Propaganda: A Relativity Used By The Other Side

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: many public servants, especially politicians use propaganda on the population to achieve their ends and we have fallen for conceptual propaganda for thousands of years, but there is a more insidious contextual propaganda that we do not recognise that governs modern life and we should use social engineering to firstly, take governance into our own hands by using modern technology to create a true democracy and secondly, to reduce racism, financial domination, sectarian problems etc. by banning immigration and restricting competing cultures that impede the gaining of our goals. By comparing Hitler’s Europe of 100 years ago with the modern European Union [EU], we produce a relativity that can extend our view of the future so that we can align it with attainable goals and when Plato’ views are revamped, they show how we can attain a true democracy instead of the contextual propaganda that is producing an engorged public service that can be circumvented by technology, social engineering and knowing what we are doing.

Keywords: propaganda; goals; social engineering; Fibonacci series; relativity; anti-ageing

• Modern society doesn’t work as evidenced in the lack of a workable organisation and that lack is imperilling society and shows that Homo sapiens is a transient stage that can’t see the solution and there is a need to return to Plato for an unbiased view to build anew using the organisation [derived from cosmology] that can now be understood.

• Science fiction suggests a future war of humans against the machines that we created, but the war has started and the enemy is the machine-like lack of thinking of public servants that is threatening our way of life [as in hyperinflation [11]] because inflation is relativity not viewed nor controlled through absolutes. In other words, if we don’t use organisation from absolutes, how do we control inflation, public servants and life in general?

Disclaimer: firstly, the following is an opinion piece that could be accused of being propaganda because it flatters the reader, suggests high drama, inspires by suggesting that an improved mind is possible for everyone in the future by using relativity and bottom-up organisation, but so what? There is nothing wrong with this, if I am correct in these assertions, and I believe that I am, because I am using new techniques, but there will always be those that resist change and that could be considered an absolute of the organisation of Life. Secondly, extreme social behaviour and unfortunate historical happenings must be understood through social engineering so that they do not happen again and that can only come about by using a complete organisational theory, as [I believe] that this is. Thirdly, this theory is new and not totally accepted and it’s use might impact on career prospects, friendships etc. Fourthly, mistakes may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes [within that speciality]. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

‘And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people”’ (King James Bible, Luke 2:10) An example of propaganda.

‘Propaganda to be thought of as a technique used by the other side’. (Easily Led: A History of Propaganda, Oliver Thomson, p 2) Relativity ensures that there is always another side.

Preface

‘Propaganda, the use of communication skills to create or maintain power and influence, is one of the oldest techniques in the world’. (p 327) and has a bad reputation because propaganda is often concocted with scant regard for the truth to attain goals without concern for the inherent entanglement of an organisational universe. Propaganda is thus the embodiment of top-down thinking without regard to absolutes and has been consciously used to propagate false ideas. I can say this because this paper presents a theory of organisation based on a proposed universal relativity, the addition of which leads to a theory of everything that is a fractal generated by the [general] creation equation [concept plus context is nothing], which is a statement of relativity [orthogonality]. It is not difficult and is akin to algebra, which entails setting a goal [x] for some unknown, and when this is done [setting the future goal x], we are then seeking a specific answer, which the organisation [of everything] can answer and will answer [a property of an organisation] and that allows a solution. That answer [of organisation] is energy [due to the creation equation of the universe: energy plus organisation is nothing] that we call affordances that are the emotion [energy] produced in the mind that asks the question of the organisation of the surroundings [6].

In other words the power of algebra is, I believe, the linking of future goals [x] with the requirement of an organisation, that a specific question will be answered by an organisation because the Fibonacci series is an organisational absolute [2] . This theory of organisation is based on relativity and makes organisation the unknown, and uses the [universe’s] creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] to allow the mind to recognise a required organisation [relative to the question asked] and rate it in applicability [strength of the emotional energy] to the question [6]. Also, there are restrictions because it can be seen immediately that an accelerating space is needed [for the creation equation to exist] and this acceleration [of the entire space that contains the universe] produces the gravity that we need to link everything together to function as an entity [an entanglement]. Physics gave up on modern physics theory a 100 years ago, and yet quantum mechanics is simply the organisation that physics ignores [because physics does not recognise organisation explicitly] and says that the Big Bang was just the creation of energy. Social science is all about organisation, and yet organisation is unrecognised [except for Occam’s razor], and when organisation is recognised, it allows a much deeper understanding of social science and that leads to, and allows social engineering to manipulate it because it is unique, by being based on absolutes.

The Relativity of Plato

The organisation of families has been with us for a long time, starting in the animals and theoretically in ‘Plato’s The Republic, which begins by outlining the characteristics of an ideal society. In it, Plato says, men and women would do similar work, and all reproductive effort would be held in common, the women and children being tied to no individual. . . . . What Plato is describing here, some two and a half thousand years before modern science, are the principles upon which an ant colony works.’ (Here On Earth, Tim Flannery, p 133) Firstly, the theory presented here considers the universe to be an organisation and there is nothing ‘real’ about it [7, 12], but it must have organisational absolutes for us to view it [6] and when we view Life, the only absolutes that we can use are the organisation of the animals around us because those organisations have persisted over time [1]. Secondly, ‘Plato recognised that humanity would not take readily to such a system . . . . he suggests a program of eugenics . . . . a band of old men, he thought, could manipulate the opportunities . . . . by holding festivals at which sexual licence would be given to certain couples if it was felt the offspring would further the interests of society.’ (p 133) This is similar to the herd system outlined in [1] to genetically improve society.

‘As things turned out, our species hit upon another scheme to order its societies – one which is entirely inimical to Plato’s solution. Called the democratic process, it puts the individual and his or her will front and centre. Plato had much to say about it – all under the heading of “imperfect societies” – and democracy must be classified in this way when compared to the society of ants . . . . But democracy is uniquely suited to the ordering of societies of wilful and self-centred apes; as Winston Churchill said of it.’ (p 134) ‘But democracy in its turn, Plato believed, must give way to tyranny – for the tyrant rises as a popular champion, and democracies lack the means of restraining such individuals’. (p 134) ‘Only in the twentieth century has democracy lived up to its name, encompassing all adult members of a society. . . . . and those rights include protections for those wishing to keep the benefits of their labour. Looking at the spread of democracy in the modern world, it’s tempting to think that it has now found the strength to resist tyranny.’ (p 134)

Unfortunately, the (so-called) democracies of the modern world are, as I believe them to be, tyrannies under the banner of democracy because a party is voted in every few years to (effectively) do whatever it wants. This is contextual propaganda where it seems to be agreed that something [tyranny] is actually something else [democracy] and is accepted by everyone. Presumably, this is the outcome of thinking top-down as well as the lack of working bottom-up [from absolutes] and is an error in the organisation of thinking, and that absolute must be the Fibonacci series that requires that a future goal be held in mind, exactly the same as the “x” must be specified in algebra. So, Plato did not ask, ‘Where is this proposed society going?’ and the answer is shown by the ants and that is, ‘no where’, for millions of years. What is our goal for humanity? Surely, live in peace with the wider society, and the concept of a larger organisation, such as Gaia, might be appropriate, but the overriding aim of survival of the fittest is improving the species.

This section, so far, is an example of the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens, and it goes nowhere because we are not using bottom-up thinking to solve the futuristic problem of the relativity of two governing systems [true democracy and autocracy]. It has been said that the difference is that (current) democracy makes slow decisions, while autocracy makes fast decisions, and this could be because of the method used, after all, democracy and autocracy are orthogonal, yet entangled. The answer, when dealing with orthogonals is to consider the relativity, which is and is not the same [entanglement], and requires bottom-up thinking to get a sensible answer [from the organisation]. There is a time relativity [2,000 years] and a technology relativity [mobile phones] that must be used for this question to make sense. In other words, Plato was correct in suggesting a stable system [the ants] because the norm was war, and surviving was more important that the [relativity] of grooming the excess population that technology has given us in the present. Thus, population reduction and selection are important as part of the governing [positive feedback] by the government.

Plato (presumably) saw the problem of lack of communication [10% voted] and the forum [where the vote was taken] was similar to the parliamentary system of today, which could be influenced by personality, and indeed, the current practice of rolling leaders and replacing them by party selection [as happens with our (so called) democracy] is (possibly) what Plato had in mind. I believe that the answer lies in technology where the mobile phone provides universal [depending on the Socratic values of each vote], fast, informed direction to the public servant core workers. The relativity of the solution presented here can be compared with Tim Flannery’s hope that modern society has ‘now found the strength to resist tyranny’, which can now be seen to be wishful thinking. Also, Plato’s problem of an eventual tyranny arising [in his view of his democracy] is negated by the total [versus the 10%] vote and becomes a legitimate change of leadership in a moral [but powerless] sense.

Seeking the Best Humanity

The physical universe can be described as energy [concept] and organisation [context] [4, 5, 6, 7] and the restrictions that are required for existence [and relativity] lead to this theory where logic is more than yes/no, true/false etc., and has more elements that make it general throughout the universe [10]:

true, false, alternating true-false, our-other universe, chaos, restrictions, fractal-social engineering.

Also, this theory indicates which are the most probable [according to evolution] and desirable distributions of marketing areas around the world, and these areas give every culture [therein] a chance to become the best that they can become [compared with the other areas] as a means of selecting the best humanity that we can be [1, 8, 9]. At the moment, the strongest dominate, which is an extension of survival of the fittest and promulgated at the moment by contextual propaganda of (so-called) leaders and at the same time indicates the very important realisation to those cultures, such as ethnic minorities [that look to the past], that they should give up and be absorbed because we need to use goals [3, 7] to achieve what we think makes an optimum human being. However, we can’t know the future and wishes are just wishes, which are better goals than the do-nothingness of Homo sapiens, and adding bottom-up understanding of how the universe works gets us closer to achieving the future, and competition [of some type] is the final arbiter.

The question becomes, is this humanity [that we seek] optimal under the gamut of all of workaday, frustrating conditions and extreme conditions and suggests that the answer [from ecology] requires closed borders and restrictions on intermarriage to create a uniform population [in each area] over time? Under current conditions, where politicians are indiscriminate concerning migration, a degree of multiculturalism is tolerated, but when the levels rise, racism tends to become apparent. Multiculturalism raises fear levels, castes can cause riots and war can create atrocities and while these extreme cases of inhumanity are distressing, they need to be understood and repaired [1, 8, 9] by ongoing voting. Secondly, modern wars are started by public servants that propagandise the population into fighting them [9].

The concept of incompleteness was brought home to physics with the Michelson-Morley experiment that said that the speed of light is constant to any observer, no matter what their motion and was due to the measurement process in an organisational universe [12]. In the same way, social science has ignored extreme behaviour because, I believe, that it does not have the knowledge of organisation to understand the basic problems, for example, why Hitler did what he did is suggested below [not that he was just a ‘bad fellow’]. This paper concentrates on the organisation that Homo sapiens ignores and yet, according to the creation equation, comprises 50% of everything, and so Homo sapiens is missing so much that the world’s society is in danger [from global warming, population etc.] and needs an upgrade to [or towards the goal of] Homo completus. Multiculturalism is like the experimentation of the Alchemist where everything is thrown into the pot in the hope that something good will result, whereas the organisation of chemistry led to vastly more organised knowledge that could be built on. In other words, Homo sapiens is the alchemist and Homo completus will be the chemist. Also, multiculturalism imports the most bizarre practices, such as ‘honour killings’ of daughters [see DVD Honour] along with feuds brought from the Middle-east that police can’t control and the sectarian problems of religions [especially violence] shows the folly of the concept of ‘religious freedom’.

Social Engineering

(Religion, Affordances, Relativity, Addiction, Habituation, Governance and Society)

The heading of this section is cumbersome, but you have to expect a context to be cumbersome because everything in an organisation is entangled together. This is shown particularly well in mathematics that pi [and other functions] can be represented as an infinite series of fractions of whole numbers [2]. Notice that this [for pi, and the heading of this section] mirrors the creation equation, as would be expected in a fractal and that an organisation must be able to be infinitely large unless restrictions are stated [hence infinite series are necessary]. Newtonian physics is old and simple and uses the concept [energy], whereas modern theoretical physics needs to be complete and uses the context [organisation] also [for completion]. If we wanted to simplify the heading [context], we could call it social engineering and we can look more deeply at the functioning [or currently the lack of functioning] of [especially] cities through organisation. Assuming that relativity derives everything [literally in my opinion], there must be restrictions [6] and they can be enumerated and cross-referenced [due to entanglement], for example gravity [a complete entanglement of energy and organisation [5]]. The use of the word ‘propaganda’ [as a concept] immediately suggests a relativity of two positions based on an orthogonality [the comparison of two alternate methods].

Religion: forms a basis to our personalities and is a big part of our culture that stays with everyone [social conditioning] and ‘so they brought their gods from their homeland and built temples to them in the cities. But few of these gods adapted to the new conditions; they did not solve the problem of how to get on with the stranger next door. The presence of so many gods only added to the chaotic diversity of city life.’ (And Man Created God, Selina O’Grady, p 67) This quotation is talking about 2,000 years ago and nothing has changed and that is why homogeneity [one nation] requires one religion.

Affordances: [6] are the emotion [energy] produced in the mind by measuring [seeing, hearing etc.] an organisation [book, music, beauty etc. defined [exactly] by relativity [creation equation]]. Religions use this emotional power to convince people that their religion possesses some real effect [which it does] resulting from measuring the religious organisation and paraphernalia.

Relativity: is the functioning of the creation equation energy plus organisation is nothing [6] and religions and governance create emotion [awe, comfort in belonging etc.] in their subjects through monumental buildings, parades, uniforms etc.

Propaganda: could be defined as ‘the use of communication skills of all kinds to achieve attitudinal or behavioural changes among one group of people by another.’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 5) This definition is so wide that it shows that practically everything has a message, especially in the advertising in modern life and the best defence [against it’s message] is to realise this fact, it’s intention, and ignore it. ‘There is a tendency to think of propaganda as a relatively recent development and to associate it with the appearance of modern media. Yet propaganda does in fact have an extremely long history.’ (p 1) Further, ‘the Nazis, Communists, Jesuits and Spartans were all groups who drew particular attention to the value of early training as part of long-term propaganda.’ (p 4) Clearly, given this fact, immigrants are not the same as home-grown citizens and in many cases are often deficient in useful social skills and a boon to Labor/Democrat politicians [for their uninformed vote], a drain on the public purse but create an instant need for housing.

Addiction: is the ‘heart and soul’ of life and society because religion is based [largely] on emotion, the more emotion felt by adherents seeing, hearing etc. the organisation of the Church the stronger the bond with the church and this bond grows in time without the diminishing [habituation] of other drugs because emotion comes from the creation equation that the universe is built on. Similarly for governance, and explains why governments keep control of the many addictive practices that, if they were allowed, have more control over people than religion and government, which results in a lack of order and a loss of control, which is central to the regulated state that surrounds us [8, 9]. On a personal level, many things are regulated because Homo sapiens is unable to control him/herself, such as the health costs of smoking [nicotine], beer, wine and spirits [alcohol], poker machines, drugs, speeding on roads etc. all of which affect the mind and society [fractal].

No habituation: is extremely important because it can be incorporated simply into society [as a building block] because the affordances [that are the interplay of the creation equation] are always the same and we do not become habituated as happens with drugs that affect the chemistry of the body. Organisational addictions [gambling, speeding, violence, religious differences etc.] also are not habituated and require improving the mental ‘strength’ of people by genetic selection, improving upbringing, education etc. [which is social engineering].

Governance and society: (in this theory) have a distinct relationship, that the creation equation [being simple] generates a fractal [with the properties of simplicity and similarity] that make the governance be the sum total of each person’s actions [Adam Smith], however, this is a necessary condition and not sufficient because ‘ever since the rise of the first government 5,400 years ago, they [governments] have served two main functions: to maintain internal peace by monopolizing force . . . and to redistribute individual wealth for the purpose of investing in larger aims – in the worst case, enriching the elite; in the best cases, promoting the good of society as a whole.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 372)

Conclusion: it could be said that a positive feedback loop exists if the government provides for the people, that makes the people better, that makes the state stronger, that makes the people better etc. A positive organisational feedback can be explosive, and it could be said that Adolf Hitler had such a plan that we can use today, if we understand it. Clearly this feedback is not at work in modern societies where public servants are in control and suppress other mind-shaping addictions that threaten their control, but there is a better way than having them continually watching over our shoulders to ensure that their petty rules are not broken, and that is selection of the best people and elimination of the lesser so that we become civilised.

The Context of Propaganda

Much propaganda is based on concepts, such as the ‘vituperation of a succession of scapegoats was the foundation of Hitler’s message system, first “the Versailles traitors” . . . . the Communists . . . . finally the Jews who were to blame for all Germany’s problems.’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 268) However, it is possible that Homo sapiens is being manipulated by a increasingly complex religion and government as shown by the creation of a Church hierarchy that grew out of the simple message of religion, ‘these various strands were pulled together if not actually masterminded by the first of three great propagandizing Popes, Leo I (390-461) . . . . Gelasius I (fl. 492-6) . . . . Gregory I (540-609) . . . . the propagandist known as Denys the Areopagite, who developed the image of the Pope as an exceptional church ruler above the law and above criticism’ (p 126). Thus was created a Church hierarchy that continues to this day that increased the splendour and complexity of the Catholic Church and also increased it’s emotional appeal as a draw-card.

Clearly this contextual aspect, that was inserted 1,500 years ago and is still going strong, is an expansion [orthogonality] of the simple conceptual propaganda that is usually used [as did Hitler] and is a warning of the power of emotion that can so easily be directed for an organisation’s benefit. This is especially true in the modern world that is rapidly changing and the organisations, that Homo sapiens does not understand, could have great effects that we do not realise. An example is our (so-called) democracy, where Prime Minister Howard played on the emotion that was generated by a shooting rampage to (effectively) ban the holding of guns that has left the country (significantly) defenceless. Politicians, singly do not have the expertise to make decisions that should be decided by the (true) democracy that I am suggesting [8, 9] and can do great damage to humanity when allowed to pursue their own ends.

Bearing in mind the disclaimer above [that I am a generalist], let us look at a simple contextual organisation that is accepted by both major political parties and public servants without democratic endorsement. The Reserve bank says that it is ‘comfortable’ with 2 to 3% inflation, the government increases the national debt to fund infrastructure etc. and pays 2 to 3% interest [in inflated dollars] , home owners see their houses increase in value [in inflated dollars], wages go up by 2 to 3% [in inflated dollars], immigration, with all it’s problems, increases demand, and everyone is happy. The politicians are only interested in the short term and they amply reward themselves, the public servants have a job for life and a nice pension, so who is missing out? Prices and wages have risen, so an average house is ½ million dollars [over $1 million in Sydney], but it is not thought to greatly disrupt society and it makes house prices rise, which keeps home-owners happy. However, it makes it more difficult for the poor to improve their position and that leads to inequality, castes and other problems, as well as the cheapening of the currency hurts savers.

This is contextual propaganda promulgated by public servants that is straining our society by creating castes of rich and poor because politicians give in to wage rises for public servants [nurses, school teachers, train drivers etc.] and they do it because of the political party system that is built on the rich and poor and each thinks that it should be better off. Divide and conquer seems to be the motif, whereas a stable society keeps the rich and poor happy with a redistribution of money, with a purpose that can be accepted by each side, bringing them together instead of dividing and creating castes. Clearly, the current system is contextual propaganda and the proposed system [to repair it] is social engineering and the restriction that every organisation has to have is the goal of improving Homo sapiens, in this case genetically, where money is paid to the unfit not to breed [1]. Simply put, the rich pay taxes to benefit humanity and that is paid to those that do not have the determination to compete, so do not contribute their genes and refrain from having children, and this is recognised in the form of a pension, but everyone has the right to have children providing that those children support them in old age, and not the state.

This is life in a relativity, and as parents it is our duty to provide for the next generation and it appears that we can do so under the current low inflation [possibly turning into hyperinflation [11]]. This is presumably because money is relative and has no intrinsic value that is better than any other value [from the creation equation], but kitchen-table economics makes us wonder if something is amiss and we are being organisationally dudded, especially when both-sides of our (so-called) democracy agree with each other. Consider, ‘the Budget projects that the Commonwealth government’s gross debt will be around $963 billion at 30 June 2022. This is around 45.1% of GDP. It is projected to increase to $1,199 billion – around 50% of GDP – by 30 June 2025’ (Budget Strategy and Outlook: Budget paper No1:2021-2022, Table 11.5, p 366-7). Net debt was zero in 2010! In 12 years the government has overspent $80,000,000,000 each year! No wonder that they are keeping quiet! There is probably a good reason, but it is not apparent to me, and in a true democracy, the government has to convince us, the voters, of that reason, not keep us in the dark for their own benefit. This demand-pull of government spending creates inflation as well as public debt and everyone appears to be better off, but is living on credit the answer?

For example, I have been sent a notice that 200 square metres of hillside [in the interior of the farm] is valued at $600,000! Those figures [200 square metres and $600,000] are not misprints and the valuation is land-only irrespective of what is built on it [a telecommunication tower actually] and is an example of public servants mechanistically working [without thinking] that can drive a stable society [Australia] rapidly into hyperinflation [11]. The Reserve Bank [as a central bank] has only interest rates to fight inflation and raising them to cool spending [by the public servants] is causing hardship to purchasers of inflated real estate which shows how unstable is our economy, when a [true] democratic vote could short-circuit this insanity with a single vote to stop wage rises in the public sector [which (arguably) started this off].

Voting in a Democracy

Currently, we call our voting system a democracy even though, in Australia, the Defence Minister can, and did, send the armed forces to invade another country, without the approval of Parliament [and against it’s wishes [1]] and ‘go to South Asia today, look up at the Pakistani sky, and you might see an American drone. The American president controls this lethal program within the executive branch; it’s a private air-force that’s operated with little congressional oversight.’ (The China Mirage, James Bradley, p 10) ‘In 1900, Teddy cheered from the sidelines as the first U.S. troops ever dispatched to Asia without consulting Congress landed on the shores of China.’ (p 370) Clearly, (so-called) democracies are not true democracies, but are the playthings of public servants and yet modern citizens carry a phone [bionic [biological-electronic] attachment] that is capable of instantaneous communication and a simple app would allow their vote to be recorded.

Given that a true democracy firstly, allows the pros and cons to be presented [via the internet], secondly, the person must be interested enough to record a vote and thirdly, a means is available to transmit and record that vote, which could be done easily enough, then we have true democracy within our grasp [literally, for the first time ever thanks to technology [1]]. Note that I am not saying that each person has an equal vote. Given this possibility of using new technology, could we not improve the (so-called) democracy that we use and even religion, both of which are over 2,000 years old, after all, our intelligence has increased markedly since that time [Flynn effect (Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, p 241)] The question is ‘Is a true democracy too dangerous?’ considering the possibility of positive feed back, above, because, the question becomes, ‘are people intelligent enough to live with their decisions or do we need a Court Jester to take the blame, where the Court Jester is the politician that we see on the nightly News?’. This politician should be an autocrat without power, should set the moral tone of the debate and be the link with the public service that runs the essential services. Consider also that democracy, as a concept, is orthogonal to the autocrat and both are necessary and as an example [of relativity], there must always be a chairperson to conduct a democratic meeting, otherwise chaos reigns.

Unfortunately, lifestyle may be affecting the intelligence of the general population because ‘IQ rates are falling across Western Europe, and experts are scratching their heads as to why’ (Chelsea Stahl/NBC News; May 22, 2019) and we have to ask, have we reached a plateau in our thinking? The answer is probably ‘Yes’ because the stimulation of modern life is extreme at the moment [phone, internet, driving to work etc.], however, this theory allows the existing brain to be used in a different way, by completing the top-down thinking [that we inherited from the animals] with the orthogonalities of relativity and bottom-up thinking that should improve our thinking many-fold by improving the software [3]. This does pose the question that the worth of a vote should be in proportion to one’s level of education, and a highly educated person’s vote should be worth more, whereas being in receipt of a pension should lower the value of the vote because of personal interest, etc. and in particular, fine tuning the vote, given levels of income, pension dependency, age etc. must form the ultimate democracy using Socrates’ questions as a guide.

Considering that any proposed system should be able to handle extreme cases, the case of Germany [100 years ago, after World War I] was extreme and it is obvious that a strong leader should have arisen to lead Germany back to a position of power at some point [Plato’s fear], and it so happened, but without sufficient governance controls of the type that I am suggesting that could have prevented World War II. The trench warfare of World War I should have been sufficient that a democratic vote to not engage in expansionist dreams would have been overwhelming, but those controls were lost in the political system because of ‘Hitler’s well-honed psychological appeal to the basest instincts of the population: their jealousy of Jewish wealth, their fear of unemployment, their loss of pride in the First World War.’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 274) Where did ‘Jewish wealth’ come from? That was because, presumably, being ‘guest workers’, they frequented the towns and Simon Kuznets says ‘as countries get richer they should get less equal, because some people leave farming for higher-paying lines of work while the rest stay in rural squalor.’ (Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, p 103) Clearly, the Jews had an advantage by frequenting the towns at a time that moving to towns created a significant benefit.

As above, multiculturalism works with small numbers, but as the numbers increase, problems increase and the Jews found that as the cities were in the ascendancy and they became rich [which incited jealousy] that made them a scapegoat for Hitler’s propaganda. But propaganda is the other-side’s view, and is usually an organisation that is [as a time relativity] a product of a particular time, and that time was of constant wars where life was cheap and food expensive. [(p 157)] ‘Developing countries today, like developed countries a century ago, stint on social spending. . . . But as they get richer they become more munificent, a phenomenon called Wagner’s Law.’ (p 109) Hitler appeared to be targeting those that did not fit his idea of the goal of a master-race, ‘Jews were not the only targets during the German Holocaust. Disabled people, Roma or Gypsies, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and others were also deemed unworthy races, although Jews were the most targeted. In 1933, Europe had over 9 million people who considered themselves Jews. Less than 3 million survived by the end of the Holocaust. Many lived in countries that Hitler’s Nazi regime overtook during World War II. Many of those who survived had escaped and moved to the United States or other countries. Along with people of Jewish descent, 200,000 people with disabilities died during a “euthanasia program” at the hands of Nazis. Most of these institutions were within Germany, although some lay outside the boundary, where the Nazi regime had authority.’ (Owlcation.com/humanities/conditions-in-concentration-camps)

What Were Hitler’s Aims?

Adolf Hitler is a historical character that strongly influences the world today, especially in Europe where he effectively won world War II and united Europe and his memory lives on, but not, I suggest, for the correct reasons. ‘At its height Rome, of course, was much larger than the EU …. No comparable entity would arise again . . . . Indeed, it was not until the establishment of the European Union (EU) in 1993 that a sustained, similar-sized political entity would declare itself in Europe.’ (Here On Earth, Tim Flannery, p 145) Hitler was a product of his time when the strong took what they could, but strangely, according to this theory, he was a prophet for this theory and his excesses occurred (arguably) because this theory was not understood. This theory is about relativity, where there cannot be one of anything [it must be entangled with something else] and so, there cannot be democracy, there must be democracy and dictatorship. In other words, a meeting needs a chairman to keep order to have a democratic vote and so a democracy needs a leader with limited power [but perhaps foresight] and restrictions must apply for the organisation to function and as an example, firstly, voters must be interested in the subject, secondly, must be knowledgeable about the subject, thirdly, must be able to vote and fourthly, the figure head leader kisses babies, takes the blame [the court jester, politician] and acts as the voters’ conscience. To be knowledgeable in this day and age, the phone is essential, firstly to record the vote and secondly, to receive the pros and cons of experts and so be able to make a decision and record that decision.

Because our (so-called) democratic system [that is more like an alternating dictatorship [9]] allows the leader to have power, bizarre things can happen, often too fast for our comfort [see hyperinflation, above] and a hundred years earlier so it was for Adolf Hitler. Firstly, a war that was not necessary [World War II] because it formed the EU eventually by negotiation [attained a goal], and secondly, the means of removing populations that were holding back the attainment of one of Hitler’s goals, namely the creation of a ‘master race’ which is a desirable long-term goal [indeed crucial according to survival of the fittest]. To become a ‘master race’ is the universal goal of all Life through survival of the fittest and not ‘the use of flattery to intensify propaganda effectiveness, calling the Jews or Aztecs ‘the chosen people’, Calvinists the ‘elect’ or the Germans the ‘master race’. (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 78) Propaganda is a war of words, designed to make or ‘prove’ a point without specifying the organisation behind it. According to survival of the fittest, survival and sex are the prime purpose of Life and the reason why I believe that each ethnic community should have the chance to become a ‘master race’ by proving that they can do it by doing it, and isolating the combatants is the only way. [1, 8, 9] What Hitler did was not far different to the model proposed here except in time scale and that every choice should be voluntary and compensated.

We need to consider the relativity of the time when judging Hitler’s actions, for instance, ‘for most of human history, war was the natural pastime of governments, peace a mere respite between wars. . . . . for 450 years, wars involving a great power became shorter and less frequent. But as their armies became better manned, trained, and armed, the wars that did take place became more lethal, culminating in the brief but stunningly destructive world wars.’ (Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, p 157) This trend has allowed public servants to start wars [in particular, World War I and II and the American Civil War] and embroil the population in years of bloodshed, mutilation and death. Clearly, we have allowed our (so-called) leaders to usurp our destiny through propaganda and lack of control on our part that can be aligned with Plato’s theories by using social engineering.

Micro Social Engineering

Adolf Hitler could be [surprisingly] considered a visionary, but his thinking was mired in the past [his present] and followed the [then] history of warfare and the taking of what was wanted by force. Perceptions have changed, by his doing [and undoing] and firstly, the marketing area that he envisioned [EU] has come to pass and secondly, the improvement of the population [in his opinion] has also come to pass, but has not been incorporated permanently, consciously nor conscientiously. There are better methods that we could use [than he did] by increasing the time frame and using a democratic means [instead of autocratic] to make the process voluntary [via monetary payments]. Notice that I am using the relativity that underlies this theory to bring a necessary completeness, and that requires acknowledging that having children is a severe burden on one’s lifestyle and it is only worthwhile if those children can compete in the current world. After all, it helps no one unless superior children are produced, and that takes as much planning [micro social engineering] as does the above [macro social engineering].

If macro social engineering is about the governance of countries and their relationships with each other, there is also the [downward] governing of the people, that is different [organisationally] to the fractal nature being the sum total [upward] of the individuals [Adam Smith] making up that country. The nature of the positive feedback is that government must insure that the population is well fed, well educated etc. to make a strong country and this is especially important today as more of the population move into cities and away from the country that tend to supply a more diverse range of food. This movement [to cities] also breaks down families, introduces new foods, traditional nutritional knowledge is lost and this contributes to the rising levels of obesity that is bedevilling modern society and further, this nutritional lack affects the population over their whole lifetime and produces chronic effects in later life. This particular aspect is anti-ageing [one aspect of micro social engineering, [anti-ageing.org]] that shows that our present populations are dying too soon which affects the value of the population to the governance.

Conclusion and Prediction

This paper is a further step towards the goal of a Homo completus in the future, based on the past [100 years ago] and the present in accordance with the Fibonacci series, which shows that both the present and the past are needed to try to interpret the future. If we consider the propaganda that various parties [political, religious, public servant etc.] are using for their own benefit, the substance of that misinformation [propaganda] can only be realised by applying this theory of organisation which shows the dangers of the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens, that we use in the present. Anti-ageing can add 25 years [in my case, and perhaps more] to your working life [by making your body effectively 25 years younger than the average person (of the same chronological age)] which makes you smarter, especially in a contextual field [versus a specialist], and as an example, I offer this theory that firstly, intellect increases with age and experience compared to a short lifetime [the effect of anti-ageing], secondly, relativity [sideways] and thirdly, bottom-up organisation to correct the top-down guesswork of Homo sapiens. This leads, via the absolutes to discreet marketing areas that allows competition and reduces self-seeking leaders, castes, racism, incompetent public servants etc. through a true democracy.

The above is the physics of emotion [through organisation] and emotion is a large part of the functioning of our society [religion, governance, appreciation of everything] but ‘we see that addiction can spring up in anyone’s backyard. It attacks our politicians, our entertainers, our relatives, and often ourselves. It’s become ubiquitous, expectable, like air pollution and cancer. . . . Addiction results, rather, from the motivated repetition of the same thoughts and behaviours until they become habitual.’ (The Biology of Desire: why addiction is not a disease, Marc Lewis, p ix] Hence, we have to understand the intent behind the emotion-creating propaganda that continually assails us in society to be able to properly engineer a future society using the science, that I believe exists as absolutes and goals [13]. We need to examine the good effects of emotion [appreciation of everything], the necessary application [religion, governance] and the illegal [drugs, breaking the law, unsocial behaviour etc.] as social engineering a future Homo completus. In other words, firstly, increasing the mind [3], secondly, changing religion and governance [14, 11] and thirdly, changing society to engender selection as a natural outcome of living [the herd organisation, [1]].

Reference: 1. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

4. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
5. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
6. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x
7. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
8. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Concepts behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 7-13. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-002
9. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Context behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 14-21. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-003
10. The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave (From an unpublished paper)
11. Penney D. The Changing Face Of Australian Governance. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 22-27. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-004
12. Penney D. The Organisational Universe. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2023; 5(1): 210- 216. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000140
13. Management as a Science, an unpublished paper
14. A New Religion And Peace On Earth, an unpublished paper