Toxins Of Power

Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power - 5

2012-01-04T11:32:00.032-06:00

For a hypothesis to be valid it must be falsifiable, and it must make predictions or explanations which match experimental or other data.

So, near the end of this post, I will propose some follow up research and/or experiments to do just that.

I will also suggest what those experiments and/or research efforts should show, so as to make it easier to test whether or not The Hypothesis is viable enough to pursue further.

But first, let's bring the history of The Hypothesis up to date.

Prions have been eliminated from The Hypothesis as a source for the toxins of power, thus we are left with either microbes or phages as originators of a toxin of power.

We have data that indicate a likely locus or focus point for this origin, which is the brain:

Microbial colonization of mammals is an evolution-driven process that modulate host physiology, many of which are associated with immunity and nutrient intake. Here, we report that colonization by gut microbiota impacts mammalian brain development and subsequent adult behavior ... our results suggest that the microbial colonization process initiates signaling mechanisms that affect neuronal circuits involved in motor control and anxiety behavior.

(Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power, emphasis added). The full import of that research is that, following colonization, communication of various sorts takes place between and/or among human cells and microbes, which impacts the amygdala, and other limbic system areas:

We therefore studied the expression of these genes in the frontal cortex, striatum, amygdala, and hippocampus of GF and SPF mice, by means of in situ hybridization technique. In GF mice, NGFI-A mRNA expression was significantly lower in various subregions of the prefrontal cortex, including the orbital frontal cortex (Fig. 4 A and A′); as well as in the striatum (GF vs. SPF: 329 ± 33 vs. 586 ± 18, P < 0.0001), hippocampus (CA1 region, GF vs. SPF: 258 ± 15 vs. 499 ± 22, P < 0.0001; CA3 region, GF vs. SPF: 166 ± 13 vs. 236 ± 6, P < 0.001; dentate gyrus, GF vs. SPF: 76 ± 4 vs. 113 ± 5, P < 0.0001) and amygdala (GF vs. SPF: 126 ± 17 vs. 212 ± 19, P < 0.01) compared with SPF mice. Similarly, GF mice had significantly lower BDNF mRNA expression in the hippocampus, amygdala (Fig. 4 B and B′), and cingulate cortex (GF vs. SPF: 162 ± 6 vs. 193 ± 10, P < 0.05), which are key components of the neural circuitry underlying anxiety and fear ... Our results suggest that during evolution, the colonization of gut microbiota has become integrated into the programming of brain development, affecting motor control and anxiety-like behavior.

(Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power - 2). The same method that was used to strengthen the appendix - microbe relationship hypothesis of Dr. Parker will work for testing The Hypothesis as well.

The team testing Dr. Parker's hypothesis used existing medical records, so I propose using that same method to test The Hypothesis, as follows:

1 - examine medical records of people who have been exposed to power (presidents, congress members, judges) covering a time when they behaved improperly in their official capacity;

2 - compare those to medical records of people who have not been exposed to power, at a time when those people were behaving properly;

3 - generate data about the differences in brain chemistry, structure, and brain function between the two groups, focusing on the limbic system, especially the amygdala.

NOTE: the reason for analysis of medical records of those exposed to power, during times of improper official behavior, is because The Hypothesis contains a premise that certain good behaviors are anti-toxins to the toxins of power (See: Tables For The Toxins In Power).

If The Hypothesis is correct the NGFI-A mRNA, BDNF mRNA, chemicals, and other factors mentioned above (Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power - 2) should reveal data supportive of The Hypothesis.

The previous post in this series is here.

Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power - 4

2011-12-20T13:00:00.042-06:00

In the previous post of this series, concerning The Hypothesis at issue, we considered prions as a source for the toxins of power.

In this post I will condense The Hypothesis down a bit, by eliminating prions as a source of the toxins of power.

In so doing, I will refine The Hypothesis so that now The Hypothesis is that either phages impair microbes, or that microbes malfunction individually without phage impairment, to generate a toxin of power.

That is, either one of those two specified dynamics are to be considered as a source for the generation of a toxin of power.

Not only that, The Hypothesis is further condensed to state that a toxin of power is generated in one or both of these processes, within either symbiont or non-symbiont microbes, by way of "bad messaging" during common, constantly ongoing, human - microbe communications.

Prions are properly eliminated from The Hypothesis because the impairments prions cause in humans are too deadly, and are very rare.

Likewise, consideration of prions as a source of the toxins of power would not comport well with the facts that have been set forth previously, concerning memes in memory.

Those facts, concerning memes in memory, basically describe "non-toxic ideas" that somehow morph into "toxic concepts", while stored in memory.

Remembering also that the morph of an idea is not fatal to the person it takes place in (at least in the sense we are concerned with in The Hypothesis); remembering that the morph of memes in memory do not cause physical impairment (in the sense we are concerned with in The Hypothesis); and finally, remembering that prions do cause fatality and/or do cause grave physical impairment as a matter of course, we can now properly leave prions out of The Hypothesis.

Further, prion diseases such as kuru cannot be neutralized with behavior of the sort set forth in Tables For Toxins In Power, which immunizes the host from a toxin of power for a limited time.

Thus, prions are hereby eliminated from further consideration in The Hypothesis as valid sources for the toxins of power.

What we end up with, then, is a hypothesis that the toxins of power work more like a moderately wild storm that comes and goes, leaving a temporarily modified mental and/or emotional scenario in its wake, rather than utter destruction.

The most likely place for commensurate intensity in such a storm, which would result in an altered meme landscape stored in memory, is in the microbes that have an effect on the conditions within the amygdala during messaging.

Those microbes that are in constant communication with human brain cell systems and/or microbes signaling the amygdala, and elsewhere, do not operate as a constant attack to kill, maim, and destroy them, as prions tend to do in their environment.

That is, I do not see the source of the toxins of power as a dedicated pathogen, but rather, I see it as a temporary malfunction in an otherwise non-pathogenic process within ongoing, common human - microbe communications:

Scientists originally expected that the communication between animals and their symbiotic bacteria would form its own molecular language. But McFall-Ngai, an expert on animal-microbe symbiosis, says that she and other scientists have instead found beneficial relationships involving some of the same chemical messages that had been discovered previously in pathogens. Many bacterial products that had been termed “virulence factors” or “toxins” turn out to not be inherently offensive signals; they are just part of the conversation between microbe and host. The difference between our interaction with harmful and helpful bacteria, she says, is not so much like separate languages as it is a change in tone: “It’s the difference between an argument and a civil conversation.” We are in constant communication with our microbes, and the messages are broadcast throughout the human body.

(On The New Meaning of "Human"). Let's review, then, what we have to work with, what we have constructed so far.

Like the germ hypothesis, which became the germ theory, our first observation starts at the "highest" level: someone noticing something not noticed before.

In the toxins of power context, it began when someone noticed that people exposed to power are affected by exposure to that power.

Next comes the voicing of that observation, as Lord Acton did, but also as James Madison did, so that others can begin further observations.

Notice how detailed James Madison's observations were:

01) war (generates anti-freedom germs):
02) war (is parent of):
03) armies (that generate):
04) war-debts, war-taxes (which bring):
05) many (99%) under domination of few (1%);
06) executive power surge;
07) seducing the minds (propaganda);
08) subduing the force of the people;
09) inequality of fortunes;
10) opportunities of fraud;
11) degeneracy of manners and morals;
12) (and eventually) end of freedom.

(See Greatest Source of Power Toxins?). These are detailed observations made by great statesmen, then written down in the history textbooks for our perusal.

Notice that in his quote from the link above, James Madison uses the language of medical diagnosis of an infection which a doctor might use.

By indicating that war generates "the germ" of many social infections, which are the origin of many social maladies that destroy freedom, James Madison reveals symptoms like a disease emerging from a state of war between nations.

Actually, he warns us to carefully and deliberately avoid such events, because they could lead to an epidemic, which would remove the freedom from any free nation exposed to it for too long, to eventually replace that freedom with tyranny.

These observations of these great statesmen may have, at first, originated from "a gut feeling".

Competent microbiologists today are not afraid to consider and express "a gut feeling", even in the highly sophisticated research associated with human - microbe symbiosis:

"My gut feeling is that some aspects of this process are unique to M. gryphiswaldense and not generalizable to all magnetotactic bacteria ..."

(Microbiologist Arash Komeili, Scientific American, 12/15/11). But such "gut feelings" early on in high level observations need to be later confirmed by related, yet deeper observations.

In the case of microbes being involved in human maladies, by either direct microbe malfunction, or by phage-induced microbe malfunction, that deeper observation is not beyond ultimate scientific discovery, even when it is just out of reach at first:

Current knowledge is insufficient to explain why only a proportion of individuals exposed to environmental carcinogens or carrying a genetic predisposition to cancer develop disease. Clearly, other factors must be important, and one such element that has recently received attention is the human microbiome, the residential microbes including Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryotes, and viruses that colonize humans. Here, we review principles and paradigms of microbiome - related malignancy, as illustrated by three specific microbial - host interactions. We review the effects of the microbiota on local and adjacent neoplasia, present the estro-bolome model of distant effects, and discuss the complex interactions with a latent virus leading to malignancy. These are separate facets of a complex biology interfacing all the microbial species we harbor from birth onward toward early reproductive success and eventual senescence.

(Microbiome and Malignancy, Cell - Host & Microbe Journal, PDF is here). Even the varied aspects of cancer, in terms of developing or not developing cancer, are now considered within the context of the "human - microbe ecosystem".

Thus, we should move forward to put The Hypothesis through the tests necessary to allow it to mature into a theory, or fail.

For too long of a time now we have known that Microbes R US, and for too long of a time now, toxins of power have had their way with us.

The previous episode of this series is here, the next post in this series is here.

The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?

2011-12-16T06:49:00.036-06:00

We don't often reflect upon the reality that our "knowledge" is either faith based or trust based, which fundamentally constitutes nothing more than the essence of "belief".

Since the secular and non-secular worlds are supposed to be utterly different from one another, for the secular realm such as science, let's call that belief "trust", and for the non-secular realm such as religion, let's call that belief "faith".

Whatever words we use, the essence of "belief" boils down to a dependence on other people, a belief in what other people write or say they know, as the real basis for what we call "our knowledge".

There is a substantial amount of discourse and debate, in some circles, about the impact that this reality should or should not have on us:

I find myself believing all sorts of things for which I do not possess evidence: that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, that my car keeps stalling because the carburetor needs to be rebuild, that mass media threaten democracy, that slums cause emotional disorders, that my irregular heart beat is premature ventricular contraction, that students' grades are not correlated with success in the nonacademic world, that nuclear power plants are not safe (enough) ...

The list of things I believe, though I have no evidence for the truth of them, is, if not infinite, virtually endless. And I am finite. Though I can readily imagine what I would have to do to obtain the evidence that would support any one of my beliefs, I cannot imagine being able to do this for all of my beliefs. I believe too much; there is too much relevant evidence (much of it available only after extensive, specialized training); intellect is too small and life too short.

What are we as epistemologists to say about all these beliefs? If I, without the available evidence, nevertheless believe a proposition, are my belief and I in that belief necessarily irrational or non-rational? Is my belief then mere belief (Plato's right opinion)? If not, why not? Are there other good reasons for believing propositions, reasons which do not reduce to having evidence for the truth of those propositions? What would these reasons look like?

In this paper I want to consider the idea of intellectual authority, particularly that of experts. I want to explore the "logic" or epistemic structure of an appeal to intellectual authority and the way in which such an appeal constitutes justification for believing and knowing.

(Epistemic Dependence, by John Hardwick, Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 82, No. 7, July. 1985). A problem arises when we rely on experts in a situation where those experts disagree with one another, even on the same set of facts:

Alvin Goldman has criticized the idea that, when evaluating the opinions of experts who disagree, a novice should "go by the numbers". Although Goldman is right that this is often a bad idea, his argument involves an appeal to a principle, which I call the non-independence principle, which is not in general true. Goldman's formal argument for this principle depends on an illegitimate assumption, and the examples he uses to make it seem
intuitively plausible are not convincing. The failure of this principle has significant implications, not only for the issue Goldman is directly addressing, but also for the epistemology of rumors, and for our understanding of the value of epistemic independence. I conclude by using the economics literature on information cascades to highlight an important truth which Goldman's principle gestures toward, and by mounting a qualified defense of the practice of going by the numbers.

(When Experts Disagree, by David Coady, Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2006). This is an ancient problem which has been handled in different ways that result in divergent solution paths, but with no absolute conclusions.

This blog has discussed the issue of how our jurisprudence deals with conflicting expert testimony in the post Why Trial By Jury?, how experts can be very wrong in the post What Is Pseudo Science? (cf. The Appendix of Vestigial Textbooks), and Dredd Blog has discussed "scientific faith" in various contexts in the post Heretics Deny The Dark Matter of Faith.

The bottom line is that none of us, whether scientists or religionists, should get arrogant about our beliefs to the point of exalting "our knowledge" over the "knowledge" of others.

Instead, we should always remember that expert or non-expert material we rely on does not give us actual, direct knowledge of the vast majority of subjects we deal with:

Knowledge is invariably a matter of degree: you cannot put your finger upon even the simplest datum and say "this we know."

(T.S. Eliot). The danger of reliance on the seats of power for knowledge is the essence of Toxins of Power Blog posts, so you will see the words "hypothesis" and "theory" used often, in place of an assertion of absolute knowledge.

Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power - 3

2011-12-11T09:44:00.011-06:00

In this series we have been discussing the source, or the origin, of the toxins of power.

If such toxins do in fact exist, where do they originate, how then do they make their way into the thinking, whether conscious or subconscious, of a person in power, and how do they then affect the thinking of that person in power?

We began this current series at the level of microbes, specifically human - microbe symbiosis (microbes within humans).

Then we zeroed in on phages and prions, to get a bit closer, because microbes are much larger than those viruses that impact them.

So we looked closer and deeper, down all the way to prions and phages in the post Are Toxins of Power Machines or Organisms?

Those prions and phages may be tinier than microbes, but still they pack quite a punch.

In the case of prions, they can and do cause major damage; for example they cause what we call "mad cow disease".

It would be tempting to stop there to remark that "mad cow disease" and dysfunctional politicians in power are very similar, so prions must be the source of toxins of power.

Yet, we can dispense with that populism and focus on actual data, because we have an example to work with, an example of a specific dementia in humans caused by prions.

That human dementia is called "kuru":

Kuru is an extremely rare form of dementia ... like ... mad cow disease ... [it] was the first transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (prion disease) discovered in humans ... involved eating the brain of the dead to show respect in mourning.

(Health Central, Kuru). We can conclude (since prions cause that dementia, and since those prions get into a person by that person's eating of the brain of their human ancestor) as follows:

1) prions are inside human brains,

2) prions survive some adverse conditions (cooking),

3) prions survive the human digestive system (acids),

4) prions somehow become reactivated thereafter,

5) prions morph then affect the new host human brain,

6) in a seriously damaging way,

7) causing a specific dementia.

The first question that came to my mind was "why didn't those prions cause dementia in the ancestor" before the ancestor died, and a descendant ate the brain?

That question was answered by further review of the research into kuru:

A common coding polymorphism at codon 129 of the prion protein gene (PRNP), where either methionine (M) or valine (V) may be encoded, is a strong susceptibility factor for human prion diseases.

(New England Journal of Medicine, emphasis added). The answer, then, is that the prions must go through a morph, a change, that is, polymorphism, before they induce dementia.

Thus, let's modify the hypothesis of this series, at least for this post, to say that "Prions Generate Toxins of Power", and use the dynamics of kuru dementia to lay the foundation.

We see by the kuru example that the morph can take place with physical ingestion.

We have seen with other examples, prior to this series, when we looked at the morph of memes taking place within the brain, that memetic morph can take place without physical ingestion (see A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes - 3).

For example, if we say that Stockholm Syndrome is a form of dementia, then we know that some dementia can be caused without alien prion incursion into the brain.

That is, a person can contract Stockholm Syndrome without external, physical influence in the form of ingesting foreign prions, because that syndrome manifests internally by way of psychological shock to human cognition.

Let's conclude by considering the hypothesis that the influence of power causes some prions to go through polymorphism, which negatively impacts the human cells or symbiont microbes that those prions thereafter invade, causing a domino effect beginning with brain cells or microbe symbionts, which thereafter affects the thinking of the person in power.

This is not a stretch, because even as we blog, damage to prions, phages, or microbes themselves is resulting in a change in behavior to certain fungi microbes that are, as a result, destroying amphibians worldwide:

The crisis of global amphibian extinctions is profound, it is changing ecological systems in ways that we barely understand, and it is teaching us painful lessons about research and conservation. Amid all of the horrible environmental insults we inflict upon the planet’s biodiversity, Rabbs’ fringe-limbed treefrog did not disappear in the wild because of overharvest for food, pets, or science, and we cannot lay the blame on familiar threats such as deforestation, climate change or environmental pollution. The culprit was emerging infectious disease. Amphibian chytridiomycosis is capable of directly eradicating otherwise large and stable populations and directly causing extinction of species that are otherwise unthreatened.

Amphibian chytridiomycosis is a disease caused by the recently discovered chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis.

(Lessons of The Lost, emphasis added). Amphibians have co-existed with fungi microbes for millions of years, so this all-of-a-sudden change in those microbes has very recent polymorphism of a bad sort as its source or origin.

If this were to happen to a symbiont microbe species in humans, then we could expect an adverse impact on human cognition.

If a future post we will look at ways that could take place, using the Lakoff model.

That model includes the embodied thinking metaphor, which ties nicely into the recent microbiology discoveries that some microbes within us are symbiont to us.

Noting the power microbes have to do significant chemistry, and impose on the "constantly changing brain", we can easily develop this part of the hypothesis into a working dynamic model.

The next post in this series is here.

An Example Of An Antitoxin - 2

2011-11-17T15:23:00.014-06:00

In the first post of this series, we showed an example of what the 99% must do to curtail the oppression of the 1%, beginning with standing up for human rights.

We have also expressed that the sentiments of Karl Marx, as well as the sentiments of Americans who feel that the 99% can overcome the 1%, will not pan out.

The Dredd Blog system disagreed with them in the post The Impact of The Toxins of Power on Evolution, not because we don't identify with the 99% (we do), but because the American system is now a plutocracy with a plutonomy that plunders the 99%, and too many of the 99% suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

At the same time we hope we are wrong about that.

The effects of the toxins of power are obvious sometimes, so even though this blog ponders various ideas about how corruption of power takes place at the microscopic and cognitive levels, at the same we realize that oppression is out in the open for all to see.

Make no mistake about it, we have to keep a focus on the wrongs that allowed the 1% to complete the coup, to plunder America, and thereafter harm the populace.

Likewise, those who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, who think that the military produces our freedoms, are ill advised.

The following video shows a person from the grass roots of America, an honorable member of the 99%, who are the real heroes and who used to also be "the government" (of the people, by the people, for the people):

Are Toxins of Power Machines or Organisms?

2011-10-30T09:42:00.031-05:00

In the ongoing discussion concerning microbes, specifically human - microbe symbiosis, we have considered the part that symbiosis might play in the concept of "toxins of power".

Now seems like a good time to pause to go into a deeper focus, down beyond microbes, down into a deeper look into the universe of tiny things smaller than microbes.

So, today we will focus on "microbial viruses", the "virus" world that impacts only microbes.

"Viruses" are "viruses" except where microbes are concerned, in which case we encounter instead the words "prions" and "phages", which can equate to microbe infectors.

Even though these are tiny entities that are much, much smaller than the unseen world of the much larger microbe, they have a major impact on microbes, because they infect microbes in various ways.

The drawing shown in this post is of a "Bacteriophage T4" virus particle, an entity discussed in principle and more at length below.

Another valid reason to do this pause so as to consider phages and prions instead of microbes only, is because we know that the great bulk and majority of microbes are helpful, even essential to life, rather than being a danger to life.

That includes human life.

But since prions and phages are not of the same ilk, in that they are primarily mischievous, let's insert them into the hypothesis we are formulating to consider the origin of the toxins of power.

But first, let's briefly focus on the theory of the evolution of elements, called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, a span of time when the first elements are said to have been formed.

Following that short period of time, the first "machines", which are more complicated compositions of various basic elements, called molecules, are said to have been formed.

Then cells are said to have developed from those molecular machines:

"Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said.

(Putting A Face On Machine Mutation, emphasis added). But perhaps even before that prions and phages developed, because there is ongoing debate as to whether or not they are living or non-living (i.e. machine or organism):

When is a life form not a life form? When it's a virus.

Viruses are strange things that straddle the fence between living and non-living. On the one hand, if they're floating around in the air or sitting on a doorknob, they're inert. They're about as alive as a rock. But if they come into contact with a suitable plant, animal or bacterial cell, they spring into action. They infect and take over the cell like pirates hijacking a ship.

(Microbe World). The controversy over viruses has stark contrasts which can be applied to prions and phages too:

Viruses are a curious lot. The standard drawing of the tree of life, the one you find on the inside back cover of biology textbooks, is divided into three branches: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. Viruses don’t make it onto the page.

That makes sense, some scientists argue, because they’re not alive. They can’t reproduce on their own; they require the cozy environment of living cells for their survival. Others disagree. Not only are viruses alive, they say, but genetic evidence indicates that they may have been the first forms of life on Earth, predating cellular life.

(Astrobiology). So, some scientists believe that viruses, which are more machine like, came before organic cellular life, which makes more sense to me, in terms of a logical sequence.

That theoretical sequence would then be:

1) neutrons & protons, 2) elements, 3) molecules, 4) complex molecules ("molecular machines") like the prion, 5) phages, 6) more complex viruses, then 7) single cell organisms.

That sequence would move from the very simple, to slightly more complex, then on to very complex, so it would appear to be a more logical sequence.

Our "Bacteriophage T4", shown in the drawing at the top of the post, which does sorta look machine-like anyway, would fit into sequence #4 or sequence #5.

Microbes would fit into sequence #7, thus the answer to the question, in the title of this post, depends on whether phages generate the toxins or whether microbes do so.

Whether or not viruses, phages, or toxins of power are considered to be machine or organism, in the upcoming development of the hypothesis, we will also consider prions and phages when we consider ideas about the toxins of power.

UPDATE: A scientific paper published in Science contains this abstract:

The processes responsible for the evolution of key innovations, whereby lineages acquire qualitatively new functions that expand their ecological opportunities, remain poorly understood. We examined how a virus, bacteriophage λ, evolved to infect its host, Escherichia coli, through a novel pathway. Natural selection promoted the fixation of mutations in the virus’s host-recognition protein, J, that improved fitness on the original receptor, LamB, and set the stage for other mutations that allowed infection through a new receptor, OmpF. These viral mutations arose after the host evolved reduced expression of LamB, whereas certain other host mutations prevented the phage from evolving the new function. This study shows the complex interplay between genomic processes and ecological conditions that favor the emergence of evolutionary innovations.

(Repeatability and Contingency, Science, Jan. 2012, italics added). There is an entire unknown world out there upon which to base our belief system.

Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power - 2

2011-10-07T04:25:00.027-05:00

Regular readers of Toxins of Power blog probably also read other websites or blogs that deal with the issue of "corrupting power".

We note that Psychology Today, no piker by any means, purported to answer the question about how what we call "power" corrupts leaders in office.

But that article, which we reference and link to below, never attempts to even define "power", rather, it only goes through a reasoning process that bifurcates "power" into "social" power contrasted with "personal" power.

That Psychology Today article goes on to state that even though the answer to the question "why and how does power corrupt leaders?" is complex, it is nevertheless "fairly clear":

The answer is complex, but fairly clear. Leadership is at its core all about power and influence. Leaders use their power to get things done. A simple distinction is between two forms of power. Socialized power is power used to benefit others. We hope that our elected officials have this sort of power in mind and are primarily concerned with the best interests of their constituents.

The other form of power is called personalized power, and it is using power for personal gain.

(Psychology Today, emphasis added). That article goes on to say that leaders can also become "intoxicated" by power, which implies a toxic element, a toxin of power, without further explaining the notion of a toxin that "intoxicates".

Meanwhile, the Toxins of Power blog has continually attempted to answer the question: "why does power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely?", and we have tried to do so in multiple ways.

We have even alluded to a possible "mystical" aspect of the notion of "power", as well as toxins of power, but we never stopped there just because sometimes the type of "power" that corrupts humans may sometimes seem to be a "mysterious" notion.

No, we plod along, and we recently began a series where we postulate that, in light of recent microbiology research, perhaps microbes are players in forming those "hard to figure" toxins of power.

In the previous post of this series, it was determined that:

In the next post of this series we will review the impact that pollution has on the environment, specifically on microbes, then tie that data into the hypothesis.

From there we can follow the domino effect that pollution could have on microbial performance.

Moving on from there, in light of these recent discoveries set forth above, we can follow the impact on symbiont microbes on to potential impact on our human cognition.

That is, we will move from potential impact in general on toward the impact on specific symbiont microbes that could cause, in turn, specific behavior impacting the generation of toxins of power.

(Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power). It doesn't take long to determine that anthropogenic pollution, at least in terms of environmental pollution outside of the human-microbe symbiotic community, is difficult to isolate as a participant in the development of toxins of power.

If we look back into human history, back to the first empires such as Egypt or Akkad, we can clearly see what we could identify as corruption by power caused by the toxins of power, but we can't find the massive, destructive episodes of environmental pollution that endangers civilization on a massive scale like we have in today's world.

So, at a macro level it would seem, at least at first blush, that any microbial participation in the production of the toxins of power is innate to the symbiotic relationship itself, whether generated primarily by human cells, by microbial cells, or by both in concert.

This general conclusion is supported by recent experimental evidence:

We therefore studied the expression of these genes in the frontal cortex, striatum, amygdala, and hippocampus of GF and SPF mice, by means of in situ hybridization technique. In GF mice, NGFI-A mRNA expression was significantly lower in various subregions of the prefrontal cortex, including the orbital frontal cortex (Fig. 4 A and A′); as well as in the striatum (GF vs. SPF: 329 ± 33 vs. 586 ± 18, P < 0.0001), hippocampus (CA1 region, GF vs. SPF: 258 ± 15 vs. 499 ± 22, P < 0.0001; CA3 region, GF vs. SPF: 166 ± 13 vs. 236 ± 6, P < 0.001; dentate gyrus, GF vs. SPF: 76 ± 4 vs. 113 ± 5, P < 0.0001) and amygdala (GF vs. SPF: 126 ± 17 vs. 212 ± 19, P < 0.01) compared with SPF mice. Similarly, GF mice had significantly lower BDNF mRNA expression in the hippocampus, amygdala (Fig. 4 B and B′), and cingulate cortex (GF vs. SPF: 162 ± 6 vs. 193 ± 10, P < 0.05), which are key components of the neural circuitry underlying anxiety and fear ... Our results suggest that during evolution, the colonization of gut microbiota has become integrated into the programming of brain development, affecting motor control and anxiety-like behavior.

(National Academy of Sciences, emphasis added). These data show that when microbe free (GF) subjects are compared to the other subjects that are not microbe free, almost a doubling of relevant factors, in certain areas, occurs in the Amygdala.

That is significant to the hypothesis, because previous posts on this blog have shown the Amygdala to be a critical potential factor in the corruption by power.

Thus, we can conclude this post by noting that we have moved ever closer to identifying potential mechanisms, systems, or environments wherein toxins of power can emerge.

We can also conclude that, while massive, environmental, modern pollution could still be a factor in contributing to toxins that lead to corruption by power, that environmental pollution can not be a sole source of toxins of power, nor can it be the original source of the toxins of power on this planet, because corruption by power has been around longer than massive modern pollution has been around.

Thus, in upcoming posts, Toxins of Power blog intends to explore the issue further, keeping those conclusions in mind.

The next post in this series is here.

Here is a relevant biology class about microbes. At the beginning is information only for the students, so move the locator to where the actual lecture starts at 5:30 into the video:

What Is Pseudo Science?

2011-10-06T08:27:00.021-05:00

There are times in history when science has become a political tool.

In such times the participants become more interested in supporting the ruling elite than in establishing independent and unbiased practices and methods with which to discern physical reality around us.

Sometimes it is the common people who practice pseudoscience but at other times, surprisingly, it is the scientific community itself that practices pseudoscience.

The development of "germ theory" is one stark example.

If you could ask Ignaz Semmelweis he just might say pseudoscience is "the kind of science that rejects the obvious, then has a violent reaction towards those who don't reject the obvious":

Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died of septicemia, at age 47.

(Ignaz Semmelweis, emphasis added). Galileo or Copernicus would have similar notions, as would modern scientists who also experienced blinding bias during their scientific careers.

Some people today think that climate scientists who declare that global warming is happening are hoaxers, that is, pseudo scientists, thus the problem:

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications as well as philosphical and scientific issues. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.

(Wikipedia). It is further illustrated by the notion of jury trials, where scientific experts will testify about their credentials, then have opposite conclusions on the same set of facts.

There are actually science police who may try to enforce absolutism, but sometimes run into problems since one man's pseudoscience is another man's science.

Most of the time the issue can be decided clearly, but not always, as with so many human endeavors.

The toxins of power do not stop at the laboratory door.

The scientist in the video below was considered, by establishment scientists, to be a heretic when she first postulated what is now considered to be basic:

Dr. Margulis passed away in November of 2011 (Washington Post). She wanted a new 9/11 investigation conducted using forensic scientific methods (Architects).

Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power

2011-09-25T08:55:00.011-05:00

This blog has been moving from a macro level view of toxins of power, then excavating down ever deeper and deeper, beginning with ancient concepts then moving down all the way into hot current research.

To put it another way, during this journey we have been excavating deeper, beginning from macro-level circumstantial observation, then digging downward into meme theory, and now we are going even deeper, down to the very foundations, using earth shaking recent microbiology research.

This post, today, concerns the implications of known symbiotic conditions between microbes and humans.

One implication leads to a hypothesis that this post will set forth: microbes are one suspect source for the origin of toxins of power.

(Before we move on in this post to expand upon that hypothesis, let's remember that some of us react negatively to information that would challenge what we already know.

That is why researchers, who happen to find out that our current knowledge on a given topic is in error, can have a difficult time presenting their discovery to the rest of us for validation.

Now, jumping into some macro considerations for a moment, I am aware that religionists will tend to think that the toxins of power originate with a different source, while others, whether religionists or not, may think that the hypothesis of this post violates the notions of dualism.

Let me just say that those concepts are beyond the scope of this post's hypothesis, and even if one or all of them are correct, it does not ipso facto disprove this hypothesis.)

The great bulk of microbes are good for us, such as the diatoms in the graphic above, and are even essential sources of food and other necessities for life on Earth.

So, to soften the potential impact on our built-in bias this hypothesis "microbes are one suspect source for the origin of toxins of power" may have, I will start off with some quotes in order to set some parameters indicating the scope of the power of microbes.

In a recent post Toxins of Power Blog pointed out:

Single-celled microorganisms were the first forms of life to develop on Earth, approximately 3–4 billion years ago. Further evolution was slow, and for about 3 billion years in the Precambrian eon, all organisms were microscopic.

...

Microbes may indeed be subtly changing our brain early on — and for what purposes we cannot yet say. The article would imply that this interaction is beneficial to us, and thus indirectly to our microbiota, but the mere fact that microorganisms can shape our minds brings up many more questions about how humans develop their identity.

(A Structure RE: The Corruption of Memes, quoting, inter alia, microbiologists at The American Society of Microbiology). Note next, the quirky information about when microbes begin to have some effect on us:

The first 9 months of our existence – the time we spend in our mother's womb – is the only period of our life during which we are free of microbes. Our delivery from this parasitic existence into the outside world exposes us to an enormous range of microbes from a variety of environments – our first encounter with life forms which have an anatomy, physiology, and metabolism very different from those of our own.

(An Introduction to the Human–microbe Symbiosis). It seems strange to me that microbes are "hands off" during our embryonic phase, waiting until our mother gives birth to us before initiating symbiosis, but lets move on.

A quote from "An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective on Human–microbe Mutualism and Disease" is offered so as to quickly set one corner of the foundation of the hypothesis:

"For example, microbial symbionts that secrete molecules that inhibit host pathogens (known as pathogen interference) or detoxify compounds that harm the host can augment the lifespan and reproductive capacity of the host, thereby giving the symbionts more opportunities to spread."

(NATURE, Vol 449, p. 811, 10/18/07, emphasis added). Our symbiont microbes fight pathogens which could cause disease in us, as if those microbes were part of what we have always considered to be our human immune system.

To that let me add that we know that microbes can do things within the realm of quantum physics:

A team of University of Toronto chemists have made a major contribution to the emerging field of quantum biology, observing quantum mechanics at work in photosynthesis in marine algae.

"There's been a lot of excitement and speculation that nature may be using quantum mechanical practices," says chemistry professor Greg Scholes, lead author of a new study published in Nature. "Our latest experiments show that normally functioning biological systems have the capacity to use quantum mechanics in order to optimize a process as essential to their survival as photosynthesis."

(Tiniest Scientists Are Very Old, emphasis added). I think we can see that it is really not a stretch to contemplate that a microbial symbiont within us has abilities to fabricate molecules, and that perhaps in so doing they have ability to resort to lower level work at the quantum physics level.

We are informed that the science concerning human-microbe symbiosis is itself embryonic, and has a great distance to go:

"Researchers have only just begun to describe the microbial communities that are associated with humans and the extent of the interactions between host and microbiota. Understanding this symbiotic ‘landscape’ will require research that spans the biological hierarchy from molecules to communities and is informed by ecological and evolutionary theory. Only with an integrated approach will it be possible to comprehend the complex ecology of human health and the many ways in which interactions between humans and microorganisms can go awry. The first step in improving our understanding is to describe the composition of microbial communities in each habitat of the human body and how this varies over time, among individuals and with respect to variables such as diet, host genotype and health status. This project is now in its early stages, with the first successful forays having laid the groundwork for more ambitious studies, such as the Human Microbiome Project."

(ibid, NATURE,p. 817). Nevertheless, the impact some of these discoveries have already had ought not to be underestimated:

Several recent studies highlight remarkable examples of how a co-evolved microbiota can markedly affect host biology at the molecular level, and these findings call for a complete re-examination of human physiology and immunology. Attributes that were assumed to be human traits have been shown to result from human–microbe interactions.

(ibid, NATURE,p. 817, emphasis added). The phrase "a complete re-examination of human physiology and immunology" is earth shaking in its own right, but that earth shaking does not stop there:

Microbial colonization of mammals is an evolution-driven process that modulate host physiology, many of which are associated with immunity and nutrient intake. Here, we report that colonization by gut microbiota impacts mammalian brain development and subsequent adult behavior. Using measures of motor activity and anxiety-like behavior, we demonstrate that germ free (GF) mice display increased motor activity and reduced anxiety, compared with specific pathogen free (SPF) mice with a normal gut microbiota. This behavioral phenotype is associated with altered expression of genes known to be involved in second messenger pathways and synaptic long-term potentiation in brain regions implicated in motor control and anxiety-like behavior. GF mice exposed to gut microbiota early in life display similar characteristics as SPF mice, including reduced expression of PSD-95 and synaptophysin in the striatum. Hence, our results suggest that the microbial colonization process initiates signaling mechanisms that affect neuronal circuits involved in motor control and anxiety behavior.

(Normal Gut Microbiota Modulates Brain Development and Behavior, emphasis added). Earth shaking indeed.

In the next post of this series we will review the impact that pollution has on the environment, specifically on microbes, then tie that data into the hypothesis.

From there we can follow the domino effect that pollution could have on microbial performance.

Moving on from there, in light of these recent discoveries set forth above, we can follow the impact on symbiont microbes on to potential impact on our human cognition.

That is, we will move from potential impact in general on toward the impact on specific symbiont microbes that could cause, in turn, specific behavior impacting the generation of toxins of power.

The purpose of developing that pathway is to tighten up the hypothesis (build a reasonable, valid nexus) as we move along forward, from post to post.

The next post in this series is here.

A Structure RE: The Corruption of Memes - 4

2011-08-17T17:00:00.028-05:00

In this series we have been thinking about how memes within our memory can morph.

That is, how they can evolve from one meme into a different meme.

The astounding science concerning human gene - microbe symbiosis discussed in the Dredd Blog post The Tiniest Scientists Are Very Old - 2 calls for an additional approach to prior analysis of the notion of the toxins of power.

When I say "an additional approach to prior analysis of the notion of the toxins of power", I am in reference to prior analysis on this blog concerning how toxins of power may work on the human mind.

First of all, carefully consider this information about microbes:

Single-celled microorganisms were the first forms of life to develop on Earth, approximately 3–4 billion years ago. Further evolution was slow, and for about 3 billion years in the Precambrian eon, all organisms were microscopic. So, for most of the history of life on Earth the only forms of life were microorganisms. Bacteria, algae and fungi have been identified in amber that is 220 million years old, which shows that the morphology of microorganisms has changed little since the Triassic period.

Most microorganisms can reproduce rapidly and microbes such as bacteria can also freely exchange genes by conjugation, transformation and transduction between widely-divergent species. This horizontal gene transfer, coupled with a high mutation rate and many other means of genetic variation, allows microorganisms to swiftly evolve (via natural selection) to survive in new environments and respond to environmental stresses.

(Wikipedia, Microbes, emphasis added). Next, consider this bombshell of a concept so we can fuse this symbiotic reality into formal concern:

A recent paper by investigators from Sweden and Singapore reports on studies using a mouse model to demonstrate that the presence of the gut microbiota significantly influences the developing brain, influencing developmental pathways that affect both motor control and anxiety-related behaviors. The implications for human development are certainly not yet realized, but could be profound. Our anxiety, motor control, and even cognitive pathways are implicated in this paper. Microbes may indeed be subtly changing our brain early on — and for what purposes we cannot yet say. The article would imply that this interaction is beneficial to us, and thus indirectly to our microbiota, but the mere fact that microorganisms can shape our minds brings up many more questions about how humans develop their identity.

(Small Things Considered, a blog of microbiologists from The American Society of Microbiologists, emphasis added). The vast microbial world within our bodies and minds can have an effect on the composition of our brain, on our cognitive endeavors, on our thinking, yes, on our memes.

As such, the symbiotic relationship our minds have with microbes must be factored into the contemplation about how toxins of power corrupt memes, which in turn can eventually corrupt our behavior as well:

"Interactions of animals with their microbiota have a profound impact on their gene expression, and to create a stable association with a microorganism requires a lot of conversation between the microbe and the host," says UW-Madison medical microbiologist Margaret McFall-Ngai, senior author of the new study.

(Science Daily). Some cosmological considerations of "a lot of conversation between the microbe and the host" raises some interesting questions:

How did these early Earthly life forms arise? And did they include archae, bacteria, and eukaryotes? Joseph and colleagues (Joseph 2009a; Joseph and Schild 2010ab; Joseph and Wickramasinghe 2010) have detailed and reviewed a large volume of evidence suggesting life arrived here encased in the debris which formed the surface of this planet. By contrast, Russell and colleagues (Milner-White and Russell 2010; Nitschke and Russell 2010; Russell and Kanik 2010) have presented an impressive body of data indicating Earthly life (and even extraterrestrial life) may have been fashioned by the fortuitous mixture of the necessary chemicals within a watery thermal environment. Certainly early Earth was hot. Likewise, evidence of the earliest life was left in rocky formations bathed in water, i.e. banded iron formations consisting of alternating magnetite and quartz dated to 4.28 bya (O'Neil et al, 2008)

(Journal of Cosmology, emphasis added). That article presents a question as to whether or not microbial life originated here on Earth, or actually arrived later via comets or meteorite impacts (see photo at top of page). Lets add "or both".

Even if we consider that issue to be both controversial and undecided as to origins, we have other evidence of later incursions of extraterrestrial microbial life arising much later, after microbial life was already here on Earth and well established:

Richard Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies.

(Journal of Cosmology). So, we have scientists telling us of not only microbial influence on the functioning of human thinking and human genetics, but that that science is now followed up with the staggering potential that some of that microbial influence on human thinking may come from microbes from another world.

That brings us to the subject of the toxins of power that corrupt human thinking when humans are exposed to power (but do not thereafter take steps to immunize themselves from those toxins).

Here at Toxins of Power Blog we have focused on the Amygdala as one area where toxins do their work, but we have also pointed out that memetic morph can take place in the memory of a person.

We have also, while contemplating the source of ecocidal thinking, hypothesized that ecocide is the result of toxins of power corrupting the thinking of people in power.

We have even wondered whether a civilization can even bring about its own extinction by destroying its ecosystem, its environment, its home, without first having been infected with a corrupt alien thought pattern in some way.

Now, in this post we can say that we have evidence that microbes play a part in human thinking as well as human genetics, and that if destructive, ecocidal thinking was part of some alien culture whose microbes reached the Earth, it could likewise infect our thinking.

Why on Earth otherwise would humanity destroy itself or its civilization unless it was infected with some cognitive sickness?

A Dredd Blog post, "The Undiscovered Side of Science & Life - 3" takes this subject a bit further.

This post is in the context of a scientific explanation for the mystery of how the toxins of power work on the human mind.

A post a while back discusses the religious view of how toxins of power work on the human mind.

This blog is developing a hypothesis that toxins of power originate in the microbial world.

For levity, an electron microscope, which makes things look zillions of times larger, took this revealing shot of alien microbes interacting with the human genome:

These Are Not The Droids You Are Looking For

2011-06-20T12:22:00.026-05:00

We all remember the Star Wars series.

Most will probably remember the episode where the Jedi Obi-Wan Kenobi did a "Jedi mind trick", using the words "these are not the droids you are looking for" when he was helping the Rebels (YouTube).

That popular sci-fi movie illustrated the hypothesis that memes in memory can be changed.

As this blog has illustrated with science fact, not fiction, there is a growing change in direction, within scientific circles, a change in direction that is heading toward the conclusion that toxins of power can corrupt the pattern of memes even while they are in memory.

The following video has a similar theme, i.e., that the government has done a mind trick on vast numbers of people by using the MOMCOM media to spread propaganda.

The individual being interviewed in the video below is an explosives expert (the attached videos after the first are not recommended).

Specifically he is an expert who has experience working for the famous Controlled Demolition, Inc., a company that does controlled demolition of large structures:

Here is a video of a Nebraska nuclear power plant in trouble due to flooding, a situation that was originally guarded to keep most people unaware:

The powers that be shut down that video, so here is another one:

Propaganda is a function caused by the toxins of power.

The "toxins of power" is a theory of our forefathers who felt that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes - 3

2011-05-28T10:31:00.026-05:00

In a couple of posts within a couple of series here on Toxins of Power Blog, such as A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes and Phase One & Two: Toxin v Meme, we advanced the hypothetical notion that memes in memory can be morphed.

That is, they can change into a different structure, a variant meme, while still in memory, a notion that is resisted by some scientists.

In those posts we specifically advanced the notion that the toxins of power alone could trigger such a morph.

Then in the post The Toxic Bridge To Everywhere, we added another specific mechanism whereby the toxins of power could trigger such a morph by working within an already existing structure in the subconscious Amygdala.

A new study supports such a notion, and like this series, challenges an existing theory:

The team's study challenges the theory that memories cannot be modified once they are stored in the brain.

(Science Daily). The study shows how certain drugs can cause memory morphs by unlinking certain threads of memory.

But at another level, in another context, the realm of marketing, certain researchers in that discipline are quite bold to declare that memory in the brain can be morphed:

A group of US marketing researchers claim that brand owners can make their customers believe they had a better experience of a product or service than they really did by bombarding them with positive messages after the event. Advocates of the technique, known as "memory morphing", claim it can be used to improve customers' perceptions of products and encourage them to repeat their purchases and recommend brands to friends.

"When asked, many consumers insist that they rely primarily on their own first-hand experience with products – not advertising – in making purchasing decisions. Yet, clearly, advertising can strongly alter what consumers remember about their past, and thus influence their behaviours," he writes in his book, How Customers Think. He says that memories are malleable, changing every time they come to mind, and that brands can use this to their advantage. "What consumers recall about prior product or shopping experiences will differ from their actual experiences if marketers refer to those past experiences in positive ways," he continues.

(Memory Morphing in Advertising, emphasis added). Actually, this realm is described elsewhere as a gigantic business which has itself morphed from product marketing into the political arena known as marketing "political products".

The world renowned linguist Noam Chomsky points out that it is common practice to market politicians in a manner not at all unlike the advertising of a commercial product:

And one of the striking features of the modern period is the institutionalization of that process, so that we now have huge industries deceiving the public — and they're very conscious about it, the public relations industry. Interestingly, this developed in the freest countries — in Britain and the US—roughly around time of WWI, when it was recognized that enough freedom had been won that people could no longer be controlled by force. So modes of deception and manipulation had to be developed in order to keep them under control.

And by now these are huge industries. They not only dominate marketing of commodities, but they also control the political system. As anyone who watches a US election knows, it's marketing. It's the same techniques that are used to market toothpaste.

(Noam Chomsky, emphasis added). It is the specific intent of an election team to convince you, during a re-election campaign, that your experience with the candidate was better than you thought it was.

That is just like the marketers who seek to morph your memory about the use of a commodity, a product you have been using, into a better recollection than what you actually experienced ("brand owners can make their customers believe they had a better experience of a product or service than they really did", see "Memory Morphing in Advertising" link above) .

The event alluded to above, this "changing of the mind", requires a morph of the type we have been discussing in this series, i.e., the corruption of memes.

In this series memetic memory morph ("meme corruption") has now been demonstrated to occur, whether such corruption comes by deliberate actions, by personal experience within a meme complex, or by some subconscious working of the toxins of power upon memes in an individual's memory via some manipulation of the amygdala.

An Example Of An Antitoxin

2011-05-12T12:03:00.006-05:00

The citizen in the video below is an example of a carrier of an antitoxin to the toxins of power.

This particular situation has to do with unreasonable searches and seizures described in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This blog has provided formulas for calculating when the toxins of power may affect the behavior of officials.

Those formulas include the factor of antitoxins.

We can add this: one who has proper knowledge of the constitution is an antitoxin carrier, which is demonstrated clearly by this individual who is caught up in a place where the toxins have caused an obvious power-disease outbreak.

He uses the antitoxins to inoculate those infected officials who, coincidently, should be grateful to him, not resentful.

He is an example we all need to emulate, because this guy prevailed because he knew his rights and stood up for them.

They did not search his car:

Sovereign Immunity Source: Toxins of Power?

2011-04-02T07:35:00.030-05:00

One of the primary antitoxins to the toxins of power is accountability.

That is no surprise.

But what may be a surprise to a lot of people is how the toxins of power promulgate through a political system to eventually transform that political system until it reaches the maximum intoxication level.

How that intoxicated political system then morphs further to become the "perfect" authoritarian state may also seem a bit surprising to many:

... research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a would-be dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said, “What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

(The Authoritarians, page 81, PDF). Authoritarian followers are those who believe that "the king can do no wrong" making them asymptomatic carriers of the toxins of power:

The Government presents an impressive array of theories which would preclude it from any liability ... we ... hold that the Government should escape unscathed ... It is often said that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is a derivative of the common law maxim "The King can do no wrong." But conceptually it is far older. Zeus himself carried an aegis or breastplate, a buckler, and a thunderbolt which made him, the mythological sovereign, immune from all that could beset him. And common law provided its sovereign with the immunity of Zeus ... The tide of history is running clearly against the concept of sovereign immunity. The disfavor into which the doctrine has fallen was observed as far back as ... 1939 ... [and] this Court pointed out that the assault upon the citadel of immunity continues presently apace.

(The Battle of Immunities And Diseases). It really is no secret that the judicial system of the USA became infected with the toxins of power early on:

During that legendary era when royal fictions were being conceived and cherished, it is said that a court favorite returning from afar brought home to his Queen a highly decorative undergarment for the royal legs. Details leaked to the peasants, and the incident became the object of much idle speculation and some embellishment. Suspecting that the Queen's carefully concealed legs had become the table topic of the realm, the court one day officially decreed: "The Queen has no legs". So was another royal fiction born. Thanks to what might loosely be called keen judicial notice, this one was never a part of the common law. Even in American legal circles it has been generally conceded that the anatomy of a female sovereign differs neither in form nor substance from the standard of a reasonable woman. But other fictions of the resourceful and imaginative European courts have proved hardier, and some, like "the King can do no wrong", survived transplanting to a completely foreign political climate to thrive as conspicuous anachronisms. The royal fiction of sovereign immunity has long been the despair of American legal writers. Legislatively, piecemeal attacks on it date from the mid-nineteenth century. But the doctrine has been jealously guarded in the courts, statutes purporting to waive immunity have been strictly construed, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed sovereign immunity in tort claims. Against this backdrop, pressures for a federal statute ameliorating the harsh immunity doctrines being pursued in federal courts mounted steadily in the early decades of the twentieth century.

(Twilight Zone of Federal Tort, page one, emphasis added). That "transplanting to a completely foreign political climate to thrive" was only possible because the authoritarian followers whose cognitive abilities have been infected by the massive propaganda engine hidden in their midst, "let it be".

They became the foreigners their forefathers had left behind in England because the toxins of power never sleep nor slumber.

Now we wonder "Is The Empress Taking Off Her Clothes" ("the Queen has no legs"?), is the Queen "The Virgin MOMCOM", or is "The Empire Strikes Back" the rule of law now?

All of which is to say "how deep and wide is the infection" of the toxins of power in the USA now?

If a very recent decision of the Supreme Court is any indication, the infection is very deep indeed.

A man was falsely convicted when the prosecutor had the evidence to prove he was innocent. He faced the death sentence seven times over 18 years.

Someone discovered the evidence, he was freed, and a jury awarded him $14 million.

The Five Supremes said the king can do no wrong if it is the first time.

The Toxic Bridge To Everywhere

2010-11-14T05:24:00.046-06:00

The bridge to nowhere received a lot of media cover, so lets discuss the bridge to everywhere, the way toxins of power get anywhere and everywhere a seat of power exists.

This blog has previously considered the territory that the toxin of power inhabits, in the sense of idea propagation or meme propagation (group dynamics).

Likewise this blog had a series which discussed how toxins of power can cause ideological change or "memetic morph", once ideas or memes are in memory.

Now in this post Toxins of Power Blog will try to get to the nitty gritty, try to get to the main entry point where the toxins of power produce the initial trigger which intoxicates / morphs ideas or memes within the memory of the brain.

That place where the toxins of power begin their mysterious work is called the Amygdala (see also "the lizard brain", a.k.a. "the reptilian brain", not the same, but also strange).

This is a vast subject, however, if we stick to the fundamentals initially, there are elements that can be quickly and easily grasped:

The amygdala's response and regulation are thought to be critical to people's social behavior through the monitoring of daily life events such as danger signals.

(Science Daily, New Clues). Social behavior is a result, in some degree, of the dynamics of our amygdala:

During studies of the almond-shaped part of the brain called the amygdala – a region associated with processing emotions ... scientists have uncovered a cellular mechanism underlying the formation of emotional memories, which occurs in the presence of a well known stress hormone ... noradrenaline ... by controlling chemical and electrical pathways in the brain responsible for memory formation.

"This is a new way of understanding how neurons form long term memories in the amygdala," Dr Faber said.

"Our strongest and most vivid human memories are usually associated with strong emotional events such as those associated with extreme fear, love and rage."

"For many of us, our deepest memories are mental snapshots taken during times of high emotional impact or involvement," she said.

(Science Daily, Traumatic Memory). What this means is that ideas or memes that are already in memory, already part of a circuit, can be overridden in whole or in part by subsequent events, using either a technique or a phenomenon called fear conditioning, working on specific circuits:

There is a large amount of data indicating that the amygdala, a particular structure in the brain, is strongly involved during the learning of "conditioned" fear. However, until now, the underlying neuronal circuits have remained largely unknown.

Now, research ... has been able to identify, for the first time, distinct neuronal circuits within the central nucleus of the amygdala which are specifically involved in acquisition and control of behavioural fear responses.

(Scientific Daily, New Circuits). Long term use of such techniques or phenomenon can cause damage to the amygdala:

... a primitive region of the brain responsible for sensorimotor control also has an important role in regulating emotional responses to threatening situations. This region appears to work in concert with another structure called the amygdala to regulate social and emotional behavior ... researchers have recently discovered that activation of ... the deep layers of superior colliculus (DLSC), elicits defensive behaviors such as an exaggerated startle, hypervigilance, cowering, and escape. Researchers say it is possible that a prolonged activation of this defense system may lead to emotional disorders.

(Science Daily, Emotional Balance). These papers work hand in glove with previous posts on this blog.

For instance, in a series beginning with "A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes" we looked at how modification of ideas or memes can occur when circuits of memory are disrupted in individuals.

Then, in the post "The Territorial Realm of Toxins of Power" we attempted to graphically show how these mechanisms work on ideas or memes in the social group context we call meme complexes (see also "ruling group mind" below).

In conclusion, the toxins of power use circuits on the bridge of amygdala to get to existing ideas or memes, cause a morph, then those morphed ideas or memes propagate within a meme complex (social group), and then ultimately to areas outside that meme complex.

The article "What Orwell Didn't Know" by Professor George Lakoff is in accord with this post:

Probably 98 percent of your reasoning is unconscious - what your brain is doing behind the scenes. Reason is inherently emotional. You can't even choose a goal, much less form a plan and carry it out, without a sense that it will satisfy you, not disgust you. Fear and anxiety will affect your plans and your actions. You act differently, and plan differently, out of hope and joy than out of fear and anxiety.

Thought is physical. Learning requires a physical brain change: Receptors for neurotransmitters change at the synapses, which changes neural circuitry. Since thinking is the activation of such circuitry, somewhat different thinking requires a somewhat different brain. Brains change as you use them-even unconsciously. It's as if your car changed as you drove it, say from a stick shift gradually to an automatic.

(What Orwell Didn't Know, see this also). This blog hypothesizes that the toxins of power hijack the process of normal pattern formation in the brain circuitry, so as to convert that pattern into a corrupt pattern.

Thereafter, the meme complex (social group) helps propagate the corrupted idea or meme.

A classic example is detailed in a Dredd Blog post, where an individual knew that a memetic or ideological morph was taking place within his brain, but he was unable to get help or otherwise do anything about it.

Moving on to the civilization level, the issue of mass murder in the form of Ecocide engenders a discussion that focuses on subjects such as the meme complex, vaccime, and other group thinking, such as ruling group mind.

Toxic Germ > Toxic Seed > Toxic Monster

2010-11-06T12:05:00.003-05:00

Dredd Blog has a series entitled "Corp Germ > Corp seed > Corp Monster" which shows an evolution of corporations from a germ > to seed > to monster.

Since this blog focuses on underlying toxins of power to explain those types of corrupting events, this post will argue that the toxins of power can be traced or identified by watching that type of development within corporations.

The basic argument is that since corporations are a location for a centralization of power, if toxins of power exist, then they should be able to be found in various corporate footprints, corporate records.

Noam Chomsky recently commented on corporate leaders who are caught up in a meme complex infected to the hilt with the toxins of power:

“There is growing recognition that our financial system is running a doomsday cycle,” economists Peter Boone and Simon Johnson wrote in the Financial Times in January. “Whenever it fails, we rely on lax money and fiscal policies to bail it out. This response teaches the financial sector: Take large gambles to get paid handsomely, and don’t worry about the costs—they will be paid by taxpayers” through bailouts and other devices, and the financial system “is thus resurrected to gamble again—and to fail again.”

The doomsday metaphor also applies outside the financial world. The American Petroleum Institute, backed by the Chamber of Commerce and the other business lobbies, has intensified its efforts to persuade the public to dismiss concerns about anthropogenic global warming—with considerable success, as polls indicate. Among Republican congressional candidates in the 2010 election, virtually all reject global warming.

The executives behind the propaganda know that global warming is real, and our prospects grim. But the fate of the species is an externality that the executives must ignore, to the extent that market systems prevail. And the public won’t be able to ride to the rescue when the worst-case scenario unfolds.

(In These Times). What Noam is saying is that social policy and law compel corporate controllers to follow a path which, in the long term, is economically suicidal as well as being environmentally suicidal.

The central dynamic is a cycle of addiction which is criminally insane, because it will obviously lead to the doom of the system it is infecting, and most important for making it criminal, they know it.

This is the essence of toxins of power theory, that the toxins of power are an unseen, under the covers, and invisible government operating without any need for any conspiracy.

What Chomsky, Dredd Blog, Ecocosmology Blog, and a host of others are fingering is the mental, emotional, and spiritual state of denial.

That state of denial is essential for the seed, which came from the germ, to evolve into the monster, then do the damage.

A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes - 2

2010-10-25T09:11:00.022-05:00

In the first post of this series we talked about memetic morph whereby a meme changes through through the corruption of memory.

Some of the morph that takes place in such a case has been described in our series as a partial corruption of the strands of memes within an individual's memory.

One allegorical or symbolic example can be demonstrated by comparing what happens when there is a phenomenon that appears as an "innocent corruption of memory" described by Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr. engendered by the inaccurate reading of text.

Even this can lead to memetic morphs that generate corrupt memes then their propagation throughout a meme complex, and even beyond that.

A paper released recently, which we will shortly get to, informs us of a scenario where corruption can take place in a structural manner which could lead to promulgation of corrupted memes, even though the subject matter is scientific data that is not itself corrupt.

First however, lets consider the case of the memes of climate change skeptics & global warming deniers within the meme complex harboring the notion that global climate change & global warming are the greatest hoax ever fostered on humanity.

Some of their ilk hacked into servers (central computers) of climate scientists to steal database data, email records, and documents of other types.

Upon analysis of that stolen information they formulated the meme that scientists were fabricating data to the degree that reports constructed from the data was biased to the point of being fraudulent.

That meme spread far and wide and is still strong within the denier meme complex.

Clearly toxins of power were at work when theft was chosen as the method of discovery in place of logic, argument, and scientific debate.

But there are other ways memes can become corrupt in an innocent manner, well short of theft.

Take the case revealed by a recent paper mentioned above, pointing out what is called citation mutation (a form of morph):

Few scientific studies have attracted as much attention as the "Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4", published 40 years ago by Uli Laemmli. Referenced an estimated 2 x 105 times (about 15 daily citations), it is unavoidable that the article is often cited incorrectly. Indeed, database searches reveal more than 600 variations of the correct reference ...

The omission, addition or replacement of one character on the keyboard by another lead to variations that can be described in genetic terms and classified as deletions, insertions, point mutations and inversions of characters, or as complete nonsense mutations.

(Mutations of Citations, The Scientist). The mutation of citations can lead to memetic morph when the wrong citation leads to an unintended paper that has similar sounding text, but in actuality is different.

Governments do deliberate memetic morph activities during propaganda wars where HTML links are studied, then sometimes changed, when the government wants to continue to cover up activity it considers harmful to the image it wants to project to the public.

In the case of deliberate corruption we can see the work of toxins of power, but in the case of negligent or mistaken corruptions, the toxins of power move in later in the process, so that, they are not always the primary cause of memetic mutations or morphs.

The next post in this series is here.

The Toxins Corrupt Frames of Mind

2010-02-23T09:55:00.019-06:00

In a series of posts beginning here, we graphically depicted, in simple constructs, how a meme is stored in the "mind" and is transported via language into another mind.

This post is intended to expand upon that construct.

We will be focusing on the strands in the web that theoretically compose a meme, depicted by the globe of strands in the graphic above, to show that the extent of the meme reaches to more of an area than we traditionally conceive of as "memory".

In the original post we quoted Noam Chomsky, so in this post we will quote from George Lakoff, who was a student of Chomsky, and who is now sometimes said to be a proponent of some theories contrary to Chomsky.

Be that as it may, here we only want to learn from both of them as well as from other scientists, not to join one "side" or the other.

What Lakoff can add to our construct is that the composition of the strands of the web of a meme theoretically extend out to our bodies and to our emotions.

Using that extension we can see that the toxins of power work on an expansive field within those exposed to power, not just on the area covered by conventional notions of memory, but on reasoning, logic, and emotion as well.

But more than that, the toxins work on areas where cognitive frames of mind are interwoven together, that is, at the junctions such as morphemes, lexemes, and of course words.

There is an entire area of study dealing with the effects and purposes of "benign" propaganda or deceit, for example, showing that it is a massive endeavour.

One of the tactics utilized in that questionable endeavor is to change the meanings of words, for example, which would in turn change the structure of a meme and in some circumstances corrupt it.

As a recent example, recall the efforts to change the meme described by the word "torture" into the meme of "enhanced interrogation".

When any one of the components of a meme becomes corrupt, it can change the structure of that meme into a corrupt form, and thereby lead to propagation of that corruption.

Ecocide: Evidence Of Toxins of Power

2010-02-14T16:03:00.013-06:00

People have a love affair with their new cars it has been said.

Some are so intimate with their vehicle that they use them as a weapon when they commit suicide.

For whatever reason some people park the car, put a hose from the exhaust through the window to the inside, then get back inside and wait for oblivion.

Suicide.

That perverse "vehicular intimacy" seems to be a relationship we are having with the Earth.

About ten years ago the main stream media began to report about a garbage gyre in the pacific ocean, which was about twice the size of Texas.

Now, more is known about gyres, and we now find that there are Five Continents of Garbage floating in the various oceans:

Thus far, we've found plastic milk crates, lighters, toothbrushes, bottle caps, shotgun shells, dental floss holders, buckets and bucket lids, bleach bottles, antifreeze bottles, plastic bags, plastic tubs, nail polish remover bottles, and every manner of plastic goods one would find in any grocery store across the world. As a crew, we collect this debris from the deck of the Sea Dragon with large fish nets and examine the contents. The results have been staggering. Ultimately, it's difficult to imagine the size of the problem that is now affecting the Atlantic too because our vantage is that of a needle in a haystack -- a 72 foot research sailboat amidst the vast wilderness of an enormous ocean. But what's certain, given the data and debris collected already along a transect, is that the problem of plastic in oceanic gyres worldwide is at least twice as bad as researchers knew before and is ubiquitous in the Atlantic as well.

(Five Gyre Org). In a post on this blog we have set forth the hypothesis that the toxins of power, anciently conceived of as a personal problem of an individual, are actually a greater danger than that.

We hypothesize that the toxins of power are a danger to entire groups, which may include entire nations.

This blog has even wondered if it the toxins of power is a cosmic phenomenon.

Now, with the recent discoveries of the garbage gyres, and other planet wide dangers, this blog now asserts that the toxins of power are a threat to our entire species in the sense that the toxins of power are a threat to our ecosystem.

It is as if the planet is saying: "Whatever you permit the toxins of power to influence you to do to the ecosystem, is exactly what you are allowing to be done to yourselves, up to and including the murder of the entire human species."

The murder of the planet, including humanity, is the definition of ecocide.

Thus, the toxins of power can kill, maim, and utterly destroy if not countered with antitoxins.

A Religious Doctrine For Toxins of Power

2010-02-03T05:22:00.022-06:00

We have talked about the ultimate source of the toxins of power.

We have pondered Roger Penrose's theory that consciousness is a phenomenon describable, at its very lowest level, by quantum physics.

He notes, however, that the science of physics is unable to detect the foundation of consciousness at that level at this time.

We have asked if the toxins of power concern a cosmic phenomenon or whether the phenomenon is, instead, limited to the earth, or perhaps limited to only a few planets.

We have surmised that it is most likely a mystical notion anyway, no matter how we look at it.

So now we take a look at some ancient concepts for the source of the toxins of power.

According to one online encyclopedia:

The Devil is believed in certain religions and cultures to be a powerful, supernatural entity that is the personification of evil and the enemy of God and humankind. The Devil is commonly associated with heretics, infidels, and other unbelievers. The Abrahamic religions have variously regarded the Devil as a rebellious fallen angel or demon that tempts humans to sin or commit evil deeds. Others regard the Devil as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment.

(Wikipedia, Devil). Some of the more radical verses of the New Testament in Christian Theology say that this Devil being hides, but is the controlling power of the nations of this planet:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them ... lest the light ... should shine unto them.
...
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness ...

(2 Cor 4:4, 2 Cor 11:14-15, KJV). This Devil creature has people "ministering" for him. these passages declare.

There is even a Bible passage where Jesus was tempted by this creature who was claiming to control the kingdoms of the world:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

(Matthew 4:8-9, KJV). According to these writings Jesus even indicated that some of the religious leaders of his day, who were trying to kill him, were controlled by the Devil creature:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

(John 8:44, KJV). This concept does identify a source for toxins ("the father of it") we call falsehoods or deceptive thinking.

Whew! All this is heady stuff.

Clearly there was recognition in ancient times that something unseen and toxic or bad caused human beings to behave in a bad or toxic manner.

Behavioral scientists today have several theories which are evolution based, not religion based, but still there is no definitive authority for a completely prevailing theory.

That is not a show stopper, because we have the same problem with gravity and time.

We can't completely get to the bottom of it, we can't yet fully isolate gravity to a "graviton", the smallest theoretical component of gravity, so we still struggle with what it is.

Nevertheless we have formulas to work with gravity, and we have formulas to work with the toxins of power.

Microbiologists may have established a link to microbes as a source for toxins of power as shown in Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power.

Is Toxic Power A Cosmic Phenomenon?

2010-01-22T08:05:00.010-06:00

Not all nations of the earth subscribe to the notion that power corrupts those who inhabit seats of power.

In large measure the notion is limited to English speaking nations, but many people from non-English speaking nations study the theories of government and political science we subscribe to.

If our cosmology and solar science is correct, the solar systems are terrifying places in the long run, requiring migration from habitable planet to habitable planet.

If the toxins of power are inhibiting our ability to comply with the tenets of ecocosmology, then it might be a good idea to find a way to detect the toxins on a planet before we choose it as a place to make a new home world.

Our science does not yet understand, at the quantum mechanics level, how our mind works.

In fact, Roger Penrose, a famous physicist, even says lots of fantasy is contained within our physics.

Thus, since we really can't detect the furthest reaches of our minds, we are not really able to detect the toxins at the quantum level either.

The only thing to do seems to be to keep working at it.

Modification Of The Formula

2010-01-15T04:25:00.001-06:00

The original formula was:

C = (O * Y) ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº))

(see Tables For Toxins). It is being modified to:

C = (O * Y) ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1)

This modification adds a "+1" to the toxin - antitoxin arithmetic. This is done to add more focus or emphasis upon the "O * Y" factor.

The "O * Y" portion of the formula relates to the time in office, which could be too easily neutralized under the earlier formula.

That is because the (T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) could have become zero which would neutralize the time in office arithmetic.

We also add a rule that "T - A" can not be a negative number but can be only as low as zero.

The Territorial Realm of Toxins of Power

2009-12-29T06:28:00.009-06:00

In the science of memetics there is a notion of group where like memes circulate in the form of a group ideology.

A group ideology could be identified with a political party, a religious denomination, a liberal group, a conservative group, as well as many other groups of various sorts. The central characteristic is that they think alike on various issues with enough intensity so as to cause individual members to identify with that group.

The memetic lexicon calls this a meme-complex, describing it as:

A set of mutually-assisting memes which have co-evolved a symbiotic relationship. Religious and political dogmas, social movements, artistic styles, traditions and customs, chain letters, paradigms, languages, etc. are meme-complexes. Also called an m-plex, or scheme (Hofstadter). Types of co-memes commonly found in a scheme are called the: bait; hook; threat; and vaccime. A successful scheme commonly has certain attributes: wide scope (a paradigm that explains much); opportunity for the carriers to participate and contribute; conviction of its self-evident truth (carries Authority); offers order and a sense of place, helping to stave off the dread of meaninglessness. (Wheelis, quoted by Hofstadter.)

(Memetic Lexicon). Of course this is not ipso facto or axiomatically a bad thing.

But it can become a bad thing, as noted in the book 1984, where a corrupted form of the meme-complex was associated with a toxic disorder called "groupthink".

In terms of toxins of power working on a group, follow the structural hypothesis series showing how memes in memory are corrupted within an individual's memory, then transferred via language to others.

In a group setting this is easier because the group is already predisposed favorably toward members of the group.

That means meme transfer via "language" communications between group members is easier, and thus, corruption can and does happen to entire meme-complexes or groups that way as a matter of course.

Likewise, when a corrupt group or meme-complex governs a nation the whole nation can experience the effects of the corruption.

The core hypothesis, then, is that an entire meme-complex can become corrupt by the toxins of power.

Once that happens it can be said that a nation is governed by corruption much in the same way that an individual can become corrupt, then proceed in a corrupt direction.

Phase Three & Four: Toxin vs Meme

2009-12-23T06:17:00.014-06:00

This post is the third and last of the series where we build a construct to visualize and conceptualize how a meme in memory is morphed from its original state into a corrupted state.

It is then promulgated to a new host via the use of language.

We dealt with the overall concept in the post A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes, then Phase One & Two, so now we are ready to complete the construct in this post.

The illustration, above, entitled "Memetic Strands Are Converted Into Language" shows a meme that was corrupted in memory and is now being converted into language.

The original meme in its language format was "It is always wrong to embezzle the people's money".

During the corruption phase the toxins of power were working on the politician's mind, such that some of the meme strands were realigned by first selfish, then later, corrupt thinking. The classic Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde conversion or morph transpired.

The language which resulted after that morph had taken place had become: "It is wrong to embezzle the people's money unless it is done for a good cause".

The politician, in this case, then used the English language to communicate the morphed and now corrupt meme, within that politician's own mind / brain, to a person on the politician's staff who was easily influenced by the politician.

When the meme was converted into language from thought, the corrupted meme was transferred then stored in the memory of the recipient as if it was not corrupt, because the recipient had been convinced of its validity during the communication session.

The illustration "Language Conversion Back To Memory" shows the final phase where the meme is stored in the new host, the politician's staff member.

I have not used technical language in these posts, but if you care to peruse some of the technical language used in memetics, a lexicon of memetic terms is located here.

A continuation of this discussion is here.

Phase One & Two: Toxin vs Meme

2009-12-22T08:34:00.028-06:00

The overall description of the four phases of a meme becoming corrupted by the toxins of power, then propagated through language, forms a foundation of sorts for this post.

That description is posted here.

In this post we are going to form a construct for visualizing / conceptualizing how the toxins of power morph a meme in memory from a pristine condition into a corrupt condition.

As we move from the macro concepts down into the depths of research details, we run into scientific controversy or conflict. It is said that "the devil is in the details". To avoid as much of that as possible we will stay in the areas of consensus where possible.

When staying away from controversial detail is not possible, we will show how the construct works with several competing hypotheses or theories for that section of the subject matter.

As an example take the notion of consciousness and cognition. Penrose and Hameroff postulated that those take place because human thinking is a quantum computer. In that Penrose - Hameroff theoretical quantum computer thought processes take place within micro tubules.

To the contrary, Tegmark published a paper countering that hypothesis, showing that neural networks can explain the notion better, because of various speed factors.

The task here is not to solve those problems of detail, instead, at a much higher level we envision a process where an explanation can be constructed showing how toxins working on memes in memory can morph those memes into a corrupted state.

We can use analogies of gravity or electromagnetism instead of detailed quantum micro tubules, for consideration of a construct to get a better handle on the notion of a "corrupting influence".

The toxins we are concerned with exert a push or pull (influence) on the cognition of politicians, who are thereby influenced to think more about themselves ("themselves" meaning the extended self too, such as family and friends) than they think about the public they are to serve.

The effect of the influence is measured in terms of increasingly selfish thoughts and deeds eventually benefiting the politician rather than the public.

Lets envision an interwoven fabric of memes, in the memory of someone in power, to be like the pattern in the first illustration to the right.

This original memetic pattern is balanced, orderly, aligned, and uniform, not having been exposed to toxins yet.

In the next illustration, lets envision that pattern having been changed by tugs and pulls of the toxins, with some memes now having a new location in a dysfunctional pattern.

The toxins are causing some of the memes to jump the tracks that link it to other memes, so that the network of memes then becomes linked to a map different from before.

Those memes in the illustration, which have red dots, have been moved out of their original pattern or configuration.

The individual memes as well as the memory map of those memes would likewise change.

We can see how the content of an individual meme would change by using the illustrations we already used to represent the original meme.

The original meme in its pristine condition is represented with the illustration "PHASE ONE" at the top of the page.

The corrupted meme, after the tugs and pulls of toxins change it, is represented with the illustration "PHASE TWO".

With this type of construct we can envision memes in memory as being part of a memory pattern. After toxins tug and pull on them, we envision a new memory pattern where some of the memes are no longer where they originally were.

We also see a change in the individual memes, in that, now some of the strands of coded mapping have been changed to record the meme's new location within the memory pattern.

As we will see in the next post, the new location and new strands of codified mapping end up causing a change in what this meme will translate into, as language, compared to what it originally translated into as language.

The next and final post in this series is located here, the first post of this series is located here.

A Structure RE: Corruption of Memes

2009-12-19T09:31:00.005-06:00

It will take several posts to completely construct it, but lets attempt to fabricate a structure which can follow toxins moving from that mysterious force we call power, into a meme in memory, thereby corrupting that meme.

Specifically, it will be a construct that shows how a power toxin infects a meme, is stored in that meme by becoming a part of that meme, and then is propagated to others.

The subject of memes is difficult, in the sense of the toxins of power, because it crosses several realms composed of both mystic and scientific knowledge.

It makes the subject of the corruption of those in power all the more difficult, because both power and memory are described in whole or in part, depending on who you are talking to, with the words of mystery and the words of science.

Likewise the distribution of memes is a difficult subject, primarily because the fundamental method of distribution is language, which has engendered a library of opposing, even contradictory, papers, books, lectures, and theory all by itself.

Lets try to focus, then, on the consensus of scientists when we touch upon language during this discussion of memes, such as:

It has been recognized for thousands of years that language is, fundamentally, a system of sound-meaning connections; the potential infiniteness of this system has been explicitly recognized by Galileo, Descartes, and the 17th-century “philosophical grammarians” and their successors, notably von Humboldt.

(Chomsky, Science Magazine, Nov. 22, 2002, Volume 298, p 1571). So when I discuss the structure or process of converting a meme out from within an individual's memory into the language mechanism (intending to transfer that meme from one place to another place) I will stick to consensus ideas about language.

The "sound-meaning" linkage theory, says that meaning is linked to sound in language, and inversely says that sound is linked to meaning in language.

This of course is talking about cases of meme transfer between those who can hear and speak audibly.

Obviously the hearing impaired would use sign language to transfer memes, which is visual-meaning linked, not sound-meaning linked.

Of course there are other means of communication as well, not of sound and not of sight, but we focus on the basic forms to illustrate the construct.

The process being used here to show how a toxin can contaminate a meme is shown as a four part process in the illustration "Four Phases - corruption".

Phase 1 shows the toxins of power working on a meme in memory; phase 2 shows the morph of the meme from a non-corrupt meme into a corrupt meme; phase 3 shows the conversion of the corrupt meme into language; and phase 4 shows the corrupt meme replicating by being communicated to the memory of the recipient of that language.

With this construct we do not postulate that the meme itself comes from power, rather we form a premise that a toxin of power distorts a meme already in memory.

The illustration "PHASE ONE" shows a meme in memory surrounded with power during phase 1 of the process.

This construct represents the meme as being constructed of various codified strands composing a web like structure.

The strands map to memory areas where the various components of the meme are stored. Links on a web page to other web pages might be a reasonable way of envisioning it.

The illustration "PHASE TWO" shows the same meme in memory at the completion of phase 2 of the process, where some of the web strands or links have been "corrupted" by the toxins.

The meme is no longer composed of its original codified strand links, which mapped to original memory areas where the components of the original meme were stored, because some of the links have become corrupted or broken.

Some of the codified strand links now point to areas of memory that will result in a corrupt form of the original meme.

Bad links on a web page might be a reasonable way of envisioning the distorted or corrupted state of the meme at phase 2 of the four phase process.

When the strands of the meme are unwound during the process that converts a meme into language, the corrupted strands are also converted into language.

Then when the language is converted back into the memory version of the meme the corrupted strands are handled as if they were the original, so the meme in the new memory is a meme depicted in the PHASE ONE illustration.

That is, it is as if it was the original in terms of how it is stored in the new memory after conversion from language back into the memory format.

The notion of distortion or corruption, as used in this construct, is the definition at the macro level already explained in the post "What Is Corruption?".

Thus, "corruption" as used in this construct, does not have the medical or psychological meaning in the technical sense.

The next post in this series is located here.

Tiger Woods vs. The Toxins of Power

2009-11-30T09:58:00.000-06:00

This blog is of course primarily focused on how the toxins of power infect people in government, but it also touches upon the expanded territory of those toxins.

For example see the post Power Toxins Limited To Government?

Even Lord Acton, who is quoted on the About Page, expanded his theory beyond governmental power itself:

'Popular power may be tainted with the same poison as personal power.'

(Lord Acton, quoted by Sir Harold Butler in his foreword to G. E. Fasnacht's, Acton's Political Philosophy, London: Hollis & Carter, 1952).

Tiger Woods had power in the form of celebrity and money, had popularity as a father, family man, and world class golfer.

That structure he inhabited was seriously rocked and is still being rocked by behavior outside the bounds of that structure, which this blog attributes to the toxins of power getting to him.

The Power That Counterfeits

2009-11-21T08:45:00.017-06:00

The Wizard of Id cartoon brings up an interesting mechanism used often by the Id of power.

How would it effect your behaviour if you could print money from your computer with a quality that could fool merchants?

The toxins of power have corrupted government officials in the past causing them, when the infection is strong enough, to become official counterfeiters in the sense that there is nothing of value to back up the currency they are pumping out.

Yes, the government can print money from its computers, however, if you or I do it is called counterfeiting, while on the other hand it is called "fiscal management" if the government does it.

In such scenarios inflation can run wild to rob the people of what they have worked for.

Both scenarios are robbery, it is just that it is a "policy decision" if the government does it and a "crime" if you or I do it, even though the results are the same.

The problem we can identify here is the institutionalization of non-accountability.

When no one is accountable the toxins of power are at their strongest while their victim is at their weakest.

In the United States system the doors and the windows of the treasury of the people have been accessed by the banksters secretly.

This is the worst case scenario for the toxins of power to do their infection.

It is like drinking water contaminated with faeces and other toxins, which as we know is certain to spread an epidemic that will eventually do severe damage to the populace.

Besides counterfeit money, one of the other symptoms, once toxins of power corrupt a society, is counterfeit information from the government, which is called propaganda.

Deceiving a society with propaganda can be compared to an individual losing consciousness, or losing memory to suffer amnesia.

That loss of the grasp of reality is a form of corruption that is damaging to that society.

The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?

2009-11-13T06:38:00.013-06:00

This is an ancient question, but a question with one very clear answer.

An answer from the sages in our past which we are very fortunate to have had, but sages which we have ignored to our great demise in recent times.

An answer that seems today to be totally and completely at odds with the conventional wisdom-hype and propaganda which is composed of the glorification of the greatest source of the toxins of power.

Our founders were well aware of the question and the answer hundreds of years ago.

They spoke the answer with unmistakable words and with certain clarity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied : and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.

(James Madison, emphasis added). The visionary who made that statement was the 4th President of the United States, Bill of Rights author, Congressman, Cabinet Member, who was also called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution".

The above quote is from his "Political Observations," April 20, 1795, in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491-492.

Notice, in the quote above, how Madison equated or associated the toxins of power with disease epidemic concepts, saying that the war toxin "develops the germ of every other".

War enhances the spread of corrupting toxins.

Clearly, he is saying that war is a corrupting toxin that generates other corrupting toxins which will eventually destroy "public freedom".

Further, war, the greatest source of toxins of power is the province of the military, therefore, what Madison said about war applies without restriction to the military.

It is no wonder that President General Dwight Eisenhower warned us, with great concern, about that very dangerous source of the toxins of power we always face.

That is also why war is given the highest number in the tables of toxins on this blog.

You Id What You Id

2009-11-02T07:10:00.013-06:00

Can we say that there is a national "Id"?

Nations are said to have national characteristics.

National characteristics are composed from the characteristics of the nation's citizens, so why not a national Id?

Freud theorized that there was such an individual mental construct, which is described as:

The id is an important part of our personality because as newborns, it allows us to get our basic needs met. Freud believed that the id is based on our pleasure principle. In other words, the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. When a child is hungry, the id wants food, and therefore the child cries. When the child needs to be changed, the id cries. When the child is uncomfortable, in pain, too hot, too cold, or just wants attention, the id speaks up until his or her needs are met.

The id doesn't care about reality, about the needs of anyone else, only its own satisfaction. If you think about it, babies are not real considerate of their parents' wishes. They have no care for time, whether their parents are sleeping, relaxing, eating dinner, or bathing. When the id wants something, nothing else is important.

(All Psyche, emphasis added). Perhaps it is time that we formulated a theoretical construct that toxins of power infiltrate the Id of individual officials in government, which through corrupt behavior then works its way into our system of government.

Perhaps the individual Id is a weak spot for some types of toxins to grow into systemic corruption?

Beware of The Military Oil Complex

2009-11-01T06:33:00.003-06:00

One of the most popular US presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address told us to beware of the military-industrial complex:

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

(Eisenhower Farewell, emphasis added). When he used the word together he said the notion that defense ("security") should push out liberty when there was conflict between them was not an American notion. He saw it as a false comparison.

Things have changed since then. Industrial output has weakened since then. Oil influence has come from the shadows to the forefront.

Thus, as Eisenhower warned, we must not only beware of the military industrial complex as a source of toxins of power, but also as a carrier of the toxins into every corner of American life.

The "industrial" part of that complex, if you look closely, has been replaced with the oil complex. What is more dangerous and ominous about that change is that foreign nations control oil. General Eisenhower was warning about the dangers of American industry controlling too much. Imagine what he would have said if foreign governments owned that much control of America!

We spend more of our tax dollars on the military than all of the rest of the nations combined spend. When we add foreign oil to that mix the beware morphs into be horrified of the military oil complex.

Antitoxins Resist Toxins of Power

2009-10-25T08:41:00.018-05:00

A lot of people and states are "under water" in the United States and in the world as a result of the toxins of power which corrupt.

The human being in the photo gives new meaning to "being underwater" as a result of the carelessness of fellow human beings.

We have discussed the mystical properties of the notion that power corrupts, the difference between "power" as conceived by a physicist compared with "power" conceived by a political scientist, and finally, we have discussed the fact that money can also be considered to be a source of power and therefore potentially a corrupting influence.

But this post is about the statement made in another post:

Let's create an optimistic premise: "for every toxin there is an antitoxin".

(The Power That Corrupts). There is an ongoing struggle in Kuwait that illustrates both political and monetary toxins of power working to corrupt.

That struggle also happily reveals the relevant antitoxins that resist those corrupting influences or toxins:

Lawmakers in Kuwait, which is richer per capita than Germany, are demanding a government bailout of all consumer loans, reviving a power struggle that’s already shut down the assembly twice in 18 months.

At least half of the 50 elected lawmakers say they’ll back a plan for the government to buy all 6 billion dinars ($21 billion) of bank loans taken by Kuwaiti citizens to buy homes, cars, holidays and other purchases, write off interest payments and reschedule the rest. The government opposes the bailout. Parliament convenes on Oct. 27 after a four-month break.

“It’s my right as a citizen to enjoy the wealth and resources of my country,” said Essa al-Malki, a 32-year-old teacher of philosophy and psychology, who took out a 15-year 23,000 dinar loan in 2000 and supports the plan.

(Bloomberg). This is the opposite of the way the United States handled a similar bailout situation where the rich were bailed out but the middle class and poor were left underwater to handle their own fate, to sink or swim, like the man in the photo above.

Is the right wing faction's conclusion (abject cruelty and inhumanity is better than "socialism") a result of some kind of toxin of power?

Does the Kuwaiti situation show a result of some kind of antitoxin of power struggling against a toxin of power?

What Is Corruption?

2009-10-10T03:12:00.015-05:00

You have probably heard the saying "one person's garbage is another person's treasure".

"Corruption" could suffer a similar ambiguity.

However, if we limit its definition to the power that governments use, we can narrow the definition:

"Transparency International (TI) has chosen a clear and focused definition of the term: Corruption is operationally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. TI further differentiates between "according to rule" corruption and "against the rule" corruption. Facilitation payments, where a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment for something that the bribe receiver is required to do by law, constitute the former. The latter, on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain services the bribe receiver is prohibited from providing."

(Transparency International, emphasis added). Those type definitions are good, but they tend to describe the effects of corruption, if you think about it, instead of what corruption is.

While that is all fine and good, it is just that this blog wants to refine the definition a bit more. This blog, as one would surmise, defines corruption as:

The condition of having excessive effects of the toxins of power within oneself as a result of having been exposed to power.

(see Power That Corrupts). Thus, corruption is defined not as what it causes an infected person in power to do, but instead describes the condition of having an excessive amount of the effects of toxins of power within oneself.

This seems to be a better definition, because there are almost an unlimited number of corrupt things a person in power can do, once they have become corrupt; thus it becomes difficult to analyze politicians for corruption prior to them getting caught doing something corrupt.

Unless we use a microscope to look close, instead of using a telescope from afar, we could miss important factors and have to wait until politicians do something illegal to detect the levels of corruption within them.

Doctors tell us that we always have germs, viruses, and organisms ("toxins") in us that could corrupt us, that is, make us sick. However, they also point out that our immune system can handle a certain amount of toxins within us and we are still considered to be "well" or "healthy" at tolerable levels. In other words we all have various degrees of natural tolerance or immunity to toxins within us.

That is the way on this blog that we like to contemplate the toxins of power which corrupt.

Those in power can have a tolerable quantity of toxins in them, which is normal, because a certain amount of immunity is natural. The normal notions of resistance, the moral immune system if you will, can handle that degree of toxins, and the person in power can still be seen as not being corrupt.

It is when the toxins overwhelm the immune system that corruption, like disease, manifests and begins to grow.

What happens next is anyone's guess. The infected person in power generally surprises everyone because that person is seen as "not being themselves" it is sometimes said, when an illegal act is committed. That is the individual perspective.

But there is another concept to be contemplated, and that is group or collective corruption. This type of corruption is not based upon individual corruption per se, but instead is an observation of the cumulative effect toxins will have on a group or system.

This type of corruption can exist even though the individuals in the group or system do not manifest an individual corruption to an easily noticeable degree, such as illegal activity.

That is, they are not committing illegal acts individually, but the entire system is not acting according to its purpose as defined in our constitutional laws, so it can still be said to have become corrupt.

American government is designed to serve the betterment of the people, and when it is not doing that systematically, it can be said to be corrupt, even though the individuals within it are not doing anything illegal.

That is what this blog is about. Developing a standard system of analysis that can detect the effects of power toxins on the system itself, as well as being able to analyze individual politicians in power at any given time. Just like a toxin sniffer device does to biological or other toxins, we need a power toxin sniffer.

Consider the United States Civil War as a case for study. We can say that toxins built up in many people in government until the system became corrupt. It did not take individuals becoming corrupt to the point of committing crimes individually for the corruption to manifest. But individuals developed a toxin level, as a group or system, to the point it caused us to turn on ourselves and almost destroy the nation.

That systemic corruption can be compared to AIDS where the body turns on itself, because toxins can confuse and corrupt the immune system.

In the days, weeks, months, and years ahead we hope people will join in defining toxins and antitoxins which we can then use in the formulas to apply to individual problems politicians face, as well as the systemic corruption problems we face as a nation.

UPDATE: Recent discoveries may implicate aberrant microbes as originators of toxins of power. See Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power.

Is "Power Corrupts" A Mystic Notion?

2009-10-06T09:13:00.003-05:00

To a physicist the idea that power can corrupt does not make sense.

That scientist can and does use very precise formulas from within the realm of mathematics so as to show you all you want to know about power.

But none of what is shown will have any thing to do with corruption of the power we are in reference to.

There is a distinction between the power talked about by physics professors and the power talked about by the founders of our nation.

The way they drafted the U.S. Constitution shows that they had experienced the bad effects from concentrated power, and that they believed distribution of power was a better way.

The graphic shows three branches of government sharing various aspects of power, with the written Constitution being the supreme power of the nation.

That is all well and good, but the notion that there is something in power, a toxin if you will, that corrupts those who use the power is a mystical notion it seems to me.

We know that the notion "power corrupts" is true, but we do not really know how it corrupts, or what the toxins that do the corrupting are composed of, or where they exist and come from.

But neither do we really know what gravity is, but we can use formulas that describe what it does, and we can do so very precisely. Gravity is a mystical power that we can't see or feel, yet we know it exists, and we use it in many ways to our advantage.

Likewise, those toxins of power that can warp the mind, emotions, and heart of politicians who are not careful, will not do the same to those who discover and use the antidotes.

Like the formulas for working with gravity, we now have formulas to work with that mysterious something, "toxins in power", too.

The Constitution Is Quite A Medicine

2009-10-06T07:42:00.002-05:00

How is a constitution like a medicine?

First, remember that the founders of the Constitutional form of government, which we have perpetuated as we try to improve upon it over the years, believed the statement of their time that:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great [people] are almost always bad [people]."

(About Toxins Of Power). They came up with a treatment for the problem.

That medicine is the United States Constitution, and it begins "We the people ...", and goes on to say they intended to form a more perfect nation with that constitution.

They limited the power to which anyone in government could be exposed to, by cutting it to 33 1/3%, making three branches of government into which power was distributed.

They had figured out that the king or ruler, who had been exposed to 100% power, had been driven crazy by that power in their view.

So they reasoned that they should limit the exposure, and should also do some other things, so as to limit the concentration of power an individual would experience who used power.

If you think about it a moment, you too may see this as a preventive measure in the sense that a vaccination, for instance, is an exposure to a small about of a disease causing organism so the body can become immune to that organism by building antibodies to it.

If you think about it, the framers of our constitution were making a macrocosm at a social level, which is in essence a vaccination to empower an immune system or an anti-body system, like our human bodies have for fighting things which could make us sick or kill us.

We call those things that could make us sick toxins, bugs, germs, viruses, and various other things, and medicine is used to prevent their toxic damage.

Dr. Judith Rich visited Dredd Blog and had some astute observations and made comments which inspired this post in some degree.

I want to be sure that readers know that I do not think power is a toxin itself, nor do I advance that notion.

Instead, I have framed a theoretical construct for discussion purposes, which says power has something in it that can corrupt, and I call that something "toxins", rather than saying power itself is inherently corrupt.

This is just a way of trying to form a cognitive construct for purposes of discussion and idea sharing, to be used like the language of mathematics.

We can't see power, gravity, or toxins anyway, but like gravity we can see the result of it being around us, and we can talk about it with mathematical symbols and ideas.

If we have a theoretical construct that deals with an entity which contains toxins like contaminated water does, and we conceive of antitoxins and the form of some medicine or other treatment, then we can formulate a social construct for dealing with those who become exposed.

We can fashion working diagnostic techniques and treatments at the micro or individual level like our forefathers and foremothers did at the macro or national level.

We have now set forth the theoretical construct, enhanced it, and then proposed an expansion of that theoretical construct to the notion of several forms of social power.

Hey, isn't it worth a try to at least to figure out a way of talking about it and eventually coming up with diagnosis and treatment at the individual level, just as the constitution deals with it at the national level?

Why Trial By Jury?

2009-10-06T07:35:00.007-05:00

A legal historian once said in the late 19th century:

"It is remarkable that no History of Trial by Jury has ever yet appeared in this country."

(History of Trial by Jury). The US Constitution, our supreme law, provides us with three distinct juries.

One such jury is the criminal grand jury (5th Amendment), another is the criminal petite jury (6th Amendment), and the third is the civil petite jury (7th Amendment).

Without an adequate understanding of the experiences of our forefathers and foremothers who founded this country, we won't understand why all free people must have a robust trial-by-jury system.

Those Americans that went before us came to fundamentally believe that governmental power tends to corrupt and absolute governmental power tends to corrupt absolutely.

What that means is that the people must be protected from those who become immersed in governmental power. It does not mean that governmental power is wrong or to be eschewed.

That wisdom of the ages simply means that we know governmental power contains toxins within it, and those toxins must not be allowed to run amok and infect the people with oppression. The election cycle is a process of purging those who have been overcome with those toxins while in office.

But it was the desire to have day-to-day immunity from the effect of those toxins of power (based on their day-to-day experiences under tyrannical systems operated by tyrants) that led them to design a day-to-day immunity beyond the less frequent and not so day-to-day election cure. After all, federal and state-wide elections are not so day-to-day.

One of the fundamental oppressions tyrants used was the day-to-day event of false charges for crimes. An innocent person was charged because of dissent from the view of the tyrant, not because the accused had really committed a crime. Therefore, a day-to-day cure was wisely developed. Since justice is the absence of the use of tyranny, our American ancestors gave us the gift of the jury system which has the effect of a day-to-day remedy.

The grand jury was designed to prevent or resist government oppression by nipping it in the bud. A grand jury of 'a lot of folk' (more members than a petite jury) must be convinced that there is some reasonable degree of probability that a felony crime may have been committed before an American can even be charged. Not convicted, charged.

Once the grand jury returns an indictment, still another petite jury must be convinced unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual who was charged is in fact to be held accountable for those charges. And the person charged need not say a single word. The prosecutor carries the entire burden to prove it. Is that fair? No. But it is safe.

Let us look at some abstract examples. In the courts during trials experts are used. In the typical case experts will give their opinions to the jury. Typically this means an opposite opinion for each side. The experts are sworn in, list their degrees, and the court makes a ruling that they are experts.

Afterwards those experts explain that they looked at the evidence, and then they tell the jury what their opinion is. The expert for the defense has one opinion, but the expert for the prosecutor typically has another and different opinion. On the exact same evidence I should add.

Finally, the everyday folk on the jury make the decision as to which expert was right and who was telling the truth! Yes, the person who left the farm after a 5:00 AM breakfast, and then drove the truck into town for that day's jury duty, decides which rocket scientist had it right.

If you are still wondering why this is so, remember that the foundation of jury theory is that the people can determine facts better or more accurately than those immersed in governmental power can. By “better or more accurately" I mean in the context of the effects that governmental power has on individuals.

We have found that historically, by and large, the people tend not to oppress their fellow citizens like governmental agents have tended to do. The old saying that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" is directed at governments. It is not directed at juries of the people.

Juries are the people's reaction to the oppression of tyrants who have inebriated themselves with the toxins active within governmental power.

Oh to be sure juries make mistakes. But the mistakes of the people are much easier to live with over the long run than the mistakes of government.

So say the sages of the ages.

Lawyers at times will make the point that sometimes it is better to waive the right to a jury and have a judge decide a case.

That point highlights the need to distinguish the jury system and its purpose, from the jury panel in an individual case and its purpose.

The jury system is what is designed to protect the people in general from governmental oppression in general. While the individual jury panel applies only to a single case and has the single mission to decide if the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt in that case.

The important lesson to this is that the jury system is wise and proper and is not a mistake even though the individual jury panel can and does make mistakes from time to time.

It comes down to the realization that we must not mistake the two purposes and throw the baby out with the bath water as some other nations have done.

Power Toxins Limited To Government?

2009-10-06T07:27:00.002-05:00

The untimely death of Michael Jackson recently got me wondering about power again.

He came into money and celebrity at an early age, 11, through the efforts of his father, who established the talented and successful "The Jackson Five".

The burdens put on him must have been tremendous, as were the benefits of celebrity.

I have written about the toxins in power in the context of political energies, which can corrupt politicians, like Governor Sanford for example, if they are not careful.

But I have been wondering whether the power of money, celebrity, and other forms of social power contain toxins too?

Lord Acton indicated as much when he famously said "Popular power may be tainted with the same poison as personal power".

We can throw in the notion "Money is power" to boost the idea. A book by that name Money is power: a scientific, historic, and practical treatise", by R.W. Jones (1878), should bolster the idea.

It would be good for psychiatry to get a much better handle on the notion of toxins in power so that those who must experience power can deal effectively with those toxins.

They could live better lives in the sense of knowing how to deal more effectively with those toxins.

We will always have entertainers and people who have to work in government service, so we will always have the exposure to deal with, since both groups, politicians and celebrities, are most likely exposed to those toxins.

Thus, we could expect to benefit society as a whole when our health care system and our techniques for dealing with the reason "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" are up to par with this challenge.

Tables For The Toxins In Power

2009-10-06T06:46:00.007-05:00

I introduced a proposed formula for the toxins within power, being unaware of any such formula which may already exist.

In an even earlier article those toxins within power had been discussed, in the abstract, as one reason for the American tradition of trial by jury.

The formula set forth for calculating the effect that the toxins in power have at a given time is:

C = P ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1)

where P = O * Y ("O" is the office held, and "Y" is the time an individual has been in that office).

Therefore the full formula is:

C = (O * Y) * ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1)

When O * Y is simplified to P = O * Y; the formula fully simplifies into:

C = P ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1)

The (T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) sections simply show that you add up the list of toxins, then add up the list of antitoxins, subtract the antitoxins sum from the toxins sum, to derive a value to then be multiplied by "P" which will deduce the corruption factor "C".

Since I feel that a working formula would go a long way toward a pragmatic technique for determining how corrupted or uncorrupted a particular individual working in government could be at any given time, I will provide some tables as an example of only a very few values that can be used to activate and use the formula.

A few examples should help to kick off more use of the formula in calculations involving local and other governments around the nation and the world.

The first thing we need to establish are the constants for the "office", symbol "O". Here are some constants for "O".

The "office" held is on the left side of the equal sign and the constant value is on the right side of the equal sign:

Office = Constant

President = 10
Vice President = 9
Speaker of the House = 8
President P.T. of Senate = 7
Cabinet Members = 6
Federal District Judge = 8
Federal Appeals Judge = 7
US Supreme Court Judge = 7

There, we have some constant values for "O" components. If we want to calculate for the Office of the President in the case of a president who has been in power for three years, we would then use:

C = (10 * 3) * ((T - A) + 1)

where "T" is the sum of (T¹ .. Tº), and "A" is the sum of (A¹ .. Aº).

Since in this case "O" = 10 ("10" is the "president constant value") for this example, and "Y" = 3 (three years in office when we calculate) for this example, we can simplify:

C = 30 * ((T - A) + 1)

Where "C" is the corruption factor to be derived, "T" is the toxins sum, and "A" is the antitoxins sum.

This formula shows that the exercise of any official is to resist corrupting toxins via antitoxins. The goal is to bring "T" and "A" to the same value, so that T - A sums to zero. Then 1 is added.

That is because P * 1 = P, which would mean there is no corruption in that office at that time. But the corruption factor, expressed as potential, remains.

Finally, we need to ask what, then, are toxins and what are their numeric values, and what are antitoxins and what are their numeric values.

To recognize some fundamental corrupting toxins, I turn to James Madison, 4th President, "Father of the Constitution", author of "The Bill of Rights", Cabinet Member, Congressman, and author of 30% of the Federalist Papers.

In his sage understanding, war is the number one toxin. Here is a table from his writings linked to above:

Toxin = Constant

War = 10
armies = 9
taxes = 8
dealing out offices, honors and emoluments = 7
ambition = 8
avarice = 8
vanity = 7
fame = 7

There, we have some constant values for "T" components.We can adapt his sage understanding for a table of antitoxins from his writings:

Antitoxin = Constant

Peace = 10
shrinking armies = 9
lowering taxes = 8
shrinking offices, honors and emoluments = 7
humility = 8
charity = 8
doing the people's work = 7

There, we have some constant values for "A" components. We have put our toes in the water and now we have some constants to work with.

We can now clearly show an example of their use in the formula.

Lets use C = (O * Y) * ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1) where: "O" = president, "Y" = 1 year, toxin = war, antitoxin = peace; so as to derive:

C = (Office * Years in office) * ((Toxin¹ .. Toxinº) - (Antitoxin¹ .. Antitoxinº) + 1)
C = (president * 1 year) * ((war constant - peace constant) + 1)
C = (10 * 1) * ((10 - 10) + 1)
C = 10 * 1
C = 10

Thus, a president who entered office in a time of war and brought peace that year fulfils the mission of zero corruption (C=10). The lowest the corruption factor can be is the office constant times the years in office. It does not equate to actual corruption unless the ((toxins - antitoxins) + 1) is a value greater than 1. What increases the longer an individual is exposed to power is the potential for corruption.

These formulas can or will be adjusted, added to, expanded, enhanced, and then used by students and teachers in many areas of politics.

It can be a quick tool for making ongoing appraisals that track how a politician is doing at any given point in time.

It is a simple tool of the people for keeping an eye on them, and officials are also free to use it to monitor themselves and avoid problems.

The Power That Corrupts

2009-10-06T06:12:00.008-05:00

The About page of this blog points out Lord Action's statement about "power" being a source of corruption.

That page also points out some formulas for "pure" power which does not contain corruption, that is, the power of the type discussed in the science of physics.

If those physics formulas are accurate, and they are, all of a sudden it becomes clear that Lord Acton was talking about a "power" that relates directly to human behavior, rather than the power described by physics.

Yes, it is clear that there are multiple forms of power.

Guided by the mathematical formulas mentioned above, we know that some power is pure in the sense that it is not related to human behavior.

Therefore if one of the types of power is corrupting, but the other is not, the one that is corrupting must have an additional ingredient.

I call that ingredient "the toxins within power".

Let's create an optimistic premise: "for every toxin there is an antitoxin".

Now we can create a formula for human behavioral corruption caused by the toxins within the corrupting type of power:

C = P ((T - A) + 1)
C = P ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1)

(where "C" = degree of corruption, "P" = degree of corrupting power, "T" = toxins, and "A" = antitoxins).

"P" (intensity of exposure to power toxins) can be formulated as P = O * Y (where "O" is the office held, and "Y" is the time in office).

The expanded, or full expression of the basic formula would then be:

C = O * Y ((T - A) + 1)
(since P = O * Y) it simplifies to
C = P ((T - A) + 1)

The first simple formula ("C = P ((T - A) + 1)") is for a single toxin and antitoxin pair, while the second formula ("C = P ((T¹ .. Tº) - (A¹ .. Aº) + 1)") is for more complex situations where there are multiple toxins and multiple antitoxins that have to be added and subtracted as needed.

These formulas will give political scientists some of the tools of physics and mathematics.

Let the research begin that identifies both the toxins and the antitoxins associated with the corruption within the governmental type of power.

The "+ 1" was added to the formula. See the discussion in the tables for toxins post.

About Toxins Of Power

2009-10-06T06:10:00.012-05:00

We are familiar with the saying about "power":

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great [people] are almost always bad [people]."

(Lord Acton, emphasis added).

That refers to a form of social, political, or governmental "power" that is different from the "power" physicists work with.

Consider two mathematical formulas physicists use that concerns "power" of a non-social, non-political, and non-governmental sort:

p = e / t
p = v * i

(Formula I, Formula II, where p = power, v = voltage, i = current, e = energy, and t = time).

That type of power, of course, is not the power we are talking about when we talk about the "toxins of power".

The formula for Toxins of Power this blog discusses is another type of power, social power and/or governmental power.

The basic notion is encapsulated in what is often called "Lord Acton's dictum" as follows:

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it. "

Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston:The Becon Press, p. 364

(Wikipedia, emphasis added). Clearly the statement was made in specific reference to the controversial notion of papal infallibility, which is a function of church government, but it was conceptually linked to secular government as well ("the king can do no wrong").

The inescapable meaning of Lord Acton's theory is that power (because of toxins within it - Toxins of Power Blog would add) tends to have a negative effect on human thinking and doing:

“Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson