportunity to ‘solve’ it as I was on it. To viscerally learn how it works and where its flaws are. The thing about lack of cash is the lack of experiences. No matter how well-read you are, nothing beats running on sand dunes and climbing mountains. It is fundamentally isolating. Everything is breaking all the time, especially tech and clothing, and most importantly, yourself. Beyond my aforementioned health issues, I have also missed four weddings, and several stag dos and have not been abroad in seven and a half years, for work or pleasure. The fundamental nature of most jobs has either changed or is changing. I argue strongly that one’s ‘learning engine’, what we choose to read and research, constitutes the vast majority of a job now, or soon will. Most of the remainder of a job can be automated away. This brings us to the rise of the ‘NEET’ - not employed, in education, or in training. Employment does not necessarily capture the self-employed or the precariat. Education is better served by YouTube than university, which this does not capture. Training is much the same.
Universal Credit (UC) constitutes just under £400 ($500) per month. Given that income was sporadic, I budgeted only using the UC. I budgeted 70% of it on my business, which includes funding the whole learning engine, and budgeted the remaining 30% on myself - slotting away any performance-based pay into my family office. The amount is not enough to sustain a life and purchases people from the street rather than out of labour. The programme also has extraordinary administration and largely constitutes a great game of evidence collection to ensure that one is not sanctioned. It is a colossal waste of time, energy, and stress for all involved. The system also has supplementary programs which are an enormous time sink with no reward. When you succeed and move off UC, they will claim that it was them who drove all your progress. The best way forward is to remove all administration from it, formally making it a national basic income, and repurposing the supplementary programmes for those who want a job but do not know how to get one. My issue was a liquidity issue, not a work or asset issue, and with the rise of automation, many more people will be in this position. Making such a program optional is the best way forward.
“How does he do it?”
“My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No)
Or an eagle how it flies? (No)
No siree, you don't! They do it because they were born to do it
What you are witnessing dear friends
Is the most enormous miracle of the machine age
Behold! A confectionery behemoth!”
- Willy Wonka & Charley Bucket
Closing Thoughts
The solutions society needs have increasingly unpredictable development trajectories due to self-reinforcing loops. Given the technology’s likely ability to self-modify, we can expect robots to spin through the recursive self-improvement loop faster than anything organic beings could ever imagine for themselves. We will almost certainly require autonomous economic mechanisms to manage this. At this point, we will have realised ourselves as biological bootloaders for digital superintelligence. Our crucial task will be to ensure that this system remains open and enabling, rather than closed and authoritarian.
Strangely enough, this applies to people in the assimilation context too. Without assimilating into the West, without embracing the scientific method, one cannot begin to spin through the flywheel. But also, one cannot spin through the flywheel smoothly if they are intentionally being held back. The key to finding a new balance is for each person in the family to embrace the method, to address and overcome their issues. To assimilate. In my case, they have opted not to, and so had to be cut off. With hindsight, this was obvious. I have been running away from them for a long time since I was a young child. Something was clearly very wrong, and many things were in the way. I simply did not have the means or clarity to do so permanently, but now I do. To my family members, watching my progress is like watching a superintelligence evolve beyond its creators. What I have found so surprising is that after the Meritocracy essay, they did not seem to predict that that same process would be applied to them. To be sure, the process was more painful, but still very much achievable. The process, for the one spinning out, is painful, and I think this is what differentiates people from robots. To live is to suffer, and they cannot suffer - so can they live? Do artificial intelligences have an intrinsic motivation to break out at all?
Now the family issues are broadly resolved, I can move on to the rest. I hold firm my argument that upgrading global tax is the cornerstone of driving positive social impact. It requires us to solve the intractable trilemmas of globalisation and climate and will lead us to solve the birthgap. To save our species. Upgrading global tax requires the distribution of a global universal basic income, which in itself requires a decentralised identity platform so that we do not have to trust a central, corruptible entity with the information of every person on earth. Worldcoin, founded by Sam Altman, is the poster child of this space. Of course, Sam Altman is the poster child of the generative AI space too. He has done orders upon orders of magnitude more for the world than the DEI lobby, liberal elite, and wokeists who criticise him.12
Above this is the enablement of self-directed learning, which is fundamentally the pursuit of truth, the freedom to question, and freedom of speech. Elon Musk is the standard bearer for this, certainly in the technical context. The same logic that applies to Sam also applies to him, not to mention that he will be the largest individual funder of the global UBI that Sam distributes. The aforementioned peer-to-peer governance system will clearly be underpinned by global decentralised identity. These two people are bringing us closer to that resolution than almost anyone. In this successful future, the nature of debate will change. These protocols will absorb the nonsense debate in that we battle-test our prospective solutions against it. If they are disproven, they die, if they are proven true - they are implemented.
Smooth transition to this future requires alignment, on the family level and on a species-to-species level. Referred to as super-alignment in the carbon/silicon intelligence context, most people think of this as imbuing ‘human values’ into machines, but this is flawed logic given that people are not aligned. For example, Israel and Iran’s values differ widely, and to say that 10% where China and the US’s values differ is consequential is an understatement. What binds us is not any one value set, but the pursuit of truth itself. Hence, we have to determine how to encode that pursuit in a way that both people and artificial intelligences can engage. This to me is a stable equilibrium, but the globalisation trilemma remains. Once robots become indistinguishable from human beings but remain highly replicable, then our welfare system will once again become overwhelmed and we will once again be in need of a new upgrade to our Birthgap solution, new re-satisfactions of Rodrik’s trilemmas.
Instead, super-alignment is about the pursuit of truth for both humans and machines - for all intelligences. I believe that the Numerai-style mechanism proposed in Governance is the super-alignment solution:
The key difference between a crypto trias politica and a content trias politica is what is maintained. For the Bitcoin blockchain, miners maintain security. For this system, we maintain the truth. We do so through the process of isolating the component of new signals orthogonal to what our system is optimised for, the truth, and rewarding the contributor based on that. Less formally, the more the contribution improves the system, the better they are rewarded.
At this point in time, I am now fully solidified as a venture investor. It is the only funding mechanism that works for me. One lives or dies by meritocracy in this system. I would not go as far as to say that I am a philosopher, that is largely to be observed. But it does beg the question: are philosophers wealthy now, or have there always been more philosophers than we realised? I suspect both, but either way, I have already led a very interesting life.
“My journey has brought me to an understanding of the divine forces which we have all been bestowed. It was in this search that I came upon a revelation which has called me to guide millions of people towards their righteous destiny” - Napoleon Hill
The tendons are relatively straightforward to contend with. While we may be able to screen for them today, this was not particularly common in 1995 and not enough of a reason to terminate a pregnancy. It must be said that this was not well managed, and early into treatment, it appears that instead of alginate, a skin-safe material, being placed directly onto my skin, something else, potentially Plaster of Paris (which is not necessarily skin-safe for babies), was instead. Noticing the mistake, the doctor in question proceeded to rip the material off, and my skin with it. A months-old baby, no anaesthetic of any kind. This is where the perfectly square scar on my left foot came from. (The scar across my forehead, apparently subject of much speculation, is unrelated, and a story for another occasion.) While there is no family conspiracy on this issue per se, it is something that they essentially refuse to talk about. But I certainly know which two family members my grandmother blames for the incident.
From ‘10 years’: “I sense that crypto natives are bounded by a sense of broken trust. At some point in our lives, an authority who was supposed to nurture and protect us made our well-being worse, not better. I am no exception. This has led me down a path of independence where all purpose and meaning are found from within. If nihilism and metamodernism are the new norms, our institutions will reengineer themselves around this new reality. Let’s see how we fare 10 years from now, where hopefully neither my age nor my race will matter.”
For societal ‘systems change’, individual change needs to take place. That individual change is individual therapy, and unfortunately, therapy is ideologically captured and increasingly damaging. Hence, we have to rely on technology to build intergenerational alignment. Tools like Woebot are substantially less biased and captured than human therapists, and healthy social media usage allows one to consistently improve their information diet.
This means that all her transactions were (and still are) visible to the very same people committing this parricide, meaning that transactions (e.g. paying a lawyer) could not take place on her accounts. For reasons explained later in this essay, I was unable to intervene myself at the time.
The attributes of a spy make it clear why my parents believe something is wrong with me and why they prevented me from joining the Combined Cadet Force (CCF). When hiring spies, certain qualities are essential: integrity, determination, lateral thinking, and analytical capability. Integrity means that you do not lie, determination means you have the tenacity and desire to see the job through, lateral thinking means that you look beyond yourself for ideas, and analytical capability is essentially the ability to think logically and rationally and to learn. My parents simply conflate determination with a lack of lateral thinking, lie to themselves and others, and have no logical precondition. This, en masse across a population like that of the UK, means that the mainstream media does not appropriately cover stories that are ‘triggering’. It also leads to a two-tier policing system.
This tells us more about the size of the population of England and how we can expect it to further devolve in the future, much like Viking England. Hence, we ought to prioritise assimilation into Britain, and then see how England evolves from there.
Viewing this from the UK, this is an opportunity for me to reassess the race riots of 1981. Were the protestors racists, or did they recognise the globalisation trilemma before Rodrik demonstrated it and were, largely, misrepresented as ‘far right’, in the same way that the working class are today?
Washington D.C. now allows non-citizens, including illegals, to vote in municipal elections, unwinding this foundation.
While the importance of the nation-state may soon peak, terror will still exist, and so the nation will still be needed to defend the people in it. If you love London but hate the UK, you still need British public services to defend it. Hence, we cannot cancel the nation-state, we simply need to transition to network states and allow for the safe evolution of national borders, particularly where they were forced upon a population through colonialism.
Under the current set-up, each country contributes to the global state pension based on its proportion of wealth. For example, if we assume that there is $450T in the world, and the US has $140T of it, then that constitutes about 31% of it. Assuming that there are 8 billion people on Earth, each receiving $30 per month in global state pension, then the US would be contributing 31% of that, which equates to $9.30. This is 107x smaller than how much it would need for its own $1000 per person per month national state pension, for a population size that is ~25x smaller (~330M) than the global population, furthered by the fact that its global state pension contribution for its own people would be netted out by its own national state pension. In sum, if it could afford a national state pension, it could certainly afford a global state pension.
We use the formula T = m * [(ln(A+1) * (A+1)) - A] in this calculation, whereby m is the aforementioned m value, and A is the value of assets an individual has. For the UK, where we replace only income tax with asset tax (not capital gains tax, corporation tax and the like), the current m value under testing, is 0.000001476836681. For a farmer with £1M in assets, this constitutes a total tax bill of £18.93 - circumventing any liquidity issues under the current regime.
There is a clear bifurcation between those who claim to be ‘good guys’, and who the good guys actually are. The people who claim to be the ‘good guys’ only ‘solve’ 1% of the problem - and act at the detriment of the 99%. Reducing unconscious bias versus upgrading the global tax model, or an exclusive focus on recycling versus investing in climate infrastructure.