On Meritocracy

The pluralists will never defeat the monists. In WWII, the pluralists got lucky – because two positive-liberty leviathan systems, Nazism and Soviet Communism, fought each other to the death, allowing negative-liberty America to assume leadership of the world. But now negative-liberty America is directly up against positive-liberty China, and China has learned everything it needed to from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and even from America. It’s much bigger than America, much stronger than America, much smarter than America, and has far superior leaders.

-- Sinclair, David. The Wolf Tamers: How They Made the Strong Weak (pp. 291-292). Kindle Edition.

Introduction

I think it's pretty clear that, overall, I'm a big fan of Ontological Mathematics (OM). As I've said before in several posts it's the most enlightening system of thought I've ever learned, and that's besting a BS in Electrical Engineering, several certificates in Software Engineering, and working as a professional Software Developer for over 20 years. So that's a pretty high complement as far as I'm concerned. I even wrote a rather gushing post about how much I like it.

I also think it's rather clear that there is one aspect of OM that I don't agree with: Meritocracy. And that's a rather big thing to not like, given how much the OM community seems to like it, and the amount of attention that the various authors spend on it. I realize I am alienating a large part of my target audience by taking this stance, but I feel I have to do this in order to be an honest broker.

In 32 books of the God Series, they managed to convert me, a hard-core materialistic atheist into an idealistic deist (with math not God, as the underlying order). That's a big change. The reason I was convinced was due to the underlying rationality at the core of OM. However, across all the books of OM I've ever read, including hundreds of pages touting Meritocracy, I have failed to move one inch towards Meritocracy. That's because, in my opinion, Meritocracy does not have anywhere near the rationality behind it that the OM core does.

Up until now, I've never really felt the need to talk about Meritocracy -- why I don't like it, to argue in favor of democracy and capitalism etc. The real reason isn't what you might think. It's not because I don't think I would be able to make a case for capitalism, or that I'm afraid of offending my audience. No, it's because I'm not really that interested in convincing someone that their ethics/politics is "wrong", or that my system is "better". Look, I don't really care that you like some political system. I get how people could be attracted to Meritocracy. I can appreciate how it could be actually useful, at least in principle. But I know if I post about it, for someone who is pro-Meritocracy, it will mostly fall on deaf ears, and conversely, I'll be preaching to the choir for anyone who is anti-Meritocracy. In short, it's about as entertaining and fruitful an endeavor as arguing for or against abortion with someone who has the opposite stance. As with abortion, most people's position on politics is axiomatic -- they mostly reflexively assume any counter-argument is wrong, and their position is not typically based on any form of reason, at least that they will accept in a counter-argument (*1, *2).

*1 In the case of abortion, basically if you believe in a "soul" and that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception, you would be pro-life, even if you concede the logical arguments that aborting will save money for society etc. If you think the fetus is like a fish until a certain point of development, then you most likely will support it. You typically cannot logically convince another person that their assumption is wrong ergo, it's axiomatic, and axioms are beyond debate in Mathematics as well as in most people's logic.

*2 Another analogy would be someone who enjoys heavy metal trying to convince a jazz aficionado that it's superior to jazz. It's a well known fact of sociology that musical tastes are cast in stone by the age of 25 and thus not prone to reformation.

Another, perhaps more cynical, reason I've never paid much attention to Meritocracy is I feel the odds of it ever being widely adopted in the U.S. are slim to nothing (and Slim has just been seen leaving the building...). If I felt that Meritocracy was really starting to take root, I might start paying a little more attention to it. However, before I gloat too much, the odds for Libertarianism adoption are about the same, so I guess it's a giant "touche" all around. I do worry about Socialism however, which I think, unfortunately, does have a very real possibility of taking root.

However, every once in a while I read something vis a vis Meritocracy, that I find so objectionable, and so wrong, that I feel the need to publicly say something. The quote at the top of this post is one such example. In spite of the fact, that I'm trying to keep my blog "positive" toward OM, I felt the need to create a post, not so much with the expectation that I will change anyone's mind, but just as a small public renunciation of this one aspect of OM. Basically, I'm like a party member who feels the need to distance themselves from one aspect of the party's platform, while still being a member of the party. Even though my userid "mfaustTAN1945" is anonymous, and I'm certainly not a "member" of the Pythagorean Illuminati (and never will be), and am only tangentially associated with the online OM community, I still feel the need to explain why I disavow myself of certain views held by said communities.

Analysis

The particular quote in question, at the top of this post, is an example of what I love and what I hate about OM. On one hand, I think some aspects of this quote show a very insightful analysis. In particular, I like the insight about how Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, in effect took each other out and left America as the last man standing. I'll be honest, I never really thought about it like that. The typical explanation is that America "won" because it was the "best". Theirs is very insightful contrarian perspective, and I do not disagree with it, at least to a first degree of approximation *4 I may also even reluctantly agree with them that China could very well become the dominant superpower in the next few decades. But in my opinion it would be one dystopia out-competing another dystopia. It's still a dystopic outcome, and certainly not one I'm "rooting" for.

*4 Funnily enough, living in mono-party California, where the democrats control 55% +- 4% of the electorate, and thus have held either a majority or super-majority for the last 30 years, I've thought that, ironically ,the most likely scenario for Republicans to get back in power would be for the far-left to splinter off from the Democrats (or start alienating so many moderate Democrats they leave the party) that a hypothetical 11% splinter group would give a 45-44-11 percent split among Republicans, moderate Democrats, and the far-left, thus giving the Republicans a 45% plurality. IOTW, the democrats would become so dominant, they split in two, leaving Republicans as the last man standing, somewhat similar to the argument presented by OM. The law of unintended consequences rises again.

But let's look at what I don't like about this quote. Note: I'm not really objecting to this one quote so much as I am to their entire stance on Meritocracy. However, this quote can serve as a proxy, the tip of the iceberg so to speak: a vehicle for my analysis about Meritocracy as a whole. Also, I should note that other than this "chapter" in the book concerning Meritocracy, I consider the David Sinclair book series to be an outstanding addition to the OM corpus, that is to say I'm simpatico with most of his non-political views.

First, if you read this quote and reach the conclusion that "boy, they sure sound pro-Chinese, pro-Nazi, pro-Communism, and kind of anti-American" believe me, you would not be wrong. While they don't directly say they support communism, are pro-Nazi, or anti-American etc., trust me I didn't take this out of context. This is exactly the tone of the rest of the chapter. For instance, here they state how much they admire the way the Chinese government treats the Uyghurs ethnic group:

China sends Muslims to re-education camps to correct the Islamic education to which the Muslims were first exposed. The Chinese are undoing a bad education. They are unbrainwashing these people, deprogramming them, for which the mad, negative-liberty West (people like Berlin) condemns them.

Sinclair, David. The Wolf Tamers: How They Made the Strong Weak (p. 290). Kindle Edition.

Notice how they consider the involuntary mass internment of the Uyghurs into concentration camps, basically gulags, as just "unbrainwashing". They then mock the "mad" West for condemning this as an atrocity. Look, I'm not standing up the Uyhgurs per se: I agree that Islam is, ahem, a counter-productive belief system. But I absolutely believe they have a fundamental right to practice their religion (just like I think meritocrats have a right to believe in their system), and that voluntary persuasion is the only ethical means for "de-programming" them *5. I offer this up as an example that they see no problem at all with the human-right violating, authoritarian government of China. In short, I don't think I'm taking the original quote out of context.

*5 However, even I would make an exception for anyone who espouses a doctrine of "unconditional love".

They're basically saying they think the world would have been better off if Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union dominated (politically and otherwise) negative-liberty America after WWII, and appear to be rooting for China to now defeat the United States.

Now, if I was a polemicist, and was simply trying to convince people that I'm right and they're wrong, I would stop here and try to tar them as being pro-Nazi, or pro-communist, knowing this would cause an emotional reaction among many people thus causing me to gain "points". However, my goal, as always, is to get to the truth, as well as to give a more nuanced reason as to why I disagree with this statement. In short, to try to characterize their position as being pro-Nazi would be a strawman argument of the worst degree.

First off, let me clearly state that I do not believe the Pythagorean Illuminati to be Nazi sympathizers in any way, or supporters of any of the atrocities committed by Stalin. I know this for a fact having read several analyses by them where they basically rip these systems "a new one".

However, what I think what they are saying is that an essence of these authoritarian regimes, what I'll call "ideal meritocracy", is embedded in with some, unfortunately, negative side-effects. That is to say, theses systems have an "essence" and an "existence" (or "immanence" or "implementation"), and this "essence" is good even if the "existence" is bad. Of course, they wouldn't use the word authoritarian. They would say something like "commanding" or "rational" or "powerful" or something. But they're saying a Nazi party that didn't kill all those unfortunate Jews, or a Stalin who didn't actually starve millions of his own people, or a Chinese govt. that doesn't throw people in internment camps etc. would be a good thing. And that -- a friendly, neighborhood, kind of idealized authoritarianism (AKA meritocracy), would be better than democracy/capitalism.

An Argument Against Meritocracy for Libertarians

I will quickly offer a few standard argument against Meritocracy that a libertarian might make for other libertarians. The reason I'll make this quick is my target audience here is OM'ers not Libertarians, so these arguments will probably be perceived as being rather ineffective to them, while conversely being self-evident to Libertarians.

First, both US and China are in failure modes. To say that because the U.S model needs some fundamental improvements and tweaks does not justify going whole cloth over to something like China's authoritarian failure mode. The solution is to tweak our current system, not ditch it whole cloth.

Second, I would start by pointing out some ridiculous claims in the quote:

Superior leaders? You mean like the leaders who forcibly constrain 26 million people in Shanghai as part of a covid lockdown, and then kill their cats and dogs with shovels in the street?

What exactly did they learn from the Nazis? The ability to commit genocide? To indoctrinate an entire nation of people?

or:

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
...
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
...
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
...
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

"Revolution", John Lenon, Paul McCartney

I'll admit these last few are kind of cheap shots. Cheap, but satisfying (at least for a Libertarian). I realize that Meritocracy is not advocating for any atrocities, but I think it's an inevitable consequence of absolute power. Let's see, we'll give all the guns, all the capital, and all the power to a small group of people (indeed, of zealots as we shall see later). What could possible go wrong? The fact that they pinky swear on a stack of Morgue videos to not disobey their original utopian charter does not assuage me one bit. I mean history doesn't back this conclusion up at all, does it? Right? Right?

This leads in to the other more serious argument I would make: that even if you could somehow achieve the "ideal" Meritocracy, one that is truly based on rationalism, and led by wise benevolent leaders, it would eventually become corrupted by non-benevolent dark-triad (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) "archons". A very real example is the church of Scientology, in the form of David Miscavige. I mean L. Ron Hubbard was just a narcissistic loon, but David Miscavige is a dark triad evil person: very charismatic and charming, yet focused, and a ruthlessly effective person who says all the right things right up until he assumes power. Look at the online OM community themselves. Without naming any names, they have been surprised several times by some of their most ardent supporters who, in their opinion, turned against them. As a matter of fact, it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. How can we expect any meritocratic system to guarantee that a dark-triad archon doesn't infiltrate their ranks?

This last argument, in a nutshell, is the main reason I am distrustful of Meritocracy.

In short, I would summarize Meritocracy in two words: hopelessly naïve.

However, I won't go on with this line of attack because I know they have at least addressed this question in some of their books and they feel they can come up with ways to counter it. I don't believe those methods will work, but they do. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

An Argument Against Meritocracy for Hyperians

Notice how I say "Hyperians" and not "Ontological Mathematicians" because I don't think Meritocracy belongs in OM proper, since it's neither ontological nor mathematical as I shall discuss later. But anyway, here I will narrow my goals to present some more narrow points that even a Hyperian (or traditional OM'er) might possibly concede.

I'll try to argue about things that I think are not rational about Meritocracy, in an indisputable way i.e. "facts" that I think even an Ontological Mathematician who believes in Meritocracy might, reluctantly perhaps, concede, and not just mere "opinion". This is a more engaging form of attack. So, analogously in a hypothetical music debate, instead of saying that Heavy Metal is "better" than Jazz, try to assert a statement that can be verified, something like, on average, Heavy Metal is faster than Jazz, as measured in beats-per-minute

In this vein, I would assert the following about Meritocracy:

1. It's neither ontological nor mathematical, and thus does not belong in any system purporting to be both.

2. Rather than being mere advocates for Meritocracy, they've crossed the line into being zealots, fanatics, absolutists, and fundamentalists.

3. The arguments for Meritocracy are mostly polemic and not rational.

4. Meritocracy would never be instituted voluntarily.

Meritocracy Is Not Mathematical or Ontological

You are either convinced by meritocracy, or you’re not.

Hockney, Mike. The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) . Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

You know who else makes arguments like this? Christians -- people of faith. This is basically admitting that belief in Meritocracy is either an ideological argument, or one of faith, not one of rationalism. Substitute "Jesus" for "Meritocracy" in the above and you have a typical faith-based argument. If it's a mathematical truth shouldn't it be an inescapable conclusion? Do I have to "convince" you that 2+2 =4, or is it a provable fact that you have to accept whether you like it or not?

Now, I wouldn't say that Meritocracy is exactly irrational either. It's "rational" within it's own system of logic. But it's not rational in a strict mathematical proof kind of way. And you cannot derive it from Euler's Equation, thus it's not ontological, per the definition of ontology in OM. Remember, they consider even powerful math such as Differential Equations and Calculus to be merely analytical math, and thus not fully ontological.

Note, this non-mathematical and non-ontological nature can be attributed to capitalism, democracy, and Libertarianism as well. Let's take capitalism. While I think it's heuristically rational, e.g. you can show actual data, and historical trends to back up assertions (empirical data), it is not (analytically) math rational, or ontological either. I am consistent however: I would say that capitalism does not belong in a pure ontological or mathematical system either.

To their credit, I have never heard them explicitly assert that Meritocracy is mathematical or ontological. They do assert that it is rational, however. On the other hand, I have never heard them explicitly state that it isn't mathematical or ontological either -- something that a naïve reader might reasonably conclude in a system purporting to be fully ontological and mathematical.

I think they like the implicit clout it gives Meritocracy, to sort of imply it is indeed mathematical and a conclusion of Eulers's Eq.

All I have to say vis a vis the rationality of Meritocracy is: Where's your proof?

Meritocracy is No Longer Mere Advocacy.

We have noticed that many people who self-identify as “Illuminists” and who claim to be influenced by us also subscribe to, and endorse, Facebook pages for which we have absolute contempt. We are pro-State and pro-Government, provided they are meritocratic and not working for the elite, and we are totally opposed to anarchism, libertarianism and anti-Statism. We reject you completely if you support anti-meritocratic positions such as anarchy, libertarianism, free-market capitalism, liberalism, communism, democracy, privilege, inheritance, nepotism, cronyism or indeed anything other than out and out Pythagorean-Platonic rational meritocracy. Go somewhere else if you disagree with us. We have no time for you and no interest in you. You cannot ride two horses at once. Make your choice and make your stand. You are either with us or against us.

Hockney, Mike. All the Rest is Propaganda (The God Series Book 12) . Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

Q: I mean, who says stuff like this?

A: Zealots and fanatics. Fundamentalists and absolutists.

"You are either with us or against us". Really? Isn't there any room for differences in opinion? Guess not.

They are so zealous and fanatical about Meritocracy, they would probably actually admit to it, and accept the moniker as a badge of honor, with zero self-awareness that most people regard these to be derogatory terms that raise some serious red-flags.

If you want to give all the power to a small elite group of zealots (which is what meritocracy inevitably turns into) then go ahead. How long until they start sending libertarians to the gulags, I mean "re-education camps".

I mean, I get your passion. I'm passionate about many of my non-mathematical beliefs too. But I would never make such a broad and intolerant statement about them.

This is no longer mere advocacy. One might say it's even becoming religious. Certainly it's fundamentalist and intolerant.

To me this smacks of telling me I can't study something like differential equations unless I'm Muslim or something. Is it OK if I study the core of OM (monadology, PSR, Eulers' Eq) if I'm not meritocratic? What gives you the right to stop me?

Of course, my position only applies to the brand of Meritocracy as advocated by the Pythagorean Illuminati. Maybe there are other meritocrats who are actual advocates, and not fundamentalists. Also, my position only applies to the Meritocracy portion of OM, not its true mathematical core. Obviously opinion plays no part with something that is truly mathematical as it's beyond debate.

The Case for Meritocracy is Mostly Polemic and Not Rational

While almost all their books are polemical (rhetoric that is trying to convince) at least with the mathematical core of OM, it's ultimately backed by a rational backbone. Since Meritocracy is not backed by any true mathematical underpinnings, to me most of the "rational" arguments presented in it's favor are thus entirely polemical. Plato's divided line is divided into Doxa (ungrounded opinion), pistis (grounded opinion), techne (science), and ratio (metaphysics), with doxa being the lowest and ratio the highest. Meritocracy, like most ethics and politics, is at best "grounded opinion" (pistis), and not "rational" (ratio).

The main polemical device they use is to compare a maximally optimistic model of meritocracy against a maximally pessimistic model of capitalism.

Strawman vs Steelman

My position vis a vis democracy/capitalism is that it is, to quote the old adage, "the worst form of government except for all the others". Now, that hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement. Basically, I'm admitting it has warts, and plenty of them. I would even concede these warts are a fundamental property of any system based on freedom. However, since it's the least worst, it's technically speaking the best. Look, when you give people freedom, some people will make bad choices. You'll never have ideal capitalism where everyone makes the optimal choice. It just comes with the territory. If you want to run a marathon, you have to train. If you want to get high off drugs, you run the risk of becoming addicted.

OM makes a big to-do about the warts of capitalism. They always present a straw-man version of capitalism -- that is to say Capitalism in its worst incarnation. This would be fine if they always compared it against a straw-man version of Meritocracy. However, with meritocracy they separate out an ideal form of authoritarianism, one that wouldn't commit any of the standard flavor of atrocities that seems to come with other authoritarian systems.

In other words, they separate out the essence from the existence with Meritocracy, but conflate them with Capitalism.

However, an "ideal" form of authoritarianism has never occurred in history. So to compare an idealized steelman version of Meritocracy against a strawman version of capitalism is a logical fallacy. It think it's an intentional device used by the authors to rhetorically persuade people about the viability of meritocracy.

Meritocracy Will Not Be Voluntary

Until such time as we achieve a star-trek like culture of abundance, Meritocracy would necessarily involve force among a large percentage of the population before it could reasonably compete with Capitalism. This is what communist leaders have always said, and why they strove to replace capitalism wherever they could. They admitted they couldn't compete directly against capitalism, if only because, in a race to the bottom, capitalism wins, but they conceded nonetheless that communism cannot directly complete with capitalism.

Although I can't find any direct quotes at the moment, I clearly remember them saying Meritocracy would be voluntary. I remember thinking "is this before or after they confiscate all my capital?". They were never clear exactly as to what they meant by "voluntary". Voluntary to most people would mean if, let's say, England went meritocratic, then people who objected could presumably opt out. Of course, what if the meritocrats wanted certain physical land regions to be entirely contiguous under one government? Then you would potentially have to move out of your current location to go to a new one. So we're already talking about a loss of freedom.

But the thing that any Libertarian (or capitalist) knows, is that almost all the people with capital would opt out, and all the workers would necessarily follow since only the people with capital would be able to pay them, thus sabotaging any newly minted meritocratic country. And the meritocrats know this too. If they didn't they would be stupid, and the OM authors are definitely not that. The only exception to this would be a country with a true culture of abundance, one that has transcended normal material measures of wealth, e.g. a country that has universal replicators like in Star Trek. I mean, yeah sure, I'll give you my car and house if I can easily generate a new one for practically nothing.

So, in practice, the only way Meritocracy would be voluntary, is to the extent that possibly they wouldn't put a bullet in your head if you chose to opt-out. Almost certainly it will involve everyone who has any capital rendering it "unto Caesar" while simultaneously getting their asses out of Dodge. The people in OM know this too. I just wish they would admit it. It's just plain insulting to anyone to think it would happen any other way.

The Solution

Should the Meritocracy Party seek to gain popular support by appeasing religious nutters, ultra capitalists, anarchists, libertarians, and so on? If that’s what the Meritocracy Party did, it would be so compromised, so watered down, that, by the time it took power, it would be indistinguishable from all the other hopelessly compromised political parties that it was designed to overthrow! The Party would have no mandate to do anything radical.

Hockney, Mike. The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) . Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

The answer to this question is: No you shouldn't water down your beliefs. No more than I should have to tone down my belief in capitalism, and Libertarianism. The solution is actually embedded in this quote. This is one place where they associate Meritocracy with the Meritocracy Party, and not Pythagorean Illuminism, or Ontological Mathematics as a whole. By having it as a separate branch of philosophy separate from the main mathematical core, then people like me are free to put our full weight behind Ontological Mathematics.

You know, Meritocrats are not the only people who have a monopoly on passion. There are passionate communists, Libertarians, New Agers, and various other "nutters" who feel just as strongly about their viewpoint as you do about yours. Let everyone duke it out at that level, and leave it separate from OM.

I admire the passion. But switch "Libertarianism" for "Meritocracy" in the above and you'd have a statement many libertarians would agree with. You think Meritocracy is the only system with strong beliefs and commitment to it? If you think what we have in the U.S is anything like a libertarian stronghold, you're dead wrong. Libertarians are equally as minimized and "out of power" as Meritocrats. As a Libertarian, I'm as repulsed by what I think Meritocracy would be in practice, as you are by Libertarianism. Why should I water down, or compromise my political beliefs to associate with ontological Mathematics? Political beliefs and economic systems, being typically neither ontological or mathematical, are outside the scope of OM, unless you can come up with a proof (starting with Euler's Equation) stating otherwise.

If OM is true as it's currently described, then OM is not an invention but a discovery. And that gives no one any "rights" as to who can use it. No more than anyone can restrict the learning of differential Equations, or using the number pi, to only people of a certain political persuasion, can anyone in the OM community block, or frown upon, someone participating in the online OM community because they're libertarian. On the other hand, if you do concede that OM is an invention, then I would concede that you then have special authority over it -- kind of like Scientology does over its system. But of course if it is a mere invention, it would no longer be ontological as claimed.

It's a poison pill to me and presumably many others to have Meritocracy lumped in with OM. When comments like the one at the top of this post get associated with all Ontological Mathematicians, then All I can tell you is brother you have to wait. Just separate it out and we can all be unified on the mathematical core.

Conclusion

In this post, I started off by first trying to convince the reader, that as person who has spent six years reading almost all the works from the Pythagorean Illuminati, that I am a big, for lack of a better word, "believer" in their system, and that I am not intending to attack it, only offer constructive criticism.

However, I am a Libertarian and a capitalist too. While I am not a zealot or fanatic, I am an ardent supporter of both, and after reading the "China is great" quote at the top of this article, I felt compelled to publicly voice my objections.

To such aim, I tried to present several rational-based arguments: one for Libertarians and the other, more narrowly presented, to Hyperians or Ontological Mathematicians.

I do not expect a single person who subscribes to Meritocracy to be persuaded by anything I say about Libertarianism, Capitalism, or indeed Meritocracy itself in this post. After all, after reading hundreds of pages about Meritocracy in the God Series, I myself remain unpersuaded still, so I know how futile it can be.

However, I do think the following could be conceded on the part of Meritocracy supporters:

1. That it is not mathematical or ontological.
2. That Meritocracy isn't merely advocated for, but zealously promoted.
3. OM uses a Steelman version of Meritocracy compared to a straw-man version of capitalism as its main rhetorical device.
4. That it would never be implemented voluntarily.

Of course I realize they will never admit to all, or possible any, of these. They know if they did, they would lose a great deal of support. After all, who would want to give power to a small group of zealots, who state they will have to force people into compliance?

An acceptable solution would be to separate out Meritocracy from OM proper, thus leaving OM for things that are purely mathematical and ontological. Then everyone can duke it out in the other domains if they so desire.

I really didn't want to have to post an article like this. However, If the core of ontological math turns out to be wrong or politically incorrect I will gladly suffer the slings and arrows that comes along with that. If it's the truth and that's not popular, so be it. But I do not want to unnecessarily bear any slings and arrows from, let's say cancel culture (which includes the algorithms in big tech companies), against Meritocracy, a philosophy I don't even subscribe to, because someone decides to characterize it as being neo-Nazi (incorrectly of course) due to quotes like the one at the top.

And that's why I felt compelled to publish this article.

==== History

2022-04-15: First publication.

2022-05-09: Minor edits.