{
  "trx_id": "d497bff9dbcf4cd7f7262523b589948bb8f9cdaa",
  "block": 66854332,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-08-16T13:30:24",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "ph-support",
      "to": "bthomas.steem",
      "amount": "0.001 STEEM",
      "memo": ""
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9659cd03e5df6a3420b00f78df5d8d9491e54896",
  "block": 49482964,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-12-15T23:33:54",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "blurtofficial",
      "to": "bthomas.steem",
      "amount": "0.001 STEEM",
      "memo": "CONGRATS! You have a 1:1 BLURT AIRDROP of 21.465 BLURT and 63.810000 BLURT POWER waiting for you. Check out https://blurtwallet.com/@bthomas.steem and https://blurt.blog/ TODAY!"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "db2ffdc208e959a29e29a5d395f2009034478920",
  "block": 43499995,
  "trx_in_block": 7,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-05-19T06:53:42",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "bthomas.steem",
      "parent_permlink": "qanon-muh-russia",
      "author": "arcange",
      "permlink": "re-qanon-muh-russia-20200103t170933000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "![](https://i.imgur.com/1IisxxB.png)",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://i.imgur.com/1IisxxB.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "195704d928d81dfb38e3e8b031a42199ab8f52dc",
  "block": 41297095,
  "trx_in_block": 30,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-03-02T09:42:09",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "creativeblue",
      "to": "bthomas.steem",
      "amount": "0.025 STEEM",
      "memo": "Hi. I'm helping my friend to promote his HIVE/community on steem blockchain and since your account is following ours - I decided to share with you link to this publication. I hope you don't mind and also hopefully you will find it usefull: https://steemit.com/hive-175254/@project.hope/community-of-the-week-challenge-entry-for-project-hope-community"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a074ccb0dbaa1b1cddb72417e3348f4f6deb99b0",
  "block": 40724413,
  "trx_in_block": 23,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T11:23:48",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "aceh.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "what-is-said-unsaid-and-why",
      "weight": 3500
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7de67fc56c9bfb2ae3e079ff2717761e1eb2ec56",
  "block": 40724407,
  "trx_in_block": 11,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T11:23:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "aceh.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "horse-and-rider-politics",
      "weight": 3500
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9422aa020ffbb4b0ef1f14df88d56ad64a694d66",
  "block": 40724404,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T11:23:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "aceh.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 3500
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e7e864ab889c6543f01d28d1c891fa6f601ea045",
  "block": 40719784,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T07:31:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "filipino",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "b1bd3eceae0da358bfc08b03de2379d6933c059f",
  "block": 40719216,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T07:03:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "shares",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 500
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7a00240e20d600af6cee6e8667b5408017963300",
  "block": 40719215,
  "trx_in_block": 18,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T07:03:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "yehey",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "48d7779d9e6d3580343c27f0290e147a5af970da",
  "block": 40718993,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T06:52:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "laissez-faire",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a3e953945918bf24fbb0c2dd8c7e46f5f04639db",
  "block": 40718991,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T06:52:06",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "raise-me-up",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 1
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "bf1a0996459bcc7b1a38bad709b3273404a3629b",
  "block": 40718555,
  "trx_in_block": 26,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T06:30:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "partitura.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "4af27400fa5280c47a4d51932b60b17accf1a0c8",
  "block": 40718473,
  "trx_in_block": 25,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T06:26:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "547e5e49b68f425e9ab40c1fa89e4f418ef01639",
  "block": 40718457,
  "trx_in_block": 25,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T06:25:24",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "politics",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "reverse-hotelling-s-theory",
      "title": "Reverse Hotelling's Theory",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/FKMCd9x/reversehotelling.png</center>\n\nHotelling’s Theory is named after the man’s name and has nothing to do with hotels. It is an interesting economic theory explaining why free actors will provide consumers with the minimum possible amount of variety. The free actors are the businesses involved and all they want is money and the more the better. If their product is too different it will not appeal to the largest group and they will make less money. But if it is identical to other competing products they will only receive a share of the market that is interested in that product. The ideal money making situation is make their product just barely different enough from existing products that they do not have to compete for the same market while still appealing to the largest possible number of consumers. This leads to free actors providing only the minimum amount of variety possible. It’s an interesting theory, even if somewhat sad in its outcome. But its even sadder in my opinion when applied to politics, but let me first explain Hotelling’s original idea.\n\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/jZdPKHG/hotdogfirstmove.png</center>\nIn your mind imagine the horizontal line is a public beach. Bob places his hot dog cart as shown, it is the only hot dog cart at the beach. All the beachgoers walk to his cart and buy his hot dogs and he has the entire market to himself. Bob is doing well. Joe sees how well he is doing and decides to move his hot dog cart to the same public beach. For the beachgoers the ideal location for Joe’s hot dog cart would be like this:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/yFz2Zxz/hotdogideal.png</center>\nBob and Joe’s hot dog carts are each one third the distance from the ends thus minimizing the amount of walking beachgoers have to do. This is the ideal placement of just two hot dog carts from the perspective of the beachgoers. But Bob and Joe are free actors and serve their interests first. Joe will really place his hot dog cart as shown here:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/3msX0j6/hotdogsecondmove.png</center>\nJoe’s cart is barely any distance from Bob’s. Almost no walking time is being saved. The beachgoers are barely benefiting at all from the addition of a second hot dog cart. But Joe is benefiting, he is now closer in walking distance to the majority of the beachgoers and does the most business. Bob recognizes the problem. He can see that Joe is doing the majority of the business because there is less walking distance between Joe and the majority of beachgoers. So he moves his hot dog cart a few feet over, now his hot dog cart is closest to the majority and he does the most business.\n\nJoe recognizes the impact of this move on his business and counters by moving his hot dog stand. This continues until the system reaches a resting point with both hot dog stands nearly side by side at the center of the beach as shown:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/8zdWkgr/hotdoginevitable.png</center>\nThis is the inevitable end as long as Bob and Joe are free actors. They are trying to maximize the money they make and the beachgoers are trying to minimize the distance they walk. As long as all are free actors the inevitable result is Bob and Joe minimizing the difference between themselves and the addition of a second hot dog cart adds very little to the beachgoers experience. The inevitable result as free actors is different from the ideal result of each hot dog stand being one third the distance from the end. This sad result is what Hotelling’s Theory is about. I will argue that it is even sadder applied to politics but first the obvious objection to this example is it restricts the beach to only having two hot dog stands. This is the weakness of the example as applied to economics. Yet this restriction does apply to American politics as all countries with winner take all district voting end up being dominated by just two political parties. What makes this example unrealistic as applied to business makes it realistic as applied to American politics. As every reader knows, in American politics there are only two hot dog stands.\n\nInstead of a public beach we are now moving along a political spectrum from left to right. The cost to the beachgoers was walking distance. The beachgoers wanted to minimize this cost, they want to walk the minimum distance. Ideally they want the hot dog stand to be right behind them on the beach so they can walk the shortest distance. But with only two hot dog stands the majority of beachgoers will have to do some walking.\n\nThe cost to the voter is the distance between his political positions and the position of the party he votes for. Ideally the voter will agree with everything the party says. But with only two parties most voters will have to vote for a party they have disagreements with. They will choose the party they disagree with the least, the one closest to their position on the political spectrum. This describes a system identical to the previous economic example and it should reach the same equilibrium. Given the desire to make the most money possible we end up with the two hot dog stands straddling the center line to appeal to the most possible consumers. If parties desired the most votes possible they would obey Hotelling’s theory and straddle the center line to appeal to the most voters possible. Money is the goal of the hot dog seller and the hot dog business obeys Hotelling’s theory. American politics does not obey Hotelling’s theory.\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/7RscnDn/polfirstmove.png</center>\nConsider the above a recent change in politics. Previously both the Republicans and Democrats were at the center and the Democrats veered to the extreme left. If this was hot dogs the Democrats would have just committed suicide. If this was hot dogs the Republicans could just stay in place and be closer to the majority of the voter’s preferences and win the majority of the votes. The Republicans could even move further to the left themselves and as long as they stayed to the right of the Democrats they would still appeal to the most voters and get the most votes and win all the elections. If American politics was like hot dogs this sudden move to the extreme left by the Democrats would be suicidal and the Republicans would win everything until the Democrats decided to return to the center. But anyone experienced with American politics knows what really happens. What really happens is what is shown here:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/m0KJCBw/politicalrealoutcome.png</center>\nThe Republican response to the Democrats veering to the left is to veer to the right. I refer to this as Reverse Hotelling’s theory. In politics parties try to maximize differences while in economics businesses try to minimize differences. Politics conforms to Reverse Hotelling Theory. \n\nIf politicians viewed votes the way businesses viewed money they operate according to normal Hotelling’s theory. When the Democrats veer to the left the Republicans make a second move to gain the majority of voters as shown here:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/87YzRTQ/polsensiblesecondmove.png</center>\nAfter many moves and counter moves the system would reach equilibrium as shown here:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/HxpK1nb/polsensibleresult.png</center>\nThis would be the sensible result and the best for all involved, especially the people of the country. As an American I wish this was the result. I wish our politics was run like our hot dog stands. I wish our parties were aiming for getting the most votes and straddling the center for that purpose. It would be a better world for everyone. Instead we end up with the situation as shown here:\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/Br6RdvX/politicalvoters.png</center>\nBoth parties stake out positions to the left and right of the majority of voters. The positions are carefully selected to allow for the greatest possible amount of extremism while still just barely winning an election. American politicians consciously aim for 51% solutions. They consciously choose the positions which are the most extreme possible that still allow for winning 51% of the vote. This is Reverse Hotelling’s theory.\n\nThe key to understanding this is to understand parties view appealing to voters as a cost not a benefit. The hot dog seller wants as many customers as possible, he wants to sell as many hot dogs as possible. This is different from wanting to buy as many hot dogs as possible. The hot dogs cost money and he only wants to buy the minimum necessary, it is sales he wants to maximize and not purchases. This is how the political parties think. They view voter support as a necessary cost to be minimized. What they want maximized is political extremism. American parties will only exhibit moderation to the minimum necessary to get to 51% of the votes. \n\nThis is because the real goal of the politician is not winning votes. Votes are a practical tool for what he really wants to do, which is change history. The hot dog seller buys hot dogs as a necessary tool for making sales and getting what he wants. The politician gets votes as a necessary tool for the goal of changing history. To go down in the history books is what the politician wants. You can’t do this by keeping things the same, you have to change things. History is the record of changes and to go down in history you have to make one of these changes. \n\nWhat the majority wants the majority gets. What the majority wants is what we already have, to continue this is not something new, it is not change. It is not making history. The power comes from the majority but this source of power is inherently opposed to change. So the politician looks for the 51% solution. He looks for the smallest possible coalition, not the largest. He looks for the political positions which will allow him to make the largest possible historical change which means the most extreme position that still gets 51% of the vote. This is the tragedy of American politics. A tragedy is something which didn’t have to happen but was still inevitable. Things don’t have to be this way, but it is all inevitable.\n\nAt least at the national level American politics will be dominated by extremists until there is some sort of fundamental change in how this country operates. Our country will continue to be tortured by both parties as they try to write their names into the history books with their 51% coalitions. The real answer is to close the history books. If they can’t be written in the politicians will give up. We need a fundamental change which makes our country immune from the historical ambitions of our politicians. Until this change comes American politics will always be run by Reverse Hotelling’s theory and we will all suffer for it.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/FKMCd9x/reversehotelling.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/jZdPKHG/hotdogfirstmove.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/yFz2Zxz/hotdogideal.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/3msX0j6/hotdogsecondmove.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/8zdWkgr/hotdoginevitable.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/7RscnDn/polfirstmove.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/m0KJCBw/politicalrealoutcome.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/87YzRTQ/polsensiblesecondmove.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/HxpK1nb/polsensibleresult.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/Br6RdvX/politicalvoters.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "35a8d49360292d31f84a7b6a6bc5c45e5efb4bad",
  "block": 40717086,
  "trx_in_block": 35,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T05:16:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "horse-and-rider-politics",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "268465c25e1792204f41cf49b0e1ea27eaf6eb94",
  "block": 40717072,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T05:16:00",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "politics",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "horse-and-rider-politics",
      "title": "Horse and Rider Politics",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/CPfskRc/horserider.png</center>\n\nThe politics of Western democracies tend towards being dominated by extremists and it is possible that American politics are the most dominated by extremists. The structure of American democracy with the primary system of choosing candidates exposes the influence of extremists and the reason why they are so influential. Most people are politically moderate, if this was not true the human race would have destroyed itself by now. Most of our problems are caused by the minority of us who are extremists and solving the problem of extremism is almost the whole of solving the problem of politics. Given that extremists are in the minority simply giving equal importance to each individual’s opinion would be enough to eliminate the extremist threat. On the surface modern Western democracy gives equal influence to each opinion by assigning one vote to each individual. Yet the problem is not solved, extremists continue to plague the moderate majority. The reason is simple and exposed by the American primary system, the extremists are the minority of people but the majority of people willing to spend time and money on politics. It is as simple as that. We all have one vote but we are unequal in our interest in politics and our willingness to spend time and money seeking political change. The majority have moderate opinions which would lead to peaceful relations across all groups but the minority of extremists ends up in charge because they spend the time and money to be in charge.\n\nThis pattern is exposed by the American primary system. Fewer people vote in primaries than elections. The people who vote in primaries are more politically extreme than average, this has been proven in every way possible. Opinion surveys, demographic and statistical data, all the work has been put in. The more politically extreme a person is the more likely they are to vote. So the lower the total turnout the higher the percentage of extremists voters. Primaries have lower turnouts then elections and so the voters who do turnout are more extreme. The politicians they choose are more extreme than the average American, this helps no one including the extremists. As this tendency affects both parties whatever advantage the extremists of one party think they gain by voting in their fellows into power are balanced by the other parties extremists doing the same. The net effect is stalemate.\n\nI wish this was the end of it. There is a clear pattern that political extremists are more likely to spend time on politics than moderates. This is shown in how caucuses vote in more extreme candidates than primaries. The caucus voting system is more time consuming than the primary system, it takes much longer and so only the more extreme voters are willing to take the time. So the relationship between extremism and time spent is clear and well documented in every way possible. But who spends more time on politics than a politician? The trend affects this as well. The people most likely to work full time at politics the most extreme people. This is the curse of the democratic system, the interests of the moderate majority get sacrificed for the interests of the extreme few. As the extreme few on each end of the spectrum dominate the net effect is stalemate. Politics is an ugly business because it is done by ugly people, not because government administration is an ugly thing. Without extremism political service is a beautiful thing, it is the tendency of the most extreme controlling the political sphere that makes these things ugly.\n\nTime would likely be enough to keep the extremists in control. They are the ones spending the most time on politics, of course they will be in charge. But it’s worse than that because they are also the ones spending the most money on politics. The numbers are in, this has been analyzed to death. The more extreme one’s politics the more likely one is to donate to politicians and parties. Politicians and parties cannot operate without money. This is a survival issue. The politician and party without extremist support is the politician and party that disappears. Most of the money in the American political system is donated by people whose politics are on the fringe and want to use their money to overrule the moderate majority. If you cannot appeal to these people you cannot operate in the political sphere. Once again the extremists win and the moderate majority loses. If it wasn’t like this the majority wouldn’t hate politics so much, and the extremists wouldn’t love it so much. The system favors the extremist in a world where most are moderate, this is the tragedy of democratic politics. \n\nBut the system is still based on one man one vote. The moderates are still the majority. The politicians and their staff, both paid and volunteers, are extremists. Only extremism motivates one to spend time on politics and so not only the politicians but their staffers and advisors are extremists as well. But the moderates are still the majority of voters and though they get lazy and tend to avoid primaries they do show up for general elections. You still need their votes no matter how many extremist donations of time and money you benefit from. This leads to horse and rider politics, all the politicians are extremists and to succeed they need to appeal to extremist financial donors. But they need more than that, a successful politician is an extremist who successfully gets the support of moderates. They have to, the extremists are too few in number. All politicians are extremists, all successful politicians have found a way to appeal to the moderate majority, otherwise they would not be successful. This is the horse and rider system. The extremists are the rider directing the horse, the successful politician is the extremist directing the moderates. Any politician who does not succeed at the horse and rider system simply does not succeed at all in western democracy. Human nature makes moderates the majority. The system makes the politicians extremists. This combines to produce the horse and rider system, the successful politicians find a hook to get the moderates interested enough to vote them into power in the general election.\n\nWhat both the Democrats and Republicans have in common is they don’t believe culture is the answer to our problems. It is, culture influences success and success is the real cure for poverty. Some will always need assistance, this is inevitable. Services need to be provided as a right not a privilege, health care needs to paid for by the government for all. But the real cure for poverty is a positive influence from culture and government cannot provide this. One of the services government must provide is policing, but the most important method for reducing crime is a culture that promotes morals, again this is something government cannot do. In such a diverse country we need peace between groups, once again this is something the government cannot provide. Our greatest needs are things we need to give ourselves and government cannot provide. The moderate majority understands this, the extremists do not. \n\nOn one hand the extremist Democrats want government to be the cure for everything. They have faith this will work as they have convinced themselves all of Europe’s success is due to government programs and none to European culture. Third world immigration to Europe disproves this, they have access to the same government programs and do not succeed. But intellectual change is generational as few people change their beliefs after the age of thirty. The extremism of the extreme Democrat is excessive focus on the importance of government programs and a deep misunderstanding of European realities leading to a false idealization. But extremists are always few in number, to win elections the extremist Democrats need a hook. They have one, they claim they will solve Black poverty, the signal problem of our country. This hook of claiming government programs will cure Black poverty obviously gets them the Black vote and as Latinx immigration has turned them into a junior version of America’s signal problem it gets them the Latinx vote. But more importantly it gets them the vote of anyone who wants to vote in favor of sympathy, in favor of showing concern for the unfortunate. The moderate majority supports this as they should. The unfortunate deserve sympathy and concern and efforts on their behalf. The majority understands this and the Democrats use this as the hook to become the rider and the moderate majority the horse.\n\nExtremists Republicans share the same problem as Democrats, they refuse to admit the importance of culture. The real source of America’s wealth is American Culture. The real source is not the free market or Lazy Fairy economics, it is American culture. The same can be said for any successful country. Asia is successful because of Asian culture, Europe is successful because of European culture. All unsuccessful countries are unsuccessful because of their cultures as well. But extremist Republicans want to deny due credit and give it instead to Lazy Fairy economics or less overtly, to the Protestant religion. To a lesser degree the Republicans also base their ideas on a misunderstanding of the European example. Ethnically similar European countries split between Catholicism have similar incomes because it is the culture transmitted by ethnicity that matters and not the religious split within Christianity. It is also Western Civilization in general which makes western countries successful and not Lazy Fairy economics. The US forced Lazy Fairy economics on Iraq during the military occupation and it did no magic. Because it has no magic, success comes from hard work and sound decision making. \n\nThe moderate majority understands the real basis of success and so can never agree with the extremist Republican version of life. But the Republicans have a hook, the cult of Lazy Fairy economics appears to give middle class whites a protection against footing the bill for unsuccessful cultures. Blacks and Latinx make 30% less then average, the Democrats want to fix this with expensive government programs. Every moderate knows this won’t work as the problem is cultural. But the Democrat party, like all parties, is run by extremists and they are blind to reality. Knowing these programs won’t cure Black and Latinx poverty the white middle class fears being stuck with the bill of subsidizing these races into average incomes. This is the Republican parties hook for getting votes from the moderate majority, they use their cult of the Lazy Fairy to win over moderates who hope this cult will protect them from footing the bill for the unsuccessful cultures of the world.\n\nBoth parties are run by deluded extremists. No sensible person should show loyalty to any party as none deserves it. Both parties successfully hook voters from the moderate majority into voting for them through either claiming government can do more that it truly can or claiming government should shirk its true duties. The Democrat belief that government can cure cultural problems is deluded. The Republican blocking of morally necessary government programs such as free health care is shameful. Both these problems have the same cause, the parties are run by extremists. There is only one solution, a party run by the moderate majority for the moderate majority. One way this could happen is for the moderates to put as much time and energy into politics as the extremists. I don’t think this will ever happen. If it could happen it would have already. I think the true answer is for the positions of the extremists to become so intellectually exposed that they can no longer be supported. Third world immigration to Europe proves that it is European culture that matters most and not European government programs. This must be exposed. Countless examples prove that Lazy Fairy economics is a fraud and the Republicans need to be exposed for shunning moral duties to the unfortunate for the sake of a fantasy. Once the intellectual failure of the ideas of the extremists is exposed the extremists themselves will be exposed and the moderates finally have a chance to turn their numbers into real power. This will only happen when the influence of culture on success is acknowledged. Acknowledgement explodes the system. Acknowledging the influence of success explodes the extremism of both the Democrats and the Republicans, this is the thing that will finally set the moderate majority free.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/CPfskRc/horserider.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "b3a531c3e4f5e72d99e56086c38564ce5a7bd2fc",
  "block": 40716892,
  "trx_in_block": 34,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T05:07:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "what-is-said-unsaid-and-why",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e913485173a244a5b53ebeb3b604b52a6f3a389a",
  "block": 40716436,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-11T04:44:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "politics",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "what-is-said-unsaid-and-why",
      "title": "What is said, unsaid, and Why",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/gyYYh4C/unsaid.png</center>\n\nWhen learning about a country the easiest thing to learn is what is said. Harder and more important is to learn what is unsaid. This takes time, you have to repeatedly find yourself in situations where something would be obvious to say and look around you at all the silent faces. It is a slow process but over time you can learn what it is that a country leaves unsaid. This is vastly more important than knowing what is being said. You can know what is said in a country without even visiting it. Simply being read up on a country is enough to know what is being said in it. This information is barely useful at all and why travel is necessary for understanding. Without even visiting a country you can know what is being said in it, knowing that you are no in possession of almost nothing. Yes, you know what is being said. The least important thing to know. The next step is a useful one, know what is being unsaid. This can rarely be known without travel to that country. The specific experiences which let you know what is being unsaid are rare and even then require unusual perception to profit from. To know what is unsaid requires personal exposure to the people involved in circumstances where saying what is customarily unsaid would be normal and yet it is not done. And then it requires the perception to notice that it was left unsaid. Simply asking the local people what it is they never talk about is useless. One has to watch them not talking about it, that is all there is to it.\n\nUnderstanding countries is important but understanding your own country is most important. Anyone can know what is said in his country. It is possible to not know what is unsaid if one does not have perception. You can spend your entire life in a country and not know what is unsaid if you lack perception. This shortcoming will not be compensated for by the assistance of the more perceptive as the specific subject here is things left unsaid. The perceptive will understand what is being left unsaid in their countries and this will be their private knowledge. If they try to share it with others then the subject is no longer left unsaid. So in each country the unperceptive lack understanding of something even more important than what is being said, they lack understanding of what is being unsaid. To achieve this second and higher level of understanding one needs to be adept at perception or what is unsaid will never be noticed. This leads to vast inequality in levels of understanding.\n\nBut there is something even more important than knowing what is unsaid, that is knowing why it is unsaid. This is the highest level of understanding. The lowest and easiest level is to know what is said. The two levels above this consist entirely of privately known knowledge for it consists of knowledge of what is unsaid. Should it not be left unsaid it will become public knowledge and become knowledge of what is said, the first category. The two levels of understanding above knowledge of what is said must remain private knowledge to remain in their categories. These two levels are knowledge of what is unsaid and highest of all knowing why it is unsaid. Both these levels are only available to private individuals through their adept perception. The highest level of understanding is always understanding why the unsaid is left unsaid. If this highest level of knowledge was made public it would no longer be an understanding of the unsaid.\n\nThere are certain things you can learn about a country without visiting or at least meeting the inhabitants. Most of these things are in the category of the said. The more important things to know are what is unsaid and why. Knowing these things are important even to understanding your own country. Even if you are American, you still need to know what is unsaid in America. Even if you are American you still need to know why it is left unsaid. Because these are the hardest and most important things to know. Because these are the most useful things to know. The real language of America isn’t what is spoken. The real language of America is what is unspoken. It is the American Silence that defines American culture and politics. It is what we don’t say that makes us who we are. It is what we don’t say that is the source of our unsolved problems. Let us turn these into solved problems. Let us speak what we have left unsaid.\n\nIf you only know what America says you think America’s peculiar obsession is race. If you know what America doesn’t say you know America’s obsession is religion. America is 13% Black and they make 30% less than average, since whites make around 5% more than average the gap is around 35%. This is not unusual. In Europe the gap is much the same. The gap between Aborigine and white income in Australia is much the same, in Latinx America the gap is much larger. Brazil is supposed to be the best Latinx American country and free of racism but there the Blacks make 50% less than whites. The 50% gap holds up across all of Latinx America. Yet if you only know what is said this gap only exists in America and maybe even was invented here. If you only know what America says you think this wage gap between Blacks and whites is unique to our country and defines its very nature. It does not.\n\nThe wage gap between Blacks and whites is not unique to America and does not define our countries very nature. This wage gap occurs wherever Blacks and whites live in the same country as Black culture is less advanced then white culture. There is nothing unique about this wage gap, it is not a feature of American life, it is a feature of Black culture and exists wherever Black culture exists. Humans evolved to think regard is the currency of success, to the extent a culture has moved beyond this instinctive belief it is successful. Blacks have not moved beyond this belief and are not successful. If America was the cause things would be different in other countries. Things are the same in other countries.\n\nIf you only know what America says you will think America’s obsession is with race. America’s obsession is with religion. It is easy to know what is said, it is harder to know what is left unsaid. This wage gap between Blacks and whites occurs in every country they both inhabit, but only in America is it happening in an undeclared Protestant theocracy. That this theocracy is undeclared only makes it more pervasive. What is unsaid in America is that Black failure is Protestant failure, as the Blacks were converted to a sincere belief in salvation-by-faith-alone generations ago. And this sincere belief has not borne fruit, and as Jesus said, we must judge the tree by its fruit. What is unsaid in America is that Black failure proves Protestantism wrong, proves the very foundation of our theocracy wrong. And so Black failure must be excused and overlooked, lest the Protestant theocracy collapse.\n\nThe easiest thing to know is what is said. What is spoken in America revolves around race. But the racial wage gaps in America are no different than in the rest of the world. So merely knowing what is said doesn’t let you understand America. What is harder to know is what is unsaid. What is unsaid in America is any talk at all about a cultural basis to the wage gaps. In a Latinx Country if the Blacks and Indians complain of their poverty the whites will immediately ask questions regarding culture and whether or not all cultures are equally successful and why are these complaints legitimate. The whites will promise to rectify any individual case of discrimination but will reject any attempt to rectify on a race by race basis until an explanation as to why all cultures are equally successful has been given. As no such explanation can be given the conversation quickly dies. None of this ever happens in America. The c-word is never spoken. Blacks complain of the wage gap and no one mentions culture or asks for an explanation as to why all cultures are equally successful. Just as in Latinx countries there is no such explanation, all cultures being equally successful is equally absurd in America as it is in the countries to the south. But in America no explanation need be given as no question is asked. America is silent on the question of culture, this is what is always left unsaid, this is what you must know to better understand the country.\n\nThe easiest thing to know is what is said. The harder thing to know is what is unsaid. The hardest thing to know is why it is unsaid. The reason culture is left unsaid is that the Protestants want to use a book the Catholics wrote to prove all Catholics will go to hell and so everyone must join up with the Protestants before its too late. The New Testament lays out moral rules for entering heaven, obey them and your in. Sounds simple and none of the rules cannot be done by a none Christian so it means a heaven for all peoples. St. Augustine did not like this at all, he wanted a heaven for only Christians. So added a level of needless complexity to the debate to justify theological exclusion of non Christians. Augustine’s formula was that anyone who follows the rules of the New Testament will go to heaven, but the rules can only be followed by a Christian as God will only give efficacious grace to his true followers and this long and technically termed gift called efficacious grace was needed to follow the rules. This nonsense argument was meant to justify belief in a heaven more exclusionary than the one outlined in the religion’s founding text. Luther picked up on this and used the same idea to exclude all Catholics, including St. Augustine and anyone who shared his beliefs.\n\nThe method for creating a Christian heaven more exclusive then the New Testament heaven is not to deny the rules, but to say only those given a gift by God can follow the rules, the gift of efficacious grace. And the Protestants believe it goes to them. So free will is denied, in the Protestant view those outside their religion do not have true agency and thus cannot pass the entrance test and enter their exclusive heaven. This lack of agency has a cost, you have to keep up appearances. You cannot admit to agency in one arena and deny it in another. To keep up the appearance of a Protestant only heaven we Americans must deny agency in our lives. This is the reason culture goes unmentioned in America.\n\nWhat is said in America concerns race. What is unsaid in America concerns culture and is left unsaid because America is an undeclared Protestant theocracy. To keep alive the formulas they use to justify damning Catholics on the basis of a book the Catholics wrote they Protestants must damn agency itself. This is why it was the National Council of Churches that got Daniel Moynihan fired in 1965. It wasn’t the Blacks. It wasn’t Jesse Jackson, it wasn’t Malcolm X. It wasn’t the NAACP or the New York Times or the hippies. The National Council of Churches got Moynihan fired in 1965 and that shows you who really runs this country and why. Moynihan-the-catholic wanted to make strengthening the Black family the number one priority of the entire country and made a list of proposals to achieve this. All the proposals were saving the Black family through works, none were saving the Black family through faith. Moynihan had to go.\n\nIt was the Moynihan Report of 1965 that was the true Birth of a Nation. Since that moment nothing has been what it was before. Moynihan’s firing let the world know where America’s weakness is. The Protestant’s who run this country are devastated on the inside that their magic religion isn’t working on the Blacks they converted. They gave the Blacks efficacious grace and so now they can enter heaven, live by the rules supposedly no one else can. But its not working. The Protestant theocracy will do anything to avoid talking about this. Including fire a man because he wants Blacks to have better families.\n\nRace is what is said in America. What is unsaid is culture. Why culture it is unsaid is because of religion. To understand America is not to know that Blacks make 35% less than whites, that gap occurs all over the world. To understand America is to know that culture is never discussed as cause of the wage gap and the reason is Protestantism. You cannot openly discuss culture’s influence on success in a way which does not tear down the exclusive heaven of Protestantism and let the Catholics in. American politics, on the surface the shoutiest and angriest politics in the western word, is truly the most silent and mute politics as the most important subject never gets spoken about. Understanding this is the key to understanding America. \n\nI believe in the rule that the less you talk about something the more you talk about it. When something important is suppressed in pops out somewhere else. When you forbid direct discussion of culture’s influence on success this subject pops out into proxy debates. And the more you suppress discussion of culture’s influence on success the more this subject infects other subjects and makes everything into a proxy debate for the one debate we refuse to have. This is the America we live in today, everything we say is a proxy for the one thing we can’t say. All our debates are proxy debates for the missing debate on culture’s influence on success. This is why American politics are the shoutiest and angriest in the world. We are shouting and angry at each other because we never have a real conversation about anything that matters. All our real questions for each other are forbidden, so we ask phony questions and get phony answers. No one is satisfied and the frustration quickly turns to anger and anger eventually turns to violence. There is only one solution and that is to talk openly about culture’s influence on success. But to do that means crossing the invisible line Moynihan crossed, the line that keeps the Catholics out of heaven. I know most readers do not believe me when I say America is a Protestant theocracy, but when the Protestants finally decide quality of life politics is more important than religion everything is going to change like you flipped a switch. And I mean everything because all our current debates are proxy debates for the real debate on culture. So everything will change.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/gyYYh4C/unsaid.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e37ec07cb21f59e9ccfbce0b8716322f8d23a239",
  "block": 40602560,
  "trx_in_block": 40,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-07T05:38:03",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "aceh.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 5000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9a0ce201a407dce67512ad0e22088f621155fd06",
  "block": 40595886,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-07T00:03:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "yehey",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8218ac5793b84d80f215d4adb645d8419b639290",
  "block": 40595870,
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-07T00:02:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "steemitboard",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c49dfe379f751c12ce22548e02e477692865ad27",
  "block": 40595869,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-07T00:02:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "bthomas.steem",
      "parent_permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-bthomassteem-20200207t000250000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @bthomas.steem! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :\n\n<table><tr><td><img src=\"https://steemitimages.com/60x70/http://steemitboard.com/@bthomas.steem/posts.png?202002062343\"></td><td>You published more than 40 posts. Your next target is to reach 50 posts.</td></tr>\n</table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@bthomas.steem) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=bthomas.steem)_</sub>\n<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>\n\n\nTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!\n\n\n**Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:**\n<table><tr><td><a href=\"https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/steemitboard-ranking-update-a-better-rich-list-comparator\"><img src=\"https://steemitimages.com/64x128/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmfRVpHQhLDhnjDtqck8GPv9NPvNKPfMsDaAFDE1D9Er2Z/header_ranking.png\"></a></td><td><a href=\"https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/steemitboard-ranking-update-a-better-rich-list-comparator\">SteemitBoard Ranking update - A better rich list comparator</a></td></tr></table>\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9d80fd99ed71f805b9263c24df550537564351aa",
  "block": 40595358,
  "trx_in_block": 24,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T23:37:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "laissez-faire",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9a625031fabd4eb62ec89a5602b7bb402010985e",
  "block": 40595357,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T23:37:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "raise-me-up",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 1
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "898c377f25368a7bf6317027106916bcccf0fd84",
  "block": 40594827,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T23:10:39",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "crypto-34",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "782a25b5c75943a425cd173fe3bc43f4a924a340",
  "block": 40594725,
  "trx_in_block": 23,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T23:05:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2808aa7c304030a8f5dbeaf8236ff62474f9617f",
  "block": 40594703,
  "trx_in_block": 21,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T23:04:24",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "politics",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-french-revolution-started-right-vs-left-politics",
      "title": "The French Revolution started Right vs Left Politics",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/Yp97Pd6/frenchrev-RL.png</center>\n\nThe French Revolution marks a turning point in western history that cannot be ignored and seemingly cannot be understood. My favorite story about the Revolution is famous French historian who on his deathbed complained he spent his entire life studying the Revolution and would die without understanding it. This should be the deathbed scene of all French historians. The Revolution starts a new period of history and coming at the beginning it is so unformed and amorphous that discerning and explaining the details in a convincing manner may be impossible. Whether you are right or wrong about the Revolution the subject matter is vaguely formed that broad agreement seems to be impossible. With later developments from this influence there is little debate, the world broadly agrees on the Russian Revolution of 1917. But by that time the trend started by the earlier French Revolution had become so clearly defined and formed that the public agrees on the shape and nature of the Russian Revolution. The earlier French Revolution is like an embryo in which the future shape of the animal can never be agreed on. Yet it is this embryo which marks the start.\n\nThe French Revolution started left vs right politics and this has remained the dominant feature of western politics since. The start was embryonic and vaguely formed but it is still the start. The terms left and right refer to where like minded political groups would sit in the Revolutionary parliament, the terms are understood so quickly that the understanding must be instinctive. The left seeks to equalize regard and the right seeks to concentrate regard. This is instinctively known and all that is needed is names for the concepts latent within the human mind. It is from this start that the political obsessions of the last two hundred years come from, left vs right, Labour vs Tory, Communist vs Fascist. The competing strategies of equalizing or concentrating regard.\n\nThese opposing strategies only appear for the first time in politics during the Revolutionary period, these opposing strategies have been at play in religion since the dawn of time. Man instinctively recognizes these strategies and applies one or the other to his religious life. The concentration of regard on the authority an unchanging scripture or on the rulings of an unchanging elite vs the equalization of regard among all believers and the right to be guided by one’s personal revelation. The tension between these two forms of religion is a constant in world history. What is new is applying these competing ideas to domestic politics. This application of religious concepts to politics was no improvement to either religion or politics, as the following history has clearly shown.\n\nThe violence unleashed by the French Revolution is explained by the formula that society exists to produce better individuals and to reverse this order and say individuals exist to produce better societies eliminates any moral protection the individual has. The reversal of the proper relationship leads to a reenactment of the religious narrative of Christianity with a tragic and bloody reality to what was meant as metaphor. First God tries to create a perfect human society by killing all but the best, Noah and his family. A captive breeding project. Create a race of purely good humans by killing all but the best so a new race can be born free of evil. A genocide by God for the purpose of purifying the human race of immoral elements. And Christian narrative says this failed, good and evil are in every heart in the Solzhnitsiyan manner. A captive breeding project with mankind can never work. After the French Revolution this is tried in reality through several twentieth century genocides. The metaphorical captive breeding project of the Flood is made real and returns the same results, good and evil are in the heart of every man and so a captive breeding project truly enacted can no more succeed than the mythical destruction of all but Noah. \n\nAfter the Flood failed God chose a people to favor and rule over the world to force the world to obey his morality. This is the Vanguard theory Lenin created in 1905 when he created the Bolsheviks. A small minority will force the majority to be good, once they have been forced to be good they will see the benefit and continue on their own. The Vanguard theory of Lenin is the same plan Moses had and neither worked. And so the Christian narrative says that viewing the failure of his second attempt at creating a new world God decides make the world better from the bottom up, by taking human form and inspiring the good in all men and motivating goodness without force. In the Christian narrative this third attempt by God to remake the world is the one time he got it right. The captive breeding project failed, the Chosen/Vanguard project failed, but making the world better from the bottom up by reaching out to the goodness in all people worked. In this Christian narrative any return to the captive breeding project or the Chosen People project is simply reenacting a failure. After the French Revolution both these failures were reenacted. The legacy of the French Revolution was to bring religious impulses into politics and so destroy both worthy politics and religion. \n\nThis new period of history has a focus on ethnicity and class that never existed before. The specific focus is on the wealth and success of ethnicity and class, the comparative standing of each group. The bourgeoisie’s wealth compared to the villeins was the start. The bourgeois cities were begun along the Rhine circa 1000 ad in the chaos following the collapse of the Roman Empire. These cities received the right to self government and kept it through the centuries by disproportionately bearing the burden of taxation. A new culture started in these cities and this culture was more successful than the surrounding countryside in all countries. Thus started the focus on the influence of culture on success, the dominating theme of modern politics. Man’s instincts convince him that regard is the currency of success. This conviction leads to the false belief that the more successful cultures are succeeding through the instinctive method of using regard as the currency of success. And so if they are more successful they are hoarding regard for the purpose of hoarding wealth. This tragic misunderstanding will continue to dominate politics until such time the human race has a rational approach to the influence of culture on success.\n\nThe rational approach is understand man’s instincts evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical. In this environment man evolved to view regard as the currency of success as the group is the key to success and the group only exists if members believe it will be successful. A circular logic making regard the currency of success. This circular logic can only be broken by a vertical movement upward away from the starting point of human nature, a vertical movement towards using regard to choose between methods and not people. Only this vertical movement upward can end the left vs right obsession begun during the Revolution.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\",\"history\",\"culture\",\"bthomas\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/Yp97Pd6/frenchrev-RL.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "06dae36a009cafa64bb27e3b6a3be6ce7daaf389",
  "block": 40594176,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T22:38:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "bthomas.steem",
      "parent_permlink": "the-black-sea-origins-of-civilization",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "q5axj0",
      "title": "",
      "body": "I got the date of the Destruction Layer wrong, this will be corrected later. Consider these to be rough drafts. I welcome any corrections by the reader.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 40591209,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 35,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-06T20:09:15",
  "op": [
    "curation_reward",
    {
      "curator": "bthomas.steem",
      "reward": "1.963078 VESTS",
      "comment_author": "bitcoinunicorn",
      "comment_permlink": "scam-alert-mind-capital-the-first-crytpto-fiat-program-that-doesn-t-accept-fiat"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e2f7f606133cd1190227ea948a5ff3fc93b90beb",
  "block": 40512214,
  "trx_in_block": 29,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T02:10:48",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "bthomas",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "title": "The Regard Compass",
      "body": "@@ -22360,52 +22360,25 @@\n .co/\n-zGPqfZQ/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-19-36-PM\n+PcvLx6p/labvscomm\n .png\n@@ -24459,52 +24459,29 @@\n .co/\n-qknM1Fs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-27-36-PM\n+CB00YPb/toryvsfascism\n .png\n@@ -26677,52 +26677,27 @@\n .co/\n-DYtCKBB/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-34-35-PM\n+CbhdjjQ/polspectrum\n .png\n@@ -28670,52 +28670,31 @@\n .co/\n-cDZd1Vs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-39-08-PM\n+kSfxtSt/rightleftupdown\n .png\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\",\"culture\",\"history\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/THnqBT7/regardcompass.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/9cpdn7y/eqvscon.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/yRCsfLK/labourvtory.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/xJS9R7N/maxvsmin.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/khB0pTy/civvsbarb.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/mCqJCNm/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-27-32-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/HBPbxsR/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-29-57-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/nnmBB8s/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-33-08-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/PcvLx6p/labvscomm.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/CB00YPb/toryvsfascism.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/CbhdjjQ/polspectrum.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/kSfxtSt/rightleftupdown.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9b1ee71d504fb14392ac20e94d9ebdd0fc6a23ad",
  "block": 40512086,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T02:04:24",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "yehey",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "fd50d892311463dd362da94bf3481daa9bd86548",
  "block": 40512017,
  "trx_in_block": 21,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T02:00:57",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "bthomas",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "title": "The Regard Compass",
      "body": "@@ -2848,27 +2848,27 @@\n .co/\n-nfwvkWm/leftvsright\n+yRCsfLK/labourvtory\n .png\n@@ -9174,52 +9174,25 @@\n .co/\n-ZgtQqTS/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-07-22-PM\n+khB0pTy/civvsbarb\n .png\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\",\"culture\",\"history\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/THnqBT7/regardcompass.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/9cpdn7y/eqvscon.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/yRCsfLK/labourvtory.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/xJS9R7N/maxvsmin.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/khB0pTy/civvsbarb.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/mCqJCNm/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-27-32-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/HBPbxsR/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-29-57-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/nnmBB8s/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-33-08-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/zGPqfZQ/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-19-36-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/qknM1Fs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-27-36-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/DYtCKBB/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-34-35-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/cDZd1Vs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-39-08-PM.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "712a000860ee0bc3e8b90249121bd3754dbdfb60",
  "block": 40511633,
  "trx_in_block": 21,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T01:41:39",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "bthomas",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "title": "The Regard Compass",
      "body": "@@ -82,29 +82,23 @@\n .co/\n-xgyVcNF/con-v-eq-line\n+9cpdn7y/eqvscon\n .png\n@@ -2848,33 +2848,27 @@\n .co/\n-S5k9Jfd\n+nfwvkWm\n /left\n--v-\n+vs\n right\n--line\n .png\n@@ -5301,30 +5301,24 @@\n .co/\n-KbBZQNC/max-v-min-line\n+xJS9R7N/maxvsmin\n .png\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\",\"culture\",\"history\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/THnqBT7/regardcompass.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/9cpdn7y/eqvscon.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/nfwvkWm/leftvsright.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/xJS9R7N/maxvsmin.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/ZgtQqTS/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-07-22-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/mCqJCNm/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-27-32-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/HBPbxsR/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-29-57-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/nnmBB8s/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-33-08-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/zGPqfZQ/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-19-36-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/qknM1Fs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-27-36-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/DYtCKBB/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-34-35-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/cDZd1Vs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-39-08-PM.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "478f969259bb6d3aece46accd8b4fe1a77cb0b59",
  "block": 40511440,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T01:31:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "filipino",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5275be3af511ffe49aa631f191799a74e313d76d",
  "block": 40510137,
  "trx_in_block": 11,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T00:26:39",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c6cc71723d3d0e5f2b30b685abf0ea424bb53d35",
  "block": 40510128,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-04T00:26:12",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "bthomas",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-compass",
      "title": "The Regard Compass",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/THnqBT7/regardcompass.png</center>\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/xgyVcNF/con-v-eq-line.png</center>\nHuman nature evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical. Success would come from luck and numbers as when competing for control of nature’s freely given bounty the many will defeat the few or the one. The only evolutionary motive for joining, remaining and serving a group is belief in that group’s future success and the belief that one’s share of that group success would be an amount greater than what would be gained by any other strategy. And so the individuals success is tied to the success of his group and his group’s success is determined in a circular fashion by the expectation that the group will be successful. This expectation or morale can best be termed regard as this covers both direct and indirect descriptions which logically evaluate to expectation of likely success. In man’s natural state the instincts concerning this operate without need for conscious thought and without need for improvement. In a modern world where most wealth comes from human labor choosing the best method is the driver of success and not choosing the best group and success is a product of the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence, using regard to choose between methods rather than between people. In the modern world man moves away from the starting point of human nature and stops assigning regard and choosing groups in an instinctive and unconscious manner and consciously chooses intellectual designs and schema for understanding his world and choosing his actions and how to assign regard becomes a central preoccupation.\n\nIn the natural world the success of the group is determined in a circular fashion by the group’s expectation of success and so the human mind instinctively views regard as the currency of success. And so the human mind instinctively views the regard structure, the rules governing the assignment of regard, as determining the distributional structure, the rules determining the amount of nature’s bounty each receives. And so in the modern world where regard is consciously assigned and man tries in mostly futile ways to improve on instinctive behavior the distribution of regard becomes a primary concern and can become the all consuming concern in the right circumstances. As modern man tries to consciously assign regard with forethought and planning two strategies are inevitable, to consciously assign equal regard to all and to consciously assign all regard to one. Modern political ideas inevitably concern themselves with one of these two strategies. How far each political idea goes in one direction has infinite variates but all modern political ideas belong in one of these two categories, to equalize regard or to concentrate regard. \n<center>https://i.ibb.co/S5k9Jfd/left-v-right-line.png</center>\nModern democracy started in England and modern politics started in France. It was after the French Revolution that the political terms left and right were invented as like minded people in the French Parliament began sitting on either side in an obvious pattern which then began a terminology that will seemingly last forever. The human mind very quickly grasps what the terms left and right mean in politics. It does not take long and even children quickly grasp the concept. Any idea that is grasped so quickly can only be one that is latent in the mind merely waiting for a name to be attached to it. This was Aquinas’ comment on the concept of God, that the reason it is so quickly understood by children is that the human mind interprets the world as hierarchical and one thing at the head of the hierarchy and once the concept of God is explained to them they now have a name for this latent thought within them. The same happens with politics, children very quickly grasp the ideas behind political left and political right and grasp them so quickly these ideas must have been latent within and awaiting only a name. \nLeft and Right were invented in France but modern western democracy was invented in England with Westminster Democracy and so Labour and Tory deserve to be called the mother of all political parties. One is obviously the left and one is obviously the right. And all modern political parties are either local versions of Labour or Tory. In the United States the Democrats obviously map to Labour and the Republicans map to Tory. All major political parties in western democracy map to either Labour or Tory and even children quickly grasp which party in a country is there version of Labour and which party is there version of Tory. Modern political disputes inevitably concern the conscious assignment of regard and there are only two directions one can assign it in, the same for everybody or all for one. Concentrate or equalize. The degree to which one tries to concentrate or equalize has infinite variations but the direction of change has two variations, you are either trying to make the assignment of regard more equal or more unequal. It is this binary quality of modern politics that makes all parties either Labour or Tory, left or right. Or here in my country, you are either a Democrat or a Republican and this difference is supposed to mean all the world.\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/KbBZQNC/max-v-min-line.png</center>\nHuman nature evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical. Success depended on being in a successful cooperative grouping and the only motive for this cooperation was the belief it would serve self interest through sharing in the group’s success. And so the expectation of the group’s success determined interest and support for the group thus determining real success in a circular fashion. In his instinctive state man applies these ideas unconsciously and naturally in a way perfectly suited to his environment. Assigning regard to his group is not an all consuming drive but never ignored and instead measured as best suits the purpose assigned by evolution. To rise above this starting point man has to rise above inherited instinct. To rise above morally he must choose moral universalism as the Fundamental Moral Choice is between self interest and universal moral concern as all particular moral concern logically evaluates to a scheme for the pursuit of self interest. To rise above natural life intellectually he must make the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence and use regard to choose between methods rather than between people. To rise above the starting point of human nature one must consciously see the circular nature of expecting a group’s success to come from the expectation of its success and use regard to assign value to methods in order of usefulness so as live intelligently and not merely instinctively. In a world where most wealth is from human labor using regard to choose between methods rather than between people gives an almost infinite improvement in the wealth produced by labor. \n\nThe starting point is always determined by human nature, to rise above that one has to reduce the extent to which one emphasizes regard in one’s decisions, both moral and practical. In the natural system of particular moral concern different gradations of concern will be assigned as best serves self interest. With universal moral concern there is no point in keeping track of an amount which is always the same, each person receives the same concern and no accounting is necessary. As you move towards universal moral concern assignment of regard to each person for the purpose of assigning moral concern becomes less and less emphasized, ideally regard becomes irrelevant. As you rise above the natural system using regard to choose between people as a moral choice is deemphasized in proportion to the moral advance. As you rise above the natural system you consciously see the futility of succeeding by assigning regard to one’s group for the purpose of self interest and instead use regard to choose between methods. This use of regard in the manner of counter instinctive cultural progress is to cease viewing regard as a tool itself. Value, which one can label regard, is assigned in differing quantities to tools and methods with methods merely being intellectual tools. It is these tools that are seen to do the work, not the regard placed on them. And so as we advance intellectually regard is deemphasized, ideally ceasing to be viewed as a source of success in of itself. This progress against the current of evolved instinct is the entirety of man’s advancement. The starting point of human nature does not view regard as having all encompassing importance. In addition to the possibility of deemphasizing regard and advancing one can emphasize it and thus make worse all the deficiencies of the natural system. One can swim against the instinctive current in a different direction and become more selfish and futilely stupid than nature ever intended. The ability to become worse than natural can not be separated from the agency which allows us to become better than natural, both are choices available to us or neither is a choice available to us. \n<center>https://i.ibb.co/ZgtQqTS/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-07-22-PM.png</center>\nWords like advancement and progress imply a starting point and that starting point is instinctive behavior. We would never evolve to make poor decisions, we in fact evolved to make the best possible decisions in our situation of amethodically gathering up nature’s freely given bounty. But once we started creating wealth our selves our instincts poorly served us and success in a world where man is methodical and most wealth is created from human labor. Progress is movement away from considering regard the currency of success. On a personal level this is usually called enlightenment and on a group level civilization. Whatever the term all advancement is movement away from instinctive decision making in the direction of minimizing the belief that regard is the sole currency of success and instead believing rational decision making and effort are the currency of success. When this happens on a group level this is called civilization and occurs when the entire culture of a group incorporates this understanding that regard is not the currency of success and this belief is something to rise above. As a culture incorporates the counter instinctive cultural progress of deemphasizing regard it advances and improves and will outperform lesser cultures which are not progressing in this direction. \n\nAs human nature moves contrary to this progress advanced cultures exist as islands amid backward cultures. They are either physical islands or cultural islands which exist side by side locally but retain a separate cultural life. Only some form of isolation, either physical or social, can allow advanced cultures to survive when all advancement is counter instinctive cultural progress and the mass of men still consider regard as the currency of success. Significant cultural progress only began 10,000 years ago and has spread only partially and cycled through times of expansion and contraction. Eventually the influence of culture on success will become consciously known to all and all will be advanced. Any further expansion of advanced culture at this point will have to be voluntary and rely on an explicit statement of what makes a culture advanced and an individual enlightened.\n\nInstinctive behavior evolved to perfectly suit its environment, an environment that no longer exists. Instinctive behavior was not evil or stupid, simply narrow in its focus and suitability. Far from being the worst possible type of behavior one can say that natural living is heavenly compared to what man is capable of. The agency which allows us to form the complicated political groupings typical of humans allows us to advance beyond instinctive living towards something better. This agency also allows us to degrade into something worse. Humans can use agency to become worse than natural and make decisions more stupid and evil than acting on instinct would produce. This is counter instinctive cultural regression. The worst a man can get is not to live as an animal. To live as an animal is to live on instincts, man has agency and can choose to act contrary to instinct and become barbaric and live in a manner worse than the animals. \n<center>https://i.ibb.co/mCqJCNm/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-27-32-PM.png</center>\nThe start of civilization were the peoples around the Black Sea who created domesticated agriculture. When sewing was invented around 25,000 years ago man was able to go north into areas Homo Erectus had never visited and where the megafauna had no previous experiences which would adapt them to human hunting pressure and the megafauna were quickly eliminated. In this arid grassland environment absent of natural megafauna food was so scarce that humans who were good shepherds to domesticated animals lived in paradisiacal isolation from other humans who might influence them back towards the starting point of human nature. Any group of humans in this environment who backslid on their own would find themselves without sustenance and have to leave or die out. The altered environment of these grasslands created an island on the land where advanced culture could develop in isolation. On these vast grasslands devoid of megafauna the herd of animals tended to by the shepherds were virtual islands of food in the sea of grass. When the Black Sea flooded these peoples would move to Europe, the Mid East, and India. DNA testing shows modern Greeks and Italians are closest to these Black Sea peoples and they formed the basis for advanced European and also Mid Eastern culture. The Tibetan Plateau, very broadly defined, played a similar role to the Black Sea region for Asia. Previous to the Black Sea people entering India the river valleys had already been seeded with advanced culture brought down from the many rivers flowing from the Plateau. But in East Asia advancement began in the rivers flowing down from the Plateau without admixture from the only other starting point of advanced culture, the Black Sea.\n\nThe dominating cultural legacy of this era is the Zoroastrian religion, the oldest continually practiced religion in the world. Twice in Genesis is states that Terah, Abraham’s father, followed a religion other than Judaism, Maimonides identifies this religion as Zoroastrianism and states that prior to Abraham the Jews as a whole were practicing Zoroastrianism. Jewish tradition on the whole accepts without controversy that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion. This view is accurate, there is no evidence for any continuously practiced religion that is any older. The basic beliefs of Zoroastrianism are the foundations of civilization. No religion emphasizes truth telling more strongly, this is to deny the value of describing for effect, to deny the value of viewing regard as the currency of success and to deny conspiratorial and treacherous dealings with others. Universal moral concern is embraced and honesty in all dealings with all others is mandatory, even in the simplest things. The basis for advancement is the basis for Zoroastrianism, the Fundamental Moral Choice of embracing universal moral concern and the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence, using regard to choose between methods rather than people. Zoroastrianism strongly influenced Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and built the world’s first empire, the Assyrian Empire. And the fundamental ethic of all Zoroastrianism is truthfulness in all dealings with all people.\n\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/HBPbxsR/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-29-57-PM.png</center>\nThe Black Sea people created the first advanced culture and created greater wealth than was ever possible before. Prior to advanced culture man was so poor that sustenance through banditry was impossible. It took all of one man’s efforts to sustain himself and his dependents. To steal his wealth would be a temporary affair as he would quickly starve and the thief would then have to labor for himself. Previous to advanced culture banditry was a losing proposition. There is great risk and you create a permanent enemy of the victim and a permanent distrust among all who know you. This cost was far greater than the value of what little wealth could be gained by banditry. Advanced culture created a world wealthy enough to bear the burden of banditry. Advanced culture created a world with so much wealth that some could survive without labor simply by stealing and the victims could survive the theft and continue to create more wealth on a permanent basis. The origin of human society had to be a culture based on honest labor as in the beginning there was nothing to steal. Banditry requires advancement as a precursor to allow the bandit to survive long enough to build a culture of banditry. When the megafauna were exterminated in northern Eurasia after sewing was invented in created a physical environment for advanced culture to grow and sustain itself as a group effort and not merely individual enlightenment. This physical environment allowed counter instinctive cultural progress to create a self sustaining social environment. This advancement created a physical environment allowing counter instinctive cultural regression to create a self sustaining social environment.\n\nSignificant cultural progress began around 10,000 years ago. Around 4,000 years ago the destruction layer hit. This was the establishment of banditry as a self sustaining culture. Prior to the destruction layer many cities and towns had no walls, no defensive fortifications. There is little evidence of need for defense, little evidence of a constant threat of warfare. Society was advancing as it had been doing for the previous 6,000 years. Then the destruction layer hits, this is a layer of ash and rubble that every major city in the classical world has in its archeological evidence dating from a period roughly four hundred years long and centered around 2,000 bc. Every major city in the classical world was burned to the ground at least once during this time. When digging through layers of the soil looking for evidence of the past every city in this part of the world suffered a complete destruction requiring a complete rebuild. There is nothing like this before or since. \n\nThere is nothing like this since because since then every major city was built with walls and moats and defensive fortifications. After the destruction layer all city builders took for granted the existence of banditry. This counter instinctive cultural regression had become a permanent feature of the area and defending against it became one of the primary concerns of the advanced people who made banditry possible through the wealth they created. This banditry took all forms, by land and sea. This was the beginning of piracy, of the Sea Peoples who would raid and destroy the coastal cities and of desert bands who would raid cities and seek refuge in the desert. The archetypical bandit culture is the Bedouin of the deserts and the domestication of the camel circa 2,000 bc made their way of life possible. In Genesis it speaks of the Bedouins being created circa 2,000 bc and their destructive way of life and speaks of the southward movement of people from the Black Sea area to the Mid East. This is the history of civilization. It originated in the Black Sea area and moved outward and unintentionally spawned the bandit culture and above all the Bedouins of the desert who raised the best camels in the harshest parts of the desert where no city dweller could survive. They would leave the desert refuge to raid trade routes and cities and then return to the desert refuge where life was only possible due to the domestication of the camel. Three times in the Old Testament it describes the Israelites being attacked by Medianite bedouins and being unable to catch them because the Medianite camels were faster than the Israelite camels. The domestication of the camel allowed the Bedouin to make the desert his safe refuge to return to after every destructive raid.\n\nFirst came honesty greater than instinctive honesty and advanced culture developed around the Black Sea. The wealth produced by this created the possibility for honesty lesser than instinctive honesty and Bedouin culture developed around the edges of the advanced cities. And all of the advanced world was burned to the ground at least once circa 2,000 bc. Human Agency gives each of us the ability to become better or worse than our instincts. When some are better this wealth creates a situation where others can survive by being worse. The truth telling Zoroastrian came first and then the Bedouin, and both remain in various forms to this day.\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/nnmBB8s/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-33-08-PM.png</center>\nThe French Revolution began a new era of human history as it added a new dimension to the human race’s response to the instinctive belief that regard is the currency of success. One response is to concentrate regard on one group and another to equalize regard among all groups. This is the ultimate basis for the left vs right political distinction. No matter how much the Fascists support free health care and government intervention in the economy and a welfare state they are never considered to be left as they are trying to concentrate regard on their ethnicity. No matter how much the left glorifies an identity it is never considered the same as the self glorification of the fascists if it is an obviously lowly regarded group which the glorifying leftist is trying to bring up to equal regard with the rest. We instinctively know if one is trying to equalize regard or concentrate it and assign the political terms left and right in accordance. The starting point of human nature is the instinctive life, from this came civilization and from civilization came banditry. Thousands of years later the left vs right split began and it has been the human race’s obsession ever since. It will remain the human race’s obsession until the influence of culture on success is understood. As long as some people believe regard is the currency of success the split between trying to concentrate regard and trying to equalize it will dominate politics.\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/zGPqfZQ/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-19-36-PM.png</center>\nIt’s a nearly universal opinion that both the left and right have benign and malign forms. It is also a nearly universal opinion that the malign form is a move too far away from center and this distance from the center is the flaw. This is wrong, the flaw is the emphasis on regard. Once one decides that regard must be equalized across all identities one begins using conscious inputs into the regard structure to balance out the subconscious inputs created by reality. In the past the left focused their efforts on idealizing the white working class, that era is gone forever. Now the left focuses on idealizing third world cultures all for the purpose of holding all identities in equal regard by inputting consciously chosen regard inputs which balance out the inputs created by reality so in sum all identities are held in equal regard. Equalizing regard across all identities is the fundamental goal of the left and the motive for demonizing groups which naturally receive regard and idealizing groups which naturally do not receive regard and the demonization and idealization is in proportion to what is necessary to hold all identities in equal regard. This is always the goal of the left.\n\nWhat makes the pursuit of this goal violent and destructive is the extent to which regard is considered important. All the left views equalizing regard across all identities as a worthy goal. But how worthy? If your belief in the importance of regard is strong enough any sacrifice in morals and peace and civilized behavior is justified by the goal of equalizing regard across all identities. If your belief in the importance of all identities being held in equal regard is high enough you will even support the elimination of identities which stubbornly resist being equalized. It is this degree of emphasis which differentiates benign from malign leftists. But when the emphasis on regard is so light or even deemphasized you have the benign form of the left which in a western democracy inevitably means a derivation of the Labour Party.\n\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/qknM1Fs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-27-36-PM.png</center>\nThe eternal debate regarding the analysis of right wing politics is whether the National Socialist German Workers Party or Nazi for short was left or right wing. It goes without saying that no leftist believes the National Socialists were leftist. This is despite their support for the welfare state, gun control, government intervention in the economy, rhetorical abuse of the bourgeoisie, glorification of the working class and purposeful association with the left in their own descriptions. Schicklgruber himself said the National Socialist party flag was mostly red for the purpose of appealing to Communist workers and converting them to the National Socialist cause. So the reasons to consider the National Socialist party a Socialist party are great in number and the policies of both are vastly similar. And yet almost no one truly considers the National Socialists to be leftist, people instinctively view them as being the opposite side of the coin from Communism. The reason is the concentration of regard on one ethnicity. Wherever this is found people instinctively recognize the attempt to concentrate regard for what it is and place this on the right of the political spectrum. No amount of arguing will ever change their minds. No matter how much free health care the National Socialists had they will always be placed on the right due to the instinctually understood attempt to concentrate regard rather than equalize it.\n\nAs with the left the political right is malign or benign in proportion to how much it emphasizes regard as the currency of success, as the mystical life force itself. Where this desire to concentrate regard is too closely aligned with the desire to concentrate regard it is common to attempt to achieve this concentration through elimination of other identities. This is the same policy as the malignant left, if nothing else works achieve the regard distribution you want through mass murder of the identities which stubbornly resist the distributive goal. And as with the left if the party lightly emphasizes or deemphasizes regard the right wing party will be benign and an inevitable derivative of the Tory party.\n<center>https://i.ibb.co/DYtCKBB/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-34-35-PM.png</center>\nThe standard view is that left vs right politics are an eternal feature of human life and that what remains is overcoming the malign forms of both and the malign forms are considered the forms that are too far left, too far right. This standard view is wrong and has never produced useful results. What is wrong with malign politics is the emphasis on regard and this is what needs to be overcome. To the extent the world deemphasized regard the world improves. Advancement relies on two things, the Fundamental Moral Choice and the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence. Both of these require seeing regard for what it truly is, irrelevant. It is not the currency of success and it is not the mystical life force. The Fundamental Moral Choice is understanding that the two choices are universal moral concern and self interest because particular moral concern logically evaluates to a scheme for the pursuit of self interest. The Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence is to use regard to choose between methods and not between people. It is productive methods that are the currency of success and it is authenticity that is the mystical life force. Man advances beyond his starting point when he advances beyond regard. But man has agency and can move below his starting point, to a point below animal life, and he does this to the extent he increases the value of regard beyond even what is instinctive.\n\nThe future progress of politics is not to avoid extremism on the left vs right spectrum to rise above left vs right politics and make the choice of equalizing or concentrating regard irrelevant because regard itself is irrelevant. When this happens there will be no Communism and no Fascism. There will not even be a Labour/Democrat and Tory/Republican split as once regard is irrelevant policy issues will be decided solely on practical merits and not on whether they promote the agenda of equalizing or concentrating regard. \n<center>https://i.ibb.co/cDZd1Vs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-39-08-PM.png</center>\nThe circle on the Regard Compass is the starting point of human nature. Before roughly 10,000 years ago only individuals would move beyond this point. Around 10,000 years ago entire cultures began moving above the starting point of instinctive behavior. Around 4,000 years ago entire cultures developed around thievery, the bandit cultures epitomized by the Bedouins. Honest labor came before thievery otherwise there would be nothing to steal. Primitive man had only to feed himself alone and not enough to feed parasites whether he fed them willingly or unwillingly by being the victim of crime. Advanced cultures produce enough wealth for other cultures to develop on the periphery which survive through banditry. The explosion of bandit or bedouin cultures produced the Destruction Layer circa 2,000 bc and since then all advanced cultures have taken the need to defend against banditry for granted. This dispute within the human race will end when the left vs right dispute ends. Both will end when culture’s influence on success is finally understood. When that day comes there will no longer be a left vs right struggle and the world will no longer tolerate counter instinctive cultural regression, otherwise known as banditry.\n\nWhen the left vs right debate disappears there will continue to be policy debates, this never will and never should end. But the disputes will be practical in nature and not political. Arguments about politics will be at the level of arguing about turbochargers vs superchargers. It will be a debate on the merits and not a debate about political maneuvering for advantage. Once the left vs right debate is overcome all policy debates will debates about policies and their practical implications and not about politics at all. \n\nBanditry and the surviving Bedouin influence carried within Islam will no longer be tolerated once culture’s influence on success is understood. Tolerance for banditry is based on sympathy for the poor as victims of the rich due to success being unevenly distributed for reasons other than cultural inequality. Once culture’s influence on success is understood the world will no longer tolerate Somalia systematically raiding international shipping lanes and then returning to the desert refuge as modern Bedouins. What will end left vs right politics will end cultural regression vs cultural progress. And what ends this will be acknowledgment. Acknowledgment explodes the system. You can’t tell your wife you are flattering her for the sake of better relations. To acknowledge one is using regard to accomplish goals is to explode the system. To acknowledge one is either attempting to equalize or concentrate regard is to admit one is describing for effect rather than accuracy. To acknowledge attempts to use regard as a tool for social change is to explode the system. A vast silence is required to keep the system in place, the system explodes when it is acknowledged to exist. And then all that is left of the Regard Compass is the one line going up, the line indicating man’s advancement.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"bthomas\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/THnqBT7/regardcompass.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/xgyVcNF/con-v-eq-line.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/S5k9Jfd/left-v-right-line.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/KbBZQNC/max-v-min-line.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/ZgtQqTS/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-07-22-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/mCqJCNm/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-27-32-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/HBPbxsR/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-29-57-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/nnmBB8s/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-9-33-08-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/zGPqfZQ/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-19-36-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/qknM1Fs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-27-36-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/DYtCKBB/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-34-35-PM.png\",\"https://i.ibb.co/cDZd1Vs/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-7-39-08-PM.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c8eb8f5393d93f41fdfc569e84022fdc6d5980e5",
  "block": 40425305,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-01T01:36:06",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "bthomas.steem",
      "parent_permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-bthomassteem-20200201t013608000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @bthomas.steem! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :\n\n<table><tr><td><img src=\"https://steemitimages.com/60x70/http://steemitboard.com/@bthomas.steem/voted.png?202002010043\"></td><td>You received more than 100 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 250 upvotes.</td></tr>\n</table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@bthomas.steem) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=bthomas.steem)_</sub>\n<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>\n\n\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1ea382a595cff6a205a0d7a3ccb701fd8a39432e",
  "block": 40423493,
  "trx_in_block": 18,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-02-01T00:05:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "yehey",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "303fe256e23dc236eab823e1008638bfbf2a4cde",
  "block": 40422824,
  "trx_in_block": 16,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T23:31:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "filipino",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9431ab560bdd970badbd2c9e73b7a37038d48955",
  "block": 40422516,
  "trx_in_block": 43,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T23:16:24",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "raise-me-up",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 1
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2ed2261f2671ceaf210a4c1bf42b78bdbdc91296",
  "block": 40422410,
  "trx_in_block": 13,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T23:11:06",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "resteemyou",
      "to": "bthomas.steem",
      "amount": "0.001 STEEM",
      "memo": "Hi! I re-blog posts to 7000+ followers if you send  only 0.03 SBD/Steem with post link in memo || comments disabled. Thanx ♥"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e6696f2b01e58a8c250f2fecba232b6088b48c89",
  "block": 40422234,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T23:02:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "partitura.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "19468aa8db5658b4820a1e03bb72cdef9c170bf9",
  "block": 40422154,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T22:58:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3cd1e87b3390ebab0c1532402751ee21ab054252",
  "block": 40422152,
  "trx_in_block": 17,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T22:58:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "laissez-faire",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "00955ed03e561bcae7484de111a128a4fc346077",
  "block": 40422151,
  "trx_in_block": 15,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T22:58:09",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anomaly",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "70918af1a8cd15d86607c4c5f9ffce3718307dc0",
  "block": 40422129,
  "trx_in_block": 18,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-31T22:57:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "politics",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "vertical-politics-is-the-only-future",
      "title": "Vertical Politics is the Only Future",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/z5qrHbW/vertpolitics.png</center>\n\nIf you are a Republican you are controlled and part of the problem. If you are a Democrat you are controlled and part of the problem. If you believe in Lazy Fairy economics you are controlled and part of the problem. If you believe in big s Socialism you are controlled and part of the problem. Almost everyone with a great interest and enthusiasm for politics is controlled and part of the problem. If you are Labour, if you are Tory, you are part of the problem. If you are political you are controlled and part of the problem. You are controlled by the system and you are playing by the rules of the system and you obey the system. All politics that can fit into the left vs right political schema, all politics which can fit into a political spectrum stretching horizontally is controlled politics, is obedience to the system. Nothing done on the horizontal political spectrum can improve the world or end the system or disobey the system. If it can be categorized as left or right it is controlled. No matter how much the left and right hate each other they are each other, mirror twins. No matter how much the left and right hate each other they are both the problem, they are both the enemy. All horizontal politics, all politics on the left vs right spectrum, is the system and thwarts every worthy goal of the human race.\n\nAll western political parties are imitations of Labour and Tory. This is less obvious to westerners than to all others, Yoweri Museveni has spoken at length and with great insight as to how tension between Labour and Tory is what keeps western democracy alive yet this tension can not exist in poor countries where poor vs rich politics would be 99% against 1%. Yet to westerners themselves the predictable unoriginality of western political parties often seems invisible to all but a clever few. All western political parties of any importance are either Labour or Tory, though an American might think of them as Democrat and Republican, merely newer names for the same thing. Even as children we quickly grasped what these terms mean and quickly apply them to foreign countries when studying their politics. Our minds almost instantly grasp that Likud=Tory=Republican and that Labour=Labour=Democrats. We instinctively try to discover which foreign party is the Labour of the country, which is the Tory. We all do this unconsciously, the clever do it consciously. But cleverness is not enough to break the system. There is something deeper.\n\nMuseveni speaks insightfully about how all western political parties are Labour or Tory and that Labour promotes the poor and Tory the rich and that in Africa that would mean 99% against 1% and the balance of power necessary for democracy would not last. But Labour represents the rich. Almost all rich are Labour or Democrats or whatever term you use. The clever can see that all western political parties are Labour or Tory. But go deeper, almost all rich people are Labour. Tory at this time is a middle class movement. Labour is an alliance of the rich and poor against the middle class. Museveni is clever, all parties are Labour or Tory and that would not work in Africa. But there is more to it. Almost all billionaires are Labour, or Democrats as Americans would call them. There is more to it.\n\nThe majority see nothing, the clever see a pattern. But the deeper pattern is Labour wants to equalize regard across all identities while Tory wants to concentrate regard on one identity. This is horizontal politics. The spectrum from right to left is not an income spectrum with the lowest incomes on the furthest left and the highest incomes on the furthest right. It is a spectrum of regard assigning schemas, the further left you go the more you want to equalize regard across all identities. The further right you go the more you want to concentrate regard on one identity. This is why Likud is Tory despite having an economic and social program to the left of any elected Democrat. The horizontal political spectrum is not a mirror to income. Almost all billionaires are Democrats or Labour or whatever name you choose. The horizontal political spectrum is not about income, it is about regard. The further to the left the more you want to equalize regard across all identities and the further to the right the more you want to concentrate regard on one identity. The majority see nothing, the clever see a pattern, but underneath is the true pattern.\n\nIf you are a Democrat you are controlled, if you are a Republican you are controlled. If your politics is on the horizontal line you are controlled. Because if you try to equalize regard across all identities it is because you think regard matters. Labour and Tory are not two ideas, the are one, the idea that regard matters. Left and Right are not two philosophies, they are one, the philosophy that regard matters. If you think regard matters you are controlled. And the more you hate the other side of the horizontal line the more controlled you are. What matters isn’t whether your plan is to concentrate regard or to equalize it, what matters is that you think regard matters. Schicklgruber killed millions and Stalin killed millions. Labour/Democrats kill no one but mismanages affairs, Tory/Republicans kill no one but mismanage affairs. The further to the extremes you go the more likely you are to kill and once past a point it is just a question of how many will you kill. Closer to the center you won’t kill anyone but you will mismanage affairs, even if its in different ways. The problem is always the same, you are on the horizontal line. If you are going to be on that line please be in the non violent region near the middle, thank you. But if you are on the line at all you are part of the problem. If you think regard matters you are controlled by the system, if you think regard matters you work for and obey the system.\n\nLeft and Right are barely even opposition to each other but to the extent they are they are controlled opposition. Uncontrolled opposition is the vertical line. The starting point of human nature is to follow evolved instinct and believe regard is the mystical life force and the source of all success. To rise above this is advancement, this is civilization on the group level and enlightenment on the individual level. The starting point is a human nature which evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical and the many will always defeat the few or the one. Groups are held together by the regard they are held in, the likelihood of their future success, and so regard is the source of success itself. To rise about this is to understand in practical affairs the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence, using regard to choose between methods rather than people, and the Fundamental Moral Choice between self interest and universal moral concern alone with no particular moral concern possible. To understand these two thinks is to rise about the natural system and understand regard as the natural man’s currency in the world he evolved in, yet having no reality or use once understood. The vertical line is advance beyond the starting point. The further one has moved beyond thinking regard valuable the higher one as gone on the vertical line. This line is the only true opposition in this world, the only uncontrolled in this world. If you are not on the vertical line you are controlled and part of the problem. If your politics are left and right you are controlled. Only the vertical line is free.\n\nOnly vertical politics changes the world. Whether you are Left/Labour/Democrat or Right/Tory/Republican your efforts are futile, they system wins and you lose. The system is saying regard matters, only denying this changes the world. Vertical politics is the only real politics, the only uncontrolled opposition. If you are not vertical you are not changing anything. Human advancement at both the group and individual level comes from moving beyond the natural system and that means moving beyond regard. If you are not going up you are not going anywhere.\n\nMost people are moderates or we would have destroyed the world already. Roughly 20% are left wingers, 20% are right wingers and 60% are moderates. If either of the wingers were in the majority the world would end. But most people are moderates and want to live in peace, this fact is all that is holding us together. The moderates have the numbers too, they outnumber the wingers and so should be running the democratic countries. But they are not. Moderates hate both extremes, hate even having conversations with extremists. When you see someone like this, someone who doesn’t even want to talk to both extremes, count yourself lucky to have met a real human being and not some political robot. Moderates instinctively know the extremists of both sides are the problem. On this they are correct and the moderates are the world’s only hope. The problem is always the same, the moderates want to bring peace by splitting the difference between left and right. They want to stop the fighting by taking half of one side and half of another and mix it together into something which will bring peace. The moderates have been trying this since time began, peace never comes. The moderates are mistaken. If they were not mistaken than after all this time they would have been able to make use of their greater numbers.\n\nThe moderates are mistaken, the way to peace is not splitting the difference between opposing sides. The way to peace is vertical politics, to rise above the belief that regard is the mystical life force, the currency of success. The way to silence the extremists is not to buy them off and buy off both sides through compromise. The way to silence the extremists is to make them irrelevant by rising above any political system which values regard and replace the horizontal with vertical politics, instead of movement left and right on how regard should be distributed movement upward toward denying the importance of regard. It is vertical politics which will finally make the moderate majority the rightful power in democratic politics.\n\nVertical politics is a threat to the entire establishment. If you are leftist you are not a threat, if you are rightist you are not a threat. If you deny the importance of regard you are threat to the entire establishment. Acknowledgement explodes the system. To openly speak of regard and the natural system is to destroy the natural system. No war is needed, mere acknowledgment explodes the system. But to acknowledge the system is to become the enemy of the establishment, the entire establishment. Because vertical politics is uncontrolled opposition to the entire establishment. Vertical politics is thus the only politics that matters.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/z5qrHbW/vertpolitics.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1bcfe96fe11b06d678e29b0d05de843220b25ddf",
  "block": 40390523,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-30T20:33:39",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "raise-me-up",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "answer-to-all-questions",
      "weight": 1
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2f4af14d900d16592993f9e3e3d62f842117327d",
  "block": 40390185,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-30T20:16:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "answer-to-all-questions",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9a8732377976a88cd7b3f85fdbed02d49da4b659",
  "block": 40390170,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-30T20:16:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bitcoinunicorn",
      "permlink": "scam-alert-mind-capital-the-first-crytpto-fiat-program-that-doesn-t-accept-fiat",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "76230424bab58048b7dfb0e20eb8630a99c10239",
  "block": 40390070,
  "trx_in_block": 31,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-30T20:11:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "laissez-faire",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "answer-to-all-questions",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "92b708f183f357a1b9f8c0cc297fefccc3accc2b",
  "block": 40390068,
  "trx_in_block": 38,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-30T20:10:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anomaly",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "answer-to-all-questions",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9ff1af8fce42e7dc0753ef8f56762f4a4faf9386",
  "block": 40390044,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-30T20:09:42",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "bthomas",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "answer-to-all-questions",
      "title": "Answer to All Questions",
      "body": "<center>https://i.ibb.co/MP7fGHT/ATAQ.png</center>\n\n<center>*The essential question is if we have agency why do we not best live our lives?*</center>\n\nThe Regard Model is the one thing that explains all things. The questions of the human race all have their answer in the Regard Model. We evolved in a world where all wealth comes from human nature and man was amethodical, as the many will always defeat the few or the one membership in a group is the path to success. As evolution functions at the level of self interest the only motive for joining and serving a group is belief that this group will be successful and you will gain a share of that success which makes joining and serving your best choice. And so all individuals seek membership in a group and the only motive for doing so involves belief in that group’s future success. This belief in future success can be broadly termed the regard the group is held in. And so regard becomes the currency of success as a circular logic dictates that groups are successful because they are thought to be successful. \n\nSuccessfully making use of the value of the group involves agency. One has to be free to join and leave and support and betray the group in order to best serve one’s self interest. This agency allows man to rise above his instincts. Animals live in groups by instinct and mechanically follow certain rules of association. Man has the agency to engage in politics, a necessary precondition. If loyalty to the group was forced for some they would be at the service of the disloyal and their genes would disappear. All loyalty has to be voluntary to serve self interest and this voluntary loyalty requires agency. And so man is the only animal capable of counter instinctive cultural progress.\n\nThis progress takes two forms, the moral and the practical. The Fundamental Moral Choice is between self interest and universal moral concern. Particular moral concern is merely a scheme for the pursuit of self interest. The only motive for only having care for some people and not all is that this will promote one’s self interest. If one’s motive for having care is to be moral then one will care about all people. Any argument in favor of caring about one other person will even more strongly argue in favor of caring about two other people, it keeps going like this until you care about all people. Any argument in favor of only caring about 99 people instead of 100 will be based on self interest and even more strongly argue in favor of only caring about the 98 people closest to you and this continues until you only care about yourself. All arguments for choosing the number of people to care about on morals leads to universal moral concern. All arguments for choosing the number of people to care about on self interest leads to unrestricted self interest and only caring about oneself. All forms of particular moral concern are temporary schemes for the pursuit of self interest and will be abandoned when they no longer serve self interest. \n\nThe Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence is to use regard to choose between methods not people. As we evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical we evolved to use regard to measure a group’s likelihood of succeeding. Because we have agency we can choose to rise above this and use regard to choose between methods. Choosing the best method is the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence. Choosing the best method is the fundamental reason some succeed more than others. Choosing the best method never maximizes one’s own regard. To use regard to choose the best method is to choose something other than maximizing one’s own or one’s group’s regard. This choice will only be made when regard for oneself or one’s group is either de-emphasized or completely made irrelevant. To the extent regard is de-emphasized in this manner we grow in the ability to choose the best method and become successful.\n\nThe Regard Model answers all the questions of human affairs as the only questions are why, if we have agency, we fail to best live our lives. There are no questions in human affairs which are not of this type. Denying agency is the simplest way of explaining failure to best live our lives. But we instinctively know we have this agency and this leads to the philosophical and practical questions of why we fail to best live our lives. All our curiosity about ourselves serves the purpose of answering this question. This question is completely answered by understanding the Regard Model.\n\n---\n\n**QUESTIONS**\n\n**Prehistory.** The question of prehistory is why it even exists. This is the fundamental question of how we can have agency and yet not best live our lives. If we have always had agency why did we not have the wheel for longer than we have had it? Since we have made progress and our nature is unchanging we have always had the ability to make progress and yet during pre history did not. This is the essential question of if we have agency why do we not best live our lives. The answer is found in the Regard Model, we evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical. We have the agency to rise above these instincts in counter instinctive progress, but the general trend is against this progress. Individual progress would in the past die with the individual. Counter instinctive progress only became counter instinctive cultural progress when sewing was invented and man moved north of where Homo Erectus had ever lived. In the grasslands newly shorn of the megafauna man was able to advance as a group through animal husbandry. A physical environment favoring the advanced enough to counter the trend of human instinct was needed for personal advancement to become group advancement through culture.\n\n**History.** The question of history is what it is and where is it going. That history is more than a record of past events has always been known, there is no reason to record events if each record is of equal value and the mere recording is the only purpose. The motive behind study of history is to know where we are coming from and where we are going, the arc of human progress. If there is no progress there is no reason for the study of history. The question of history is the essential question, if we have agency why do we not best live our lives? The answer is agency is real and human instincts run counter to progress and must be overcome through the Fundamental Moral Choice and the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence. These are the sole basis for counter instinctive cultural progress. The answer to where we are coming from is we are coming from instinctive behavior explained by the Regard Model. We are going to a world where regard is understood to be irrelevant and the Fundamental Moral Choice and the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence are understood by all.\n\n**Economics.** The main question of economics is how to manage the business environment. If we have both agency and self interest then markets will clear and there will be no market downturns and economic progress will be constant. But in addition to agency we have human instincts which run counter to our best interests and so business decisions are made wasting productive capacity and markets do no clear and market downturns result.\n\n**Politics.** For over two hundred years most political disputes have revolved around the question of why some cultural groups are more successful than others. These often violent disputes are derived from the essential question of if we have agency why do we not best live. Modern political disputes inevitably state that poorer group’s agency is being denied or thwarted by the conspiring of the more successful groups. The answer is that success comes from the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence and some cultures have embraced this more than others. Once the Regard Model is understood and the causes of uneven success are understood all modern political disputes will be ended.\n\n**Morals.** The golden rule is the only true basis for morality. This rule requires agency as it holds all responsible for their actions. Modern politics disputes are based on the observation the success is unequal. From this is made the claim that agency is denied or thwarted and thus the basis for responsibility is denied. The solution is understanding why uneven success occurs thus eliminating any politically motivated denial of responsibility. Once responsibility as a result of agency is seen as universal all obstacles to the golden rule will be gone and the moral question solved.\n\n**Religion.** The basic question in religion is to what extent do we have agency, to what extent do our current beliefs create a future reality. Salvation by faith vs salvation by works. The motive for believing in salvation by faith is the human instinct to believe that regard is the currency of success. To primitive man success was derived by the expectation of success in a circular manner. This instinct is the cause of salvation by faith. \n\n**Philosophy.** The main concerns of philosophy are if truth exists and how can we know it. The answer is truth exists and we can know it simply. The obstacles to this are the instincts which make us believe regard is the currency of success in a circular logic These instincts make us believe future reality can be created by current belief in a circular manner thus eliminating any reality unchanged by its description. Yet all reality exists unchanged by its description, this itself is the definition of reality. We doubt in the existence of a reality unchanged by its description due human instincts convincing us that regard is the currency of success according to a circular logic.\n\n**Psychology.** The question of psychology is the question of sanity which itself is the question of if we have agency why do we not best live. The answer is mankind alone posses the capacity for insanity, which is to use our instincts for group behavior at the individual level. Our instincts teach us that regard is the currency of success in a circular fashion causing our descriptions of reality to change reality. These instincts were meant for the group. When one thinks as an individual according to the group instincts inherited from evolution one lacks sanity. The solution is to understand reality is always unchanged by description, we are pulled away from this by instincts convincing us regard is the currency of success.\n\n\n---\n\nThe essential question is always if we have agency why do we not best live. Intellectually this manifests itself in the Learner’s Paradox, how can the truth be recognized as true if it was not previously known and if it was previously known why must it be learned? The answer is the truth is suppressed by the instinct to view regard as the currency of success and thus reality changed by our descriptions of reality. Once the individual rises above natural living and understands regard is irrelevant and reality is unchanged by description he will lose the motive to intentionally not know the truth that was always within.\n\nThe essential question is always if we have agency why do we not best live. This leads to the question of how do we do. How do we act, how do we do the things in our lives. The question arises as a needed answer to why we do not best live. The common wrong answer is to completely or partially deny agency and thus the search for the answer to the question of how do we do. We do all things directly and by choice. This is obscured by the instinctive pull towards believing regard is the currency of success in a circular logic. Once regard is seen as irrelevant the answer to how we do is simply seen as choosing to do.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"bthomas\",\"politics\",\"philosophy\",\"culture\",\"history\",\"commentary\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.ibb.co/MP7fGHT/ATAQ.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "b5d13edb5e27b44b496063148ba70ad0b218e740",
  "block": 40358780,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-29T18:03:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "yehey",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-black-sea-origins-of-civilization",
      "weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a75958c0b57f0039194e9f9ed14b935166780d7a",
  "block": 40357811,
  "trx_in_block": 16,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-29T17:14:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-black-sea-origins-of-civilization",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "d30dfb6298d3ad769a2af4e6c7cf148166fb71e3",
  "block": 40357794,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-29T17:13:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "civilization",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-black-sea-origins-of-civilization",
      "title": "The Black Sea Origins of Civilization",
      "body": "<center>https://i.postimg.cc/8k2rprmM/blackseaorigins.png</center>\n\nWhy this, why then? The questions regarding the start of advanced culture have to be asked. Natural culture is to be directed by instincts evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical. For us to have ever moved beyond this the potential had to always be there due to agency, a condition necessary for the political maneuvering of natural man. Any primitive man could then use this agency to move beyond the natural system in the two most important ways, The Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence(using regard to choose between methods not people) and the The Fundamental Moral Choice(between self interest and universal moral concern). Any primitive man could choose to advance due to the existence of agency and yet all men, primitive or advanced, have the same instincts pulling them towards the natural system. So there is always the possibility of advancement and this advancement is counter instinctive to all and must survive the opposing current of instinct to survive and spread beyond the individual. So widespread cultural advancement would need an environment suitable for this.\n\nDue to agency it can be assumed that individuals choosing advancement occurs throughout history at a steady rate. This rate is so low these individuals are always in the minority and their percentage would have been constant through most of prehistory, constantly at the spawn rate. Even if they communicated their influence to others there would be dilution and even opposition. If the current of natural living was not stronger than the influence of the individual examples randomly spawning then advancement would have started as soon as the species started and this did not happen. The most recent estimate for the start of the species would be 80,000 years ago and the majority of the time since then was spent living at a constant state of primitiveness roughly equal to that of the Neanderthals. Human civilization did not start to advance with any speed at all until roughly 10,000 years ago. A special circumstance was needed to make the individual moves in the direction of civilization into group wide cultural movement.\n\nThe special circumstance was the extinction of the megafauna in the northern half of Eurasia after the invention of sewing. This invention is the most overlooked of all human inventions and the single most overlooked fact of prehistory. Before sewing humans could not live north of a certain line, the cold was too much. Homo Erectus never went north of this line and the animals of the north half of Eurasia never saw a single Homo Erectus. Because of this they never adapted to hunting pressure and the megafauna were quickly hunted to extinction wherever modern man went that Homo Erectus had not gone first. The western hemisphere, Australia, Oceania east of the Wallace Line and the northern half of Eurasia, the megafauna were hunted to extinction in all of these locations when modern man arrived. In the places where Homo Erectus had gone first the megafauna survived as they adapted to hunting pressure while exposed to Homo Erectus. So India kept its elephants but Siberia and America did not. Java kept its megafauna but Australia did not. Wherever modern man went that Homo Erectus had not the animals were unprepared for the hunting pressure and Homo Erectus was naked.\n\nAround 25,000 years ago modern man invented sewing and went further north than Homo Erectus had ever gone and quickly exterminated the megafauna, the traditional prey of humans. This created the special environment for advanced culture to succeed. The most important region for pre history is grasslands surrounding the Black Sea, the primary area of pre historic animal domestication worldwide. Once the megafauna were extinct large grasslands existed with no suitable prey for hunting and no plant sources of sustenance to keep a human population alive. Grasses are the second most water efficient plants behind only true desert plants and they dominate arid regions. The grasslands were too dry to support much plant life besides grass and this plant food is useless to man. Once the prey animals had been hunted to extinction the lands would have been empty of human food and thus of humans.\n\nThe first farm animal created by man was the goat. Either this or the dog was the first animal domesticated. Goats live in mountains and are slow runners and built for rock climbing and jumping not running or for living in grasslands. This slow running animal was the first animal food source domesticated and most likely the first domesticated food source of any type. Goats captured from mountains were brought to the empty plains, their were no wild goats to breed with and they could not survive predators without human help. Goats are slow running and not built for plains and would not have been hard to keep track of. Any goat which wandered away from the shepherd would die from predators as goats are incompetent at life in the plains. So the goats most likely to stay with the shepherd were the ones most likely to survive. Having brought goats to the plains the goats would have been domesticated by the selective pressure of the situation. Man now had a food source in the empty steppeland surrounding the Black Sea. Man’s only food source in the empty steppeland surrounding the Black Sea.\n\nGoats live in the highest mountains. Sheep live further down in altitude, in the hills. Goats are purely a mountain species, they have small hooves so they can stand on the narrowest of mountain ledges. They can jump great distances across the rocky terrain of the mountain tops but they are hopelessly slow runners on flat ground. If they stray from the shepherd they are food for the wolf. The only goats which survived in the steppe were the tamest goats and this pressure would have quickly altered their behavior and made them farm animals. But this new food source would have tamed the shepherd. Having exterminated all the suitable game animals in an environment with no adequate plant food the shepherd who did not tend his flock would starve. This was the environment which tamed man.\n\nThis was the start of civilized life. Man has agency and there would have always been individuals who chose to use regard to choose between methods not people. There would have always been individuals who chose universal moral concern over self interest. And the influence of these individuals would have been drowned out by the influence of the majority, of the natural system. But now was a change, the only groups which could survive on the steppeland surrounding the Black Sea were the groups that embraced cultural advancement. To move beyond the natural system was all that would allow the adequate tending of the goats, as only the good shepherd could survive in the steppeland. And to those of good mind the steppeland would have been a paradise.\n\nEveryone dreams of a little world all their own. This is why people love boats, it is the closest you can come to owning an island which is what people really want. Because it is human nature to want a little world all your own. And to those early shepherds the steppeland was just that. No one else had domesticated goats. The endless grassland was empty of all men but the good shepherds. The goats would produce more than enough food, you had safety from the isolation and you had all the food you needed. As long as you took care of the goats. Any backsliding into the natural system and you would have to leave the steppe and look for natural food. But be the good shepherd and you would never starve. This steppeland was the special situation that allowed human advancement to move beyond a few random individuals making purely personal advancement. Now you had groups advancing and building cultures around this advancement. Eventually some of them developed cultures which promoted advancement beyond the natural system so well they could leave the steppe and not slide backward into the natural system. And so the Black Sea area became the start of civilization.\n\nIt is likely that something similar happened in Tibet or the regions local to it. Archeology is a western invention and the west has had limited access to the east Asian areas needed for study. Under Communist rule they were entirely barred from entry. But around the same time that civilization was starting in the west it was starting in the east. All the major rivers of Asia originate in Tibet, the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Indus, Ganges, Irrawaddy, all start in Tibet. And East Asian civilization all started in these river valleys at roughly the same time, yet decayed and died out afterwards except for the Yellow River, which runs through desert regions. The river-in-a-desert theme dominates near pre history, the Nile, the Indus, the Yellow. I believe Tibet played the role of the Black Sea steppeland for Asia and after sewing modern man exterminated the megafauna and then domesticated animals in response and then advanced culture spread down all the river valleys of Asia. This influence best survived where it was most isolated, in the Yellow and Indus rivers running through deserts. No other explanation for the start of Asian civilization best explains the known facts, if the Communist had not barred the archeologists for so long I believe this question would already be answered. With enough time the facts will come out, but only one answer can logically fit with human nature and simple logic.\n\nThe spread of advanced culture from the Black Sea area is much better understood than the Asian situation. 8,000 years ago the sea level was rising due to glacier melt from the end of the Ice Age. The sea levels crested the land barrier and entered the Black Sea. As water rushed in it eroded the earth underneath and the channel deepened and the rate of entry increased. The Black Sea was quickly flooded leading to massive migration out of the area. This Black Sea flood is attested to in the Bible, and the stories of Zoroastrianism. The story of Atlantis told to Solon in Egypt was most likely about the Black Sea migrations as it describes the movement of the Atlanteans as being from east to west and places it at the time of the Black Sea flood. This would mean that the Pillars of Hercules spoken of in the account would be the Dardanelles Straight and not Gibraltar. Driven out of their place of origin by the sea the Black Sea peoples spread to all of the classical world. They brought the first farming to Europe and within 500 years of the Black Sea flood they had occupied all the prime farmland in all of Europe. They were concentrated in Greece and Italy, the pillars of the classical world. DNA testing shows that 90% of Greeks are descended from the people fleeing the Black Sea flood and 60% of Italians, these are the two highest figures in Europe. It was the people from the Black Sea that started western civilization and they moved the center of civilized westward in response to the Black Sea flood.\n\nThe standard explanation for the northward bias in civilization is the need to store food over the winter making forethought and planning necessary for survival. There was no northward bias in the western hemisphere or any that can’t be explained solely by culture except for the very start of advanced culture. This first start had to come from the north because the extinction of the Eurasian megafauna created the environment where the ever present individual choices to advance beyond natural living had the chance to become a group ethic and way of life. It is possible that without this specific environment we would have remained primitive forever. The advanced cultures that started north of the line Homo Erectus never crossed spread southward and so far the spread has been uneven and so success has been uneven. Eventually what makes cultures advanced will be distilled down to the essence of the Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence and the Fundamental Moral Choice. These two principles will become widely known and understood and then all cultures will have equal access to that which makes us successful. But it all started at the Black Sea and the Tibetan Plateau. It had to as man always has the potential for advancement due to agency, but this advancement must always fight against the current of our natural state, our instincts which evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"civilization\",\"history\",\"culture\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.postimg.cc/8k2rprmM/blackseaorigins.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "26536ae4917f1c0b51531736dcb79d0b325492af",
  "block": 40328290,
  "trx_in_block": 28,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-28T16:35:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "samotrader",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "acknowledgement-explodes-the-system",
      "weight": 10
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8016fb312871aa4b2dfc1d278cffa53fcafa292c",
  "block": 40328289,
  "trx_in_block": 27,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-28T16:35:27",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "laissez-faire",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "acknowledgement-explodes-the-system",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2a86f2f40c1e30a2fe5ee83bc098c0e4a7867201",
  "block": 40328288,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-28T16:35:24",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anomaly",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "acknowledgement-explodes-the-system",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "4cc71d61cae7ebf38b42d9aca9d82535c8bae501",
  "block": 40328281,
  "trx_in_block": 15,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-28T16:35:03",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "acknowledgement-explodes-the-system",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "902d9a9e22e73cde39b8d055ce35b369f84abb2f",
  "block": 40328262,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-28T16:34:06",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "bthomas",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "acknowledgement-explodes-the-system",
      "title": "Acknowledgement Explodes the System",
      "body": "<center>https://i.postimg.cc/wxrtMy38/ackexplodes.png</center>\n\nIf you tell your wife that you are going to begin flattering her for the sake of better relations you will not have better relations. Flattery can never be admitted to if it is to have the intended effect. The flattery for the sake of better relations may well be understood for what it is, an overly positive description meant to endear oneself, and still succeed and still endear the flatterer. But if the flatterer ever admits his purpose and method his purpose is thwarted his method ruined. This is an iron law, the flatterer may never admit to his method and purpose. This rule applies to all attempts to change the world through intentionally inaccurate descriptions, whether the descriptions are flattery or condemnation, whether the descriptions are inaccurately positive or negative. This is an iron law, all attempts to provide conscious inputs into the regard structure to overwrite the unconscious inputs from observing reality are failures if admitted too. \n\nAcknowledgement explodes the system. To ever admit to the existence of the regard structure explodes the regard structure. To admit to the existence of the natural system explodes the natural system. To admit to the existence of intentionally inaccurate descriptions explodes the existence of intentionally inaccurate descriptions. If you tell your wife that you are going to begin flattering her for the sake of better relations you will not have better relations. A single acknowledgement explodes the system of intentionally inaccurate descriptions. The natural system has existed from the start of man to the present. The natural system explodes the moment it is acknowledged. Any acknowledgement explodes the system of regard and this system has only lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years due to tens if not hundreds of thousands of years of unacknowledgement. A vast silence across the entire human race is necessary for the continued existence of intentionally inaccurate descriptions. This vast silence exists and has always existed, the natural system has existed without interruption to the present. It will continue as long as the vast silence exists, it will be exploded by acknowledgement.\n\nIn a world where all wealth comes from nature and man is amethodical the only cause of success is regard. The many will always defeat the few or the one, the group is the method and the group is held together by belief in its future success, its regard, and so the method is regard. And regard is controlled, changed, adjusted, manipulated through  intentionally inaccurate descriptions. And so the method is intentionally inaccurate description and all intentionally inaccurate descriptions are voided by admission. Admission, acknowledgement, explodes the system and does so permanently and overwhelmingly. The entire natural system is voided by a single admission.\n\nTo acknowledge one is intentionally inaccurately describing the world in inaccurate terms voids all of ones inaccurate descriptions. It also voids the need for inaccurate descriptions. If one person can do things directly without assistance from intentionally inaccurate descriptions then all can. If one can be conscious of accurate descriptions and consciously construct inaccurate descriptions for the purpose of reaching one’s goals than one can achieve one’s goal with accurate descriptions. If one has the ability to consciously choose to formulate and inaccurate description for the purpose of reaching a goal then one has the agency to work for one’s goal without inaccurate descriptions. To even admit to the creation of inaccurate descriptions is to admit to their being unnecessary. And what can be done by one can be done by all. If one can work towards goals without inaccurate descriptions then all can. A single admission explodes the system, and yet the system exists worldwide for a seeming eternity.\n\nTo debate the natural system is like playing tennis against yourself. You have to sprint across to the other side and send the ball back and sprint again to the other side. A single admission explodes the system and so no advocate of the natural system will make this admission. Any debate against the natural system is playing tennis by yourself, you have to play both parts. Any conversation, any discussion of merits, any examination becomes playing tennis against yourself. No advocate of intentional inaccuracies will admit he is an advocate of intentional inaccuracies. A single admission makes all intentionally inaccurate descriptions void. The normal fashion of intellectual exchange is not possible when the subject is the value of intentionally inaccurate descriptions is the subject. No debate, no conversation, no discussion of merits. The normal fashion of intellectual exchange fails when discussing the natural system. The system cannot be debated, its merits discussed. The natural system can only be exploded.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"bthomas\",\"politics\",\"america\",\"world\",\"history\",\"culture\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.postimg.cc/wxrtMy38/ackexplodes.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8103a649cafe1312380bf69bd6adf12199b7c4e1",
  "block": 40306304,
  "trx_in_block": 23,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-27T22:14:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "samotrader",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-decalogue-of-regard",
      "weight": 10
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "707941ef16cce1fe92ca9dba95ee94d2c73e7585",
  "block": 40306303,
  "trx_in_block": 13,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-27T22:13:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "laissez-faire",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-decalogue-of-regard",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a8c987ed5eb8b9888bc9f1bdcdde12114f6d1b95",
  "block": 40306301,
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-27T22:13:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anomaly",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-decalogue-of-regard",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "57311ec3e007384bc09adf93a7173b532629a4c8",
  "block": 40306296,
  "trx_in_block": 7,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-27T22:13:36",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bthomas.steem",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-decalogue-of-regard",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8ce6e30ec3b39f2d82bb9b6a4017581313f2ecd2",
  "block": 40306275,
  "trx_in_block": 13,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-27T22:12:33",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "trump",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-decalogue-of-regard",
      "title": "The Decalogue of Regard",
      "body": "<center>https://i.postimg.cc/1tCPZDKx/regdecalogue.png</center>\n\n1. The only motive for conspiracy is self interest. All non universal moral concern is conspiracy and a scheme for the pursuit of self interest. If the motive was altruism the method for achieving this goal would be universal moral concern.\n\n2. The Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence is to use regard to choose between methods rather than people. Animal intelligence is the application of inherited instinct. For humans inherited instinct is to use regard to choose between people or groups of people as we evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and man was amethodical. Truly human rather than animal intelligence is to move beyond inherited instinct, to act counter to instinct. For humans this is using regard to choose between methods rather than people. The Fundamental Act of Human Intelligence is using regard to choose between methods rather than people. This is almost infinitely more useful in a world where most wealth comes from human labor and optimizing the method maximizes the wealth. \n\n3. The Fundamental Moral Choice is between self interest and universal moral concern. All particular moral concern is a vehicle for the pursuit of self interest. There is no third choice between self interest and universal moral concern. There are only these two, particular moral concern is merely a temporary vehicle for the pursuit of self interest and not a third moral choice. Particular moral concern falsely appears as the third choice and as there are infinite formulations of particular moral concern there is the false perception of infinite formulations of morality but there are only two and the Fundamental Moral Choice is between self interest and universal moral concern.\n\n4. Acknowledgment explodes the system. The natural system explodes when its existence is acknowledged. The natural system uses description as currency, the natural system uses description as method, the natural system describes for effect rather than for accuracy. Any admission that one is describing for effect explodes the system. A single admission explodes the system. Once it is admitted that one is describing for effect all descriptions are viewed as void by all involved. The natural system cannot exist while acknowledged. To acknowledge the natural system is to explode it forever.\n\n5. All group identifiers are stupid and immoral. Any attempt to create a group identity for the purpose of maximizing regard and thus serving the self interest of its members will be stupid. It will be an inaccurate description of reality, an intentionally inaccurate description. This is stupidity and this cannot be avoided. All intentionally inaccurate descriptions are stupid, any explanation to the contrary is stupid. Any admission of the true motive for intentionally inaccurate description explodes the system. Any defense of intentionally inaccurate description will itself be intentionally inaccurate or it will be destroying the initial inaccurate description it is trying to defend. All group identifiers for the purpose of having regard assigned are immoral as there are only two moral choices, self interest and universal moral concern. All particular moral concern is a mere vehicle for the pursuit of self interest.\n\n6. Equalizing regard across identities is kakistocracy, the rule by the worst. Equalizing regard across all identities through conscious inputs to the regard structure which balance the unconscious inputs created by reality can only mean praising the worst and condemning the best, it can only mean describing the world as the mirror image of what it is so that the combination of imagined reality and true reality will produce the intended result of holding all identities in equal regard. This is kakistocracy, rule by the worst, as to avoid exploding the system these conscious inputs into the regard structure will have to be unacknowledged and falsely insisted to be true. When acted upon these conscious inputs will mean attacking the best and supporting the worst. Kakistocracy is the only result of equalizing regard across all identities through conscious inputs to the regard structure which balance the unconscious inputs from reality.\n\n7. The lowest members of a group will be the most concerned with the group’s regard. An above average member of a group has personal regard higher than the group’s regard and so tries to deemphasize his group identity and emphasize his personal identity. This is done for the goal of maximizing regard. A below average member of a group has a personal regard lower than his group’s and so will deemphasize his personal identity and emphasize his group identity. This is done for the goal of maximizing regard.\n\n8. Altruism leads to hatred. It is a mistake to think that affection or hate for other groups is derived from the memories of past treatment. It is solely derived from present competition for regard. To receive freely and uncompensated benefit from another group reduces the regard of one’s own group in the natural system. Any reduction in your group’s regard is treated as attack and met with hate. All attempts to improve relations between groups in the natural system through altruistic behavior makes things worse as the natural response to being helped is to hate the helper.\n\n9. Laggards will never voluntarily advance. The advanced cultures of the world all advanced in isolation. This is no longer possible and all backward cultures can only advance in the full sight of all other cultures and grouping. Their current existence of backwardness will be acknowledged, it cannot be hidden while consciously attempting to advance. This will be too painful for all backward cultures and they can only advance if motivated to do so by the currently advanced cultures. The problem is worsened to the point of inevitable failure by being overdetermined. The advanced cultures will never speak with one voice and tell the backwards to advance, large elements within the advanced cultures will see their personal and group interest in lying to the backwards and telling them there is no advancement, no explanation for uneven success other than uneven power. Hearing two messages from the advanced group is inevitable and makes the situation over determined and so voluntary advancement by the backward is impossible.\n\n10. Any attempt at gradualism will be interpreted as negotiation and fail. The instinctive response is to slowly walk the backward cultures towards truth through a long series of partial truths each closer to the full truth so that the pain of change will be reduced by making the change gradual. This will always fail as the backward races will always interpret any partial truth as a negotiation. The natural system is always partial truth vs partial truth and any partial truth is immediately interpreted as a product of the natural system and an attempt to negotiate. Only overwhelming change is real change, the natural system must be exploded by full truth. Contrary to human instinct this reduces the pain of change rather than increasing it.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"trump\",\"bthomas\",\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.postimg.cc/1tCPZDKx/regdecalogue.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "13d58d8a6191e7127fa2f65fb4283c509b61ecf0",
  "block": 40306046,
  "trx_in_block": 34,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-27T22:01:06",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "latest",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "title": "The Regard Model",
      "body": "@@ -1,16 +1,61 @@\n %3Ccenter%3E\n+https://i.postimg.cc/dVmhcyMn/regardmodel.png\n %3C/center\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\",\"economics\",\"history\",\"culture\",\"trump\",\"bthomas\",\"news\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\",\"image\":[\"https://i.postimg.cc/dVmhcyMn/regardmodel.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "452aca33ffc5198b5756ecf726ae1f480d207f7f",
  "block": 40265148,
  "trx_in_block": 18,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-26T11:51:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "votingpower",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "74daccd36eef6e0f0eea59f05d7bac5690abb0a4",
  "block": 40243016,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-25T17:23:27",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "block.token",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "d1d305cafa0d4ee236c8621c5b0f3cfc010204a0",
  "block": 40220174,
  "trx_in_block": 29,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-24T22:18:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "zedpal",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2ffe9a9e016c5ea0fbd3d4fd7fa98568f01d1a96",
  "block": 40220159,
  "trx_in_block": 21,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-24T22:18:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "raise-me-up",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "weight": 1
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5c0873dfa6278514e38e712635e41ae03e498a39",
  "block": 40219695,
  "trx_in_block": 56,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-24T21:54:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "partitura.point",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3e19b52320fc15a7bea0d5c769e44f429cfbdbc0",
  "block": 40219594,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-24T21:49:48",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "latest",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-regard-model",
      "title": "The Regard Model",
      "body": "<center></center>\n\n# Introduction\n<br>\n\n*My field of interest is how culture affects success. I have been interested in this since the youngest age as my mother is an immigrant from the third world and my father American and I saw from the youngest age how culture affects success and saw how poorly this relationship is understood. All current explanations are logical failures on their own individual merits but rather than elaborate on each explanation let me point out that the problem remains unsolved and no progress is being made anywhere in the world. So the problem needs new thinking, a full explanation of my ideas is a book length project I am currently working on. To introduce the reader to the general concept this is a simplified version. I do not expect many readers to be convinced or I would not be writing a book length version as that would be unnecessary. But a simplified outline of an idea always has its uses and that is what this is. I try to cover all the most important parts as briefly as possible, this is a skeletal model of the full model. I refer to this model of human behavior as the Regard Model for it revolves around humans as regard maximizers and this instinctive tendency being the obstacle to success. Cultures around the world have made uneven progress in trying to overcome the regard maximizing instincts we are all born with, they have made uneven counter instinctive cultural progress and this then leads to uneven success. I chose regard over other possible terms such as value and worth as in these terms imply intrinsic and positive qualities where one can be falsely regarded as having worth or correctly regarded as having worth. Esteem and self confidence have too many psychological and philosophical connotations and so regard was the choice. I understand that in academia they often speak of the Prestige Economy and recognize in some part the importance regard plays in human affairs. The Prestige Economy the academics talk about is in the end insufficient to explain human behavior and qualitatively unrelated to the Regard Model.*\n\n\n# The Regard Model\n<br>\n\nSelf interest is the only motive admitted by evolution and evolution is the creator of human nature and all our instincts and so our instincts exist as tools for the pursuit of self interest. Collective behavior serves self interest as the many will always overpower the few or the one. Forming groups and cooperating for mutual benefit will serve self interest and so human nature is inherently political. Some animals may not benefit from forming groups, we do and so have political instincts and these interests in the end serve only self interest as does all instinct. Morality is real and humans are more than animals but morality belongs to a different category than this examination.\n\nScience is predictive understanding of unwilled phenomena. Nothing else belongs in this category. What we do is our choice but not what we feel and what our instincts instruct as this is not a choice but an unwilled phenomena suitable for study by science. Our willful decisions belong to philosophy, but the workings of our mind are unwilled and belong to science. \n\nWe evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and thus all our instincts evolved to guide our decisions in such a world and these remain our instincts even in this modern world where most wealth comes from human labor. Our instincts thus tell us that to become wealthy is not to create wealth but to gather nature’s bounty and where this bounty is competed for to win the competition. The many will defeat the few or the one in this competition. We instinctively know this. If there was no competition for nature’s bounty we would not need groups. Competition exists and so we need groups, the only motive for joining a group is self interest, the belief that by joining one will receive a larger share of nature’s bounty than one would alone. This likelihood for success, this morale, is the only motive for a group’s existence. If another group is viewed as more likely to succeed people will leave the less likely group and try to join it. People will remain in a group considered unlikely to succeed only if other groups will not allow them in. \n\nIn the world we evolved in there were no special methods to make one group more successful than another, the means available were universal and equal across all. So the likelihood of winning a competition was a result of numbers and willingness to sacrifice for the group. Numbers and willingness to sacrifice for the group are a product of perceived likelihood of success, the regard the group is held in. Success is determined by regard in a circular fashion as belief in future success is the cause of future success. The circularity of this logic is instinctively known by all people and instinctively viewed as true. As the group’s success is a product of the regard the group is held in the regard the group is held is is seen as the group’s most precious resource, even its only resource.\n\nThe group must be defined, its borders established. Rules for who is a group member are created and symbols and rituals to identify members. The group is pointless if the fruits of it efforts are shared outside of the group and borders must be made and defended. The group’s regard in comparison to other groups must be defended as regard is the only motive for membership and sacrifice and membership and sacrifice are the only source of success and so regard is then the only source of success. This is instinctively known by all. As regard is the source of the group’s success in gaining nature’s bounty the regard structure determining how group’s compare to each other becomes the distribution structure for resources. This is instinctively known and all interpret a reduction in regard as motivated by a desire to reduce one’s share of resources.\n\nAs regard is the source of all wealth it leads to describing for effect rather than describing for accuracy. Normally all inaccurate descriptions are less useful than all accurate descriptions. This changes only when an inaccurate description will increase the regard of the group. In this special case an inaccurate description is more useful than an accurate description. This is the only such case. As regard is the source of all success humans instinctively describe for effect rather than accuracy and that effect is to maximize the regard of their group and minimize the regard of competing groups. The more inaccurate these descriptions the better, though in all other cases the more accurate the description the better.\n\nAs the only motive for joining a group is self interest there is no loyalty to the group and members will betray the group and be slack in efforts. If not for this overt and covert disloyalty to the group the largest group would continually grow but it does not. Groups are vehicles for self interest and so the shifting conspiracies keep group composition and group status shifting.\n\nWe must have free will, or agency, to successfully operate groups. We must have a flexible process of decision making to observe when group members are being disloyal and then be disloyal to them. If our instincts were to always be loyal this would be disadvantageous as the disloyal would have all the advantages. If we were always disloyal there would be no groups. We must be flexible in our loyalty and observant of the loyalty of others and free to constantly and fluidly make political decisions. This agency beyond anything in the animal world gives us the freedom to rise above our instincts, something no other animal can do. The freedom to act contrary to our instincts is the only unique human trait, what makes us different from the animals. This freedom is a consequence of the flexibility needed to engage in politics.\n\nCivilizational progress varies according to how far a culture has moved beyond these instincts. Moving beyond them is possible because of the agency needed to make political decisions. We are not always loyal, we are not always selfish. We have the agency to choose when and where and how much of either we are we do this according to our needs when operating on pure instinct but we have the capacity to rise above all this if we choose. Inaccurate descriptions are valued by human nature for elevating the regard of the group. This is beneficial in a world where all wealth comes from nature. Once we advance to creating wealth through human labor accurately describing and choosing the right method becomes the most successful approach. The fundamental act of human intelligence is using regard to choose between methods rather than people. Human nature instructs us to seek wealth through inaccurate descriptions which elevate the regard of the group. When we choose to rise above this and accurately describe things to best choose the correct method we make counter instinctive cultural progress. Cultures have made uneven progress in this direction leading to uneven success.\n\nThat some cultures are less successful is obvious to all. The standard opinion is that if the unsuccessful could simply choose to improve they already would have and thus something other than voluntary change is needed. This is incorrect, voluntary change is all that is needed. The motive for not changing among the backward cultures is the pull of human instinct which instructs us to use regard to choose between people rather than methods. To the backward the only method is the group, this is the only tool and its value is increased by regard assigned through inaccurate descriptions. The pull of these instincts is too strong.\n\nThere is a communication obstacle to encouraging the backward cultures to change. Any attempt to walk them towards the truth by slowly altering current descriptions into more and more accurate descriptions will always fall as it will be interpreted as an attempt to negotiate the regard structure. The backward cultures can only be moved to change by complete truth, not by a series of partial truths which come ever closer to the complete truth. Only overwhelming change is real change.\n\nStating the complete truth offends all groups, including the advanced. All groups define their identity around regard assigning rules which will be undermined by complete truth. All groups oppose using complete truths to advance the human race. They backward races favor using inaccurate descriptions which favor their cause to make use of instinctive behavior. The advanced groups either believe in gently moving the backward races closer to the truth through a series of partial truths each closer to the truth or to help by creating beneficial inaccurate truths which are therapeutic in effect. Neither of these methods work.\n\nA historical break is need to make progress. Gradualism always leads to failure in this cause. An historical break involving complete truths and overwhelming change is the only answer.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"latest\",\"politics\",\"economics\",\"history\",\"culture\",\"trump\",\"bthomas\",\"news\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "06bc8c5fc6bdb83d8db76ce1c5030fe4ddc01224",
  "block": 40216002,
  "trx_in_block": 40,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-24T18:49:54",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "uncategorized",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-sexual-dialogues-variance-in-intelligence",
      "title": "The Sexual Dialogues: Variance in Intelligence",
      "body": "@@ -54,245 +54,767 @@\n er%3E%0A\n----%0A##### %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Woman-as-Race%5D(https://steemit.com/feminism/@bthomas.steem/woman-as-race)%0A##### %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: the Race Model%5D(https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-race-model)%0A#####\n+Love %7C Work %7C %0A----------------%7C----------------%7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Birth Control Ruined Relationships%5D(https://steemit.com/redpill/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-birth-control-ruined-relationships) %7C %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Woman-as-Race%5D(https://steemit.com/feminism/@bthomas.steem/woman-as-race) %7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Romantic Connection Potential%5D(https://steemit.com/relationships/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-romantic-connection-potential) %7C %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: the Race Model%5D(https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-race-model) %7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: The Corporate Career Model Can%E2%80%99t Work%5D(https://steemit.com/sociobiology/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-corporate-career-model-can-t-work) %7C\n  %5BTh\n@@ -1002,22 +1002,148 @@\n ovement)\n-%0A#####\n+ %7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: The Romantic Model%5D(https://steemit.com/politics/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-romantic-model) %7C\n  %5BThe Se\n@@ -1284,13 +1284,123 @@\n ce)%0A\n-#####\n+%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Parenting Not Breeding%5D(https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/parenting-not-breeding) %7C\n  %5BTh\n@@ -1559,12 +1559,124 @@\n sm)%0A\n+%3Ccenter%3E%0A%5BThe Gay Marriage Threat%5D(https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/the-gay-marriage-threat)%0A%3C/center%3E%0A\n ---\n-%0A\n %0ABla\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://i.imgsafe.org/8e/8e1f8d0501.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\",\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/redpill/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-birth-control-ruined-relationships\",\"https://steemit.com/feminism/@bthomas.steem/woman-as-race\",\"https://steemit.com/relationships/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-romantic-connection-potential\",\"https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-race-model\",\"https://steemit.com/sociobiology/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-corporate-career-model-can-t-work\",\"https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-feminism-is-derivative-of-the-civil-rights-movement\",\"https://steemit.com/politics/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-romantic-model\",\"https://steemit.com/uncategorized/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-variance-in-intelligence\",\"https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/parenting-not-breeding\",\"https://steemit.com/redpill/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-signal-achievement-of-feminism\",\"https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/the-gay-marriage-threat\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e8d66e18530fb42078d27177038dcd49acbf1b01",
  "block": 40215969,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-24T18:48:15",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "culture",
      "author": "bthomas.steem",
      "permlink": "the-sexual-dialogues-feminism-is-derivative-of-the-civil-rights-movement",
      "title": "The Sexual Dialogues: Feminism is Derivative of the Civil Rights Movement",
      "body": "@@ -54,245 +54,767 @@\n er%3E%0A\n----%0A##### %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Woman-as-Race%5D(https://steemit.com/feminism/@bthomas.steem/woman-as-race)%0A##### %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: the Race Model%5D(https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-race-model)%0A#####\n+Love %7C Work %7C %0A----------------%7C----------------%7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Birth Control Ruined Relationships%5D(https://steemit.com/redpill/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-birth-control-ruined-relationships) %7C %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Woman-as-Race%5D(https://steemit.com/feminism/@bthomas.steem/woman-as-race) %7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Romantic Connection Potential%5D(https://steemit.com/relationships/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-romantic-connection-potential) %7C %5BThe Sexual Dialogues: the Race Model%5D(https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-race-model) %7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: The Corporate Career Model Can%E2%80%99t Work%5D(https://steemit.com/sociobiology/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-corporate-career-model-can-t-work) %7C\n  %5BTh\n@@ -1002,22 +1002,148 @@\n ovement)\n-%0A#####\n+ %7C%0A%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: The Romantic Model%5D(https://steemit.com/politics/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-romantic-model) %7C\n  %5BThe Se\n@@ -1284,13 +1284,123 @@\n ce)%0A\n-#####\n+%5BThe Sexual Dialogues: Parenting Not Breeding%5D(https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/parenting-not-breeding) %7C\n  %5BTh\n@@ -1559,12 +1559,124 @@\n sm)%0A\n+%3Ccenter%3E%0A%5BThe Gay Marriage Threat%5D(https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/the-gay-marriage-threat)%0A%3C/center%3E%0A\n ---\n-%0A\n %0AYou\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"relationships\",\"politics\",\"whatever\"],\"image\":[\"https://i.imgsafe.org/8d/8dea87f036.png\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\",\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/redpill/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-birth-control-ruined-relationships\",\"https://steemit.com/feminism/@bthomas.steem/woman-as-race\",\"https://steemit.com/relationships/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-romantic-connection-potential\",\"https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-race-model\",\"https://steemit.com/sociobiology/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-corporate-career-model-can-t-work\",\"https://steemit.com/culture/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-feminism-is-derivative-of-the-civil-rights-movement\",\"https://steemit.com/politics/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-romantic-model\",\"https://steemit.com/uncategorized/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-variance-in-intelligence\",\"https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/parenting-not-breeding\",\"https://steemit.com/redpill/@bthomas.steem/the-sexual-dialogues-the-signal-achievement-of-feminism\",\"https://steemit.com/bthomas/@bthomas.steem/the-gay-marriage-threat\"]}"
    }
  ]
}