Original rendering by Aristo T.
of an ordinary photo from www.supermodels.nl


Link to page 3
(in this archive, highest numbered page has newest 
articles, while page number 1 and 2 are foundational 
and kept stable, with higher-numbered pages regularly
updated as articles find their way into Big Art
Booklets or other permanent publications)

For copyright conditions of these archived
news articles by S Henning W B Reusch, whose
artist name is Aristo Tacoma, see the topscript
of where they first appeared, namely at the
'comments on general features of breaking
news in world economy section' of the worldwide
standard search engine Yoga6d.org (and its
various entirely identical entry-points,
which are named after many of the near-ascii
languages it is supporting, -- we use these
various entry-points so as to distribute the
traffic to this search engine. Cfr
www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm. To get into
anyone of the search entry points, click at
the 'search now' drawing at the front of
yoga6d.org, then click on the next image,
the one about 'saving humanity', and you
(upper as lowercase are the same), optionally
with digits inside, for a selection of words
found on top at the front of most webpages.
As for how to anglify a word written in another
language, you have to try out what works -- the
rules for translation into the ascii set e.g.
from something like the rather different russian
language are simplistic and not done according
to the context in which the letters appear.
Once you learn how to work with this search
engine, and learn how to do search-within-a-page
when you get many results with the browser
'find-text-in-page' command, you will see that
your overall productivity in all areas of life
is enhanced, and the freedom from imposed
simulations of 'contexts' (such as by boolean
'AND' across a lot of the internet) essentially
turns out to be stimulating, because it is
predictable, straightforward, and honest in
a computer program mechanical way that you
can and will learn to harness.

But now, for the archive. In the archive,
we keep the same type of sequence as in the
economy.htm news section -- namely, the newest
on top. 

[[[Spelling variations are part of the
soul of writing and convey information
on its own, as does variations in lineshift

[[[Once in a while we will remove something
from this archive section so the overall
quantity is at all time quite moderate;
for those who wish reprints of earlier
works they will then with some level of
probability be able to trace them as
chapters in published nonfiction books
by this author.]]]


-- the ideal shape of the democratic part of rulership 
[As of 2011:2:5 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
The word 'ideal', also as used in the word 'idealistic',  
has a noble meaning. Let us at once be aware that some 
might invest into the word some kind of whimsical 
attachment they for no good reason at all has been 
wrapped into, -- a kind of elevated state of greed, 
leading to fanatism. Such type of ideals and this type 
of idealism we are not interested in here.
  Rather, ideal can -- and indeed this is how we call on  
this word in this article -- have a meaning along these 
  * A perception of what is right, good and noble, as 
well as humanly realistically to achieve, in a certain 
area, not in the sense of absolute achievement but (like 
peace in a society) something which is relatively 
achieved by constantly working and/or fighting for it
-- and possibly better and better, say, by each century. 
  Connect to this the word 'idealistic', which then 
means such as activities which are inspired by a 
righteous passion to live up to some ideals.
  In this noble and abstract light, let us think of that 
aspect of human governance which is democratic. 
  Let us first clear away the path for perceiving the 
ideal democratic approach by indicating some whimsical 
approaches which turned out not to work at all.
  In particular, in the 20th century, it became clear 
that unless rules are thought through, democratic 
elections degenerate into fluctuations (at best) between 
dynasties, clans, and cliques or (at worst) keeping one 
stable corrupt clan in power for decades.
  The word 'party' stems from roots related to words 
such as 'part' and 'partial'. Like the word 'team', used 
in low-brain sports activities, the implication is that 
of clan, clique, dynasty and such in harsh, ignoble 
competition against breakdown of itself. One of the 
least inspiring experiences is not being invited to a 
gathering for fun in which -- as one then must 
conclude -- whimsical greed is the principle upon 
which some are invited. If, however, the gathering
comes about by some chance-principles, like that which
in the Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programming language is called
RFFG or Relatively Free Fluctuation Generator, it 
ceases to be hurtful to be excluded. A gathering will
then not be called 'party' and the invitations will
be less exclusive-looking. Another word, associated
with such distasteful fun gatherings which do not
apply a more generous and empathic principle like
RFFG, is that of 'club'. 
  So both types of parties, the political one, and
the fun one, are fragmentive, and in the noble and
righteous sense of a universal type of democracy as
for the human positions of interchangable rulership
for areas, the word 'party' mustn't have a role at all.
  However, it is part of the fun of human society that, 
just as gathering happens at spaces which can only 
contain some people, not all, so also is it part of 
the fact of rulership that governmental positions can 
only contain some people, not all.
  In the 20th century, and before, many arrangement 
along the lines of 'res publica' was sought: that some 
people are considered to 'represent' other people, and 
that among these people, again, there is dialogue and 
voting. However, what with the development of organised 
clans, cliques, dynasties and even that extremely ugly 
and despicable thing called by the Italian word "mafia", 
no "res publica" worked out as "res publica" at all, 
except in extremely rare cases. In most cases, the 
republican approach turned out to be a mere vehicle for 
yet more disgusting party model monopoly approaches.
  So, meditatively, as a neopopperian enquiry, each must 
ask: what is the ideal democratic aspect of rulership 
within a human society? 
  And on repeated enquiries, being realistic about how 
each human person must be given a possibility to unfold 
her best, without being given too strong chances to 
yield to the several serious corrupting temptations that 
prolonged rulership over some, in some domain, typically  
easily give rise to, here are the five points which 
answers this:
  * A single person can be elected for a governing 
position, such as prime minister, education minister, 
but only for a definite period -- X months, let say -- 
and cannot be working for anything involving anything 
even remotely near a governing position for twice that 
period, that is, two times X months, after the 
completion of one period. There must be a range of rules
which allows for automatic removal of a person who in
a ruling position does something out of order, to avoid
any grabbing of power or sustained misuse of power.
  * Everyone who can read and write and such, -- or some 
analogous definite, neutral, non-excluding legal 
principle -- can vote over the various governing 
positions which are regularly changed, but never over
'group', 'party' or 'organisation'. This voting happens 
in regions which ideally have a maximum limit in size, 
concerning all and any local governing positions there. 
Such regions need not be called 'countries' and they 
need not to be identified with currencies (but there 
must be no less than four different currencies so that 
the richly important fluctuating currency interactions 
can happen nonetheless).
  * In order to prevent people from more or less 
covertly making 'parties' all the same, anyone not just 
someone can present themselves as eligible to be elected 
-- indeed, in a more advanced society than that seen in the 
20th century, everyone are automatically presented as 
eligible to be elected, given a very fair neutral and 
objective screening process (excluding those who have 
been criminally condemned less than a certain number of 
years ago, but -- what with the fallibility of human 
judges and police and such -- being forgiving about such 
a past). 
  * Furthermore, to prevent clans or dominant 
individuals from trying to force election results, many 
more than the available changable rulership positions 
must be elected, and a neutral computer program 
selecting by means of a Relatively Free Fluctuation 
Generator selects, by its coincidence number, in each 
case from this larger group. 
  * Moreover, also, it must be clear that a uniform 
voting technology must ensure one vote one time for each  
well-identified person in a secret and very secure way, 
with a technology easily within reach for everyone in 
each region or area, in a context in which it is -- by 
publically repeated official statements and by strong 
enforcement by police, forbidden to try to work out what 
any others have voted or are going to vote in any way 
whatsoever, also so that statistics over likely results 
is ruled out in order to increase the vitality of the 
real voting process. Nobody can try to force anyone to 
vote in any way, and nobody has to declare what they 
have voted to anyone afterwards -- not even to the 
dearest friends.
  It follows from these points that while each person 
who is up for voting must provide some factual 
information about herself e.g. by means of electronic 
technology -- some photos, some facts about skills and 
about successful former work experiences and such, 
propaganda by this person or others so as to try to 
coerce anyone into voting in a particular manner must be 
considered on the side of the law. Although, naturally, 
articles about themes in general and with reference also 
to what some people say and do, including some people 
who are up for voting soon, must be considered proper 
journalism. This will greatly vitalise the activities of 
society both in between as well as during election 
periods, since the freedom from person-propaganda during 
election periods leads to a continuity in clear, good 
thinking among journalists whether or not there is an 
  The still more advanced society will recognise what
in effect are power positions though apparently not
necessarily power positions, and apply similar or same
voting principles to all of these.
  The rules which are foundational in order to 
constantly aspire to a noncorrupt interchange of
the appropriate open ruling positions must obviously
be beyond the range of what can be changed by anyone
in the ruling positions: they must, once established
on a wise ground, be considered beyond the reach of
any person.

-- And so we hear they are "fortunate to witness this 
galaxy-baby being born near the birth of the universe"
[As of 2011:1:26 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
It ain't a birth hospital, but these folks -- they call 
themselves "astronomers", and also "scientists" -- 
though one doubts they have ever read their Popper nor 
even Carnap -- they sound like nannies, crooning over 
their little new-borns as they are so fortunate to 
witness. Or, to be more precise, they sound like they 
are in some desperate need for more tax-payer money to 
upgrade their latest toy, some monsterous machine with 
big lenses hovering up there among all the satellites 
and the junk from defunc satellites.
  One hears on otherwise extremely well-dialogized news 
stations like BBC World Service -- no questions asked -- 
that a blur brought forth on a computer screen is a 
galaxy being shaped near the birth of the universe some 
thirteen billion years ago.
  One has heard, perhaps, that the brain has some such 
number of neurons (and many times that number of glia 
cells), and one could ask: just how many of those 
neurons are being used when these so-called scientists 
are pronouncing these things?
  Up there in outer space, there is no way one can have 
satisified the agreed-upon foundational scientific 
criterions as for the data to provide anything even 
remotely near such certainty as we hear spoken by these 
money-greedy star-gazers.
  As one point, consider the extreme number of 
assumptions involved in going from any number as 
recorded by a photocell encapsulated behind a lens over 
to saying that -- when this data has been processed by a 
number of gadgets and computer programs in control of an  
elite group -- this "is" a galaxy, whether in formation 
or having been formed.
  This is not data over which one theorises. This is 
theory, loads of it, tons of theory, none of which have 
been confirmed in any strong scientific sense of the 
word, but which have become an accepted way of talking 
among some people who for psychological, not scientific, 
reasons, have come to dominate among certain dominating 
scientific magazines (so-called). 
  Secondly, just about everything the astronomers do -- 
except when they land a box on an asteroid and bring it 
back, and do so repeatedly -- and some such far more 
mundane affairs -- is entirely cut off from that 
essential scientific criterion which they are committed 
to apply in the more critical of cases, for as many 
theories and as many parts of each theory as possible: 
namely repeated experiments where one adjusts the 
contingencies intelligently and so as to block out bias.
  In contrast, this little group which with its 
technology, -- a technology which is far from simple, 
also a criterion which is sought-for -- is doing nothing 
but inventing clever or not-so-clever after-explanations  
for phenomena they have not possibly any certain grounds  
either for detailing as for content, nor for setting a 
date to. They might propose the universe was created at 
April 1, about 13,000,000,000 B.C., lunchtime, and back 
it up by some obscure pixels on their computer screens 
said to represent some final proof, and all the world 
will know is that the Swedish Academy will shower Nobel 
Prices over them, the Swedish King will smile and the 
interviewer will ask them how come they have such great 
intuition (that, he could have added, makes them get all 
this Nobel price money on so brittle grounds) -- for 
this little fake community of dead-certain so-called 
scientists know how to take care of its own.
  If any one of these mutually hypnotising scientists 
break with the prevailing dogmatic interpretation of 
their extremely sparse data this scientist will be 
kicked out of the group -- just as, to take a famous 
example, Sir Fred Hoyle was kicked out when he a great 
number of years ago showed that Nasa's data after the 
first Mars expedition to determine the possibility of 
(micro)organisms there was wholly inadequate relative to 
the certainty of the conclusion they came with -- never 
mind those non-existing (or existing) microorganisms, it 
took them a decade and more to figure out that he was 
totally correct, and sent up a bunch of additional 
  The scientific community has no right to follow the 
rules of fashion in theorizing, -- they are, in general, 
paid by taxpayers and sponsored by companies in order to  
break with fashion in theorizing, and instead seek to 
gather data while doing a bit of healthy multiplication 
of theories over them, noting how some theories 
sometimes are found more trustworthy than others, and 
how new and other interpretations of data are always 
  What with the fluctuations of funding and the 
brittleness of the promises of politicians and also 
companies to provided consistent sponsoring to that 
extremely important part of the activity of humankind 
called 'science', it is not strange that scientists 
become so greedy after money that they stop, here as in 
all other areas of science, from doing any much science, 
and start talking the talk that sets money flowing 
instead. After all, scientists are just as extremely 
rediculous as everyone else. Instead, therefore, we have 
got to work out new schemes: funding ought to be given 
to individuals, not to projects, not to groups, and not 
based on how clever they talk, but based on whether they 
win in a lottery over scientific money or not. 
Publishing of scientific reports ought to happen by each 
scientist creating her own publishing company, within 
that budget -- the same budget which must be applied to 
create technology. In that way, Science, Nature, and the 
academies of science around the world won't have the 
meaningless, corrupt power, based on loyality to each 
other within the group, as they presently have over 
scientists. All the Western magazines which published 
great stuff by de Broglie, Einstein, Dirac and others in 
the early 20th century are at present fundamentally in 
an unhealthy state based on over-publishing of entirely 
insignificant and often highly over-technical reports 
with a fragmentary language understood hardly by anyone, 
no matter how many ph.d.'s, -- and most of the articles 
are written by Chinese researchers who are dogmatically 
anti-philosophical in their interpretation due to the 
marxism of their regime, which forbids anything that 
smacks of theology. There are also way too many people 
calling themselves 'professors', so many, in fact, that 
this label has no significance whatsoever of any kind 
anymore. This has also lead to a meaningless 
pervasiveness of pointless 'higher degrees' and ph.d.'s 
across the world, all contributing to non-thinking and 
non-science, just when the world needs thinking and 
  By removing the prestige of some publication arenas, 
and by distributing money to all with a science focus, 
organized by means of some kind of objectivity analysis 
of whether the person indeed does produce works 
characterised by pluralistic theoretical interpretations 
over data, as well as by pluralistic interpretations 
over what the data means in themselves, but giving more 
to some on a lottery foundation rather than on the 
present extremely whimsical and greed-enforcing 
premises, and making it the obligation of each scientist 
to edit and publish own works, the whole area of science  
would clean up. One can almost say, it would start. For 
science as depicted in the most mature bits of the works 
of e.g. Karl Popper, supplemented by wise extension 
bits, is a norm, an ideal, of an activity which can 
hardly have been said to have begun, as yet, in 2011.