What Now?

 I find myself in a quandry. 

I have two series of posts which are on a collision course.
There were three, somewhat rant-y posts regarding the current state of affairs, particularly in relation to big government and big corporate overreach, culminating with a question regarding the viability of "Kalostopia"

And there were a series of posts chronicling my attempt to disengage from at least some of these forces (beginning with Microsoft), with hopes of constructing a strategy which could be used by anyone (including those who are not technically minded) to do the same.

My rather grand (wishful thinking perhaps) vision was to perhaps help build some tools that could be used by those with the means, talents and will, to create a modern day, praetorian revolt of sorts, on a global scale, or perhaps, even better, a Kalostopia.

My objectives could, I suppose be defined as:

1. Reduce, and if possible, eliminate my dependence on the large corporate and governmental entities whose behavior erodes the pillars I concluded were necessary for such a civilization to succeed.
2. Reduce and where possible, eliminate the flow of my resources/revenue to aforementioned corporate and governmental organizations. I am not invoking or implying any sort of cancel culture with this. I made no call for others to boycott anyone. I am simply tired of my efforts and energy participating in the culture of fear and control. No I don't necessarily think there is any overt attempt to control simply for the sake of power (though that can't be ruled out altogether). Most of it, I believe comes from a much more natural, biological, fear-driven impulse.
3. Reduce any and (if possible) all contributions (direct or indirect) I am making to any individuals or organizations who foster, capitalize on, or profit from fear culture.



But it seems my effort may have been in vain. It appears the world of Linux has been overrun by madness as well.

It appears that Debian - my First choice of distribution - has been engaging in discrimination, giving preferential treatment to some groups, while de-prioritizing or eliminating others, based on race, gender, and sexual preference. Furthermore they recently posted a public announcement regarding their intention to discontinue use of x as a communications platform.

Now, I don't use x, nor do I care if Debian uses it. The problem I have is the public announcement of their intent boycott x, based on a purely political motivation, to silence and/or isolate a particular set of social and political opinions, rather then seek compromise or understanding.

Not Long ago, NixOS lost a large number of key contributors in a "nazi Purge". In this instance it seems that "nazi" was defined as anyone who was not far-left-leaning. Being middle of road, or slightly left-leaning qualified you as a "nazi". They were banned en-masse, so I am not inclined to pivot to NixOS, in spite of the promising technical ideas they are fostering.

There is some rumbling of similar activity occurring in Arch as well. though it is not clear in this instance if it was official Arch activity, or activity of a group running an unofficial communications channel. Bans were implemented, and death-threats were made. But as I noted, I am thus far unable to determine if Arch moderators were involved, or if it was moderators of an unofficial discord channel, with no relation to the actual Arch team.

So, of the three options I was considering, only one might not be engaging in authoritarian activities.

I did come across a new option to consider (OpenMandriva), who recently declared themselves the "unwoke distribution", but it is unclear if that means they are not engaging in extremist politics, or if they are extreme in the opposite  to the others, which  is no better.

I am really not sure what to do now. I still have the desire to do whatever is in my power to facilitate a kinder, more honest, and enabling society. But, is it even possible at this point? Each path seems as treacherous and  obscured by uncertainty as the next.

Kalostopia

 Time to end my rant with a question.

Brief recap of the previous three posts in this... series?:

Human governance seems to run in a cycle:
- Someone with sufficient power/will seeks to create Utopia.
- This creates a state of dystopia for many/most others
- Someone or some group revolts against the current powers which, if successful destabilizes the current authority, and leads to some degree of change.
- Rinse and repeat

 

(Those posts can be found here:

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/09/infotopia-rant.html

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/10/reasoning-and-revolution.html

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/10/utopia-dystopia-and-one-percent.html

Perhaps it is not so dire as it seems. perhaps it is the product of information overload, or the nature of a large and global population. But it does feel like we are approaching a kind of critical mass in this cycle.

Tribes are coalescing, battle lines are being drawn daily. There are hundreds of belligerent, brainless young idealists and pseudo-intellectuals taking to the streets to protest everything one can imagine. Daily, pointless revolutions are launched, over ofttimes imagined injustices, usually leading to no meaningful or positive change, but frequently causing unnecessary suffering and disruption in the lives of quiet, common folk.

We presently live in a time where individuals with the means and will can bend the very fabric of reality. A relatively small number of large organizations, (and/or individuals) who wield an inappropriate level of wealth and authority, have built systems which are easily hijack-able by unscrupulous people, for the purpose of manipulating the masses through fear, uncertainty and doubt. Hundreds of very powerful and undoubtedly well-meaning individuals, each trying to create their Utopia.

How exactly does one meaningfully revolt against them? It is difficult enough to shift the massive national empires and myopic, bureaucratic governments of today, how does one revolt against a multinational corporation? Or an insulated, influential kingmaker whose vast wealth pulls the strings of many governments, many corporations?

Now, please remember, revolts are not always violent - Gandhi's strategy was one of non-violence. (Do you suppose there is anyone today who is sufficiently and universally respected to be able to sway public opinion through a hunger strike? Or would we just plug them in to a machine, making the endeavor moot?)

And not all such revolts topple the  current regime to enact change. Rosa Parks didn't destroy the government, yet her noncompliance led to a dramatic change in the the interpretation of law. The Plebian revolutions didn't topple Roman rule, yet led to policy changes.

One could argue that many of the people who settled in America were revolting against tyranny in their own homelands. Rather than overthrow governments, they packed up and moved elsewhere, created new colonies. Not sure you could pull that one off today. Not many places left on this planet to flee to. Mars is an idea some ponder, but not terribly practical for most to consider.

My personal favorite example is that of the city of Enoch (some claim this is a fictional story, but then the Plebian revolutions are also disputed...). A man (prophet), named Enoch, took his family and friends who would follow, left the warring cities of the time, and built a  new city. A city which was peaceful and prosperous, free of internal strife. The story claims in fact, the people become so righteous, the entire city was removed from the earth, taken up to heaven.

But here then, is the question: It is possible for a group of people - globally separate - to launch a Plebian/Enoch type "revolt", and break out of the Utopia/Dystopia cycle?

Utopia is used to mean "a perfect place", and is claimed to be derived from the Geek:
eu = good
topos  = place

Note: This is actually incorrect. The Term was first coined by Thomas More in 1516, and used as the title of his book, depicting an imaginary island with the perfect, political, legal and social system. He derived it not from eu (good), but from ou (nothing). Utopia literally meant "nowhere".  Quite humorously (or sadly?) The quest for "Utopia" is in fact the quest for something which does not exist.

Dystopia is more straightforward
dys = bad, abnormal
topos = place

Would it be possible for a group to collectively abandon the Utopia/Dystopia cycle, and instead create a "city/nation" among and across global boundaries, based not on the fruitless quest for a fictitious perfection, but instead on the quest for a good, noble, beautiful place?

"The Greek adjective 'kalos' is used to describe that which is inherently good, beautiful, or noble. It often conveys a sense of moral goodness or ethical beauty, extending beyond mere physical appearance to include qualities of character and actions."

Would it be possible in this age to build "Kalostopia"? Not as a local, isolated city, but as a global community? A virtual city of Enoch? How would that start, how would it grow, what would it look like?

I believe for such an idea to work, it would need to be founded on the following key pillars:


1. Truth must be central (Or rather the sincere pursuit of truth, since truth is beyond our reach)
2. Individual Freedom must be maximized. Governance should be by best practice first, policy second,  and law only where necessary.  As such a society matures, the number of laws would decline.
3. Individual Responsibility and accountability must be commensurate with individual freedom
4. Transparency must be maximized and anonymity must be minimized (I am not suggesting an elimination of privacy, and I admit I am not quite certain what this looks like precisely - a bit tricky to unpack...)
5. Integrity, Humility and Charity must be universal and foundational.



Could such a thing be possible today - could a group of rational people with a desire for greater kindness and shared prosperity create a sub-civilization in this world, or is Kalostopia a foolish dream of a silly (old) boy?