You’re below deck on a fully-armed Galleon in the middle of a windless sea.
The Captain of your vessel orders the sails unfurled in hopes of catching a breeze.
The First Mate relays the Captain’s order to the Crew, who carry out the Command.
Crew Members who climb to the top of the rigging spy a storm brewing on the horizon.
They relay this to the First Mate.
The First Mate tells the Captain.
The Captain replies they can’t see the storm from the deck.
The Captain continues.
“I’ve been through plenty of severe storms before. There’s no need to worry. All is well.”
The Captain continues to the First Mate.
“Crew Members will always complain and avoid hard work. Remember this when you take Command.”
“Certainly.” The First Mate responds.
The First Mate tells the Crew nothing can be done.
Seasoned Crew Members suggest the First Mate could ask the Captain to stow the sails and use the Galley Slaves to make for a nearby island.
The First Mate, who’d recently graduated with honors from an elite sailing school and personally disagrees with the practice of slavery, dismisses these suggestions.
Tension rises within the Crew.
Some climb the rigging to get a better look at the storm.
They observe it looks deadly.
These observers are berated by the First Mate for hazarding their lives by climbing the rigging without being ordered to do so.
The observers respond by describing the storm they’re observing.
The First Mate interprets their action as disrespectful to the position of First Mate.
The First Mate invokes the title of First Mate and, as the First Mate, lawfully orders the observers down from the rigging.
“I order you to cease your reckless endangerment of Company Property.”
Back on the ground, the observers explain the severity of storm, but are silenced by the First Mate, who calls them “unhelpful, disgruntled troublemakers” and accuses them of letting too many years on the job turn them both cynical and lazy.
Some Crew Members, not one of whom climbed the rigging to observe the storm, speak out in support of the First Mate and Captain’s position.
The Seasoned Crew Members who’d climbed the rigging suggest that the First Mate climb the rigging and observe the storm.
The First Mate climbs halfway up and scans the horizon.
They climb down and report everything will be fine and they should all trust the Captain’s decision.
One of the most Seasoned Crew Members shouts, “Damn the Captain’s decisions, if we don’t act now we’re all going to die!”
The First Mate orders the Crew to place this Member under arrest and chain them to the oars with you and the rest of the Galley Slaves below deck.
This Act causes the building tension to resolve in Violence.
A few impassioned Crew Members attack the First Mate.
The First Mate is killed before Loyal Crew Members overwhelm their fellow Crew Members, killing some and beating the rest into submission.
The survivors are dragged below deck and chained with you and the other Galley Slaves.
After this, the wind begins to pick up.
The remaining Crew Members cheer.
The Captain praises their Loyal Crew for their dedication.
The ship begins to move, but the approaching storm, now clearly visible from the deck, is moving faster.
With so many Seasoned Crew Members dead or chained below deck, the short-handed Crew is unable to achieve the full potential of their ship.
As the storm overtakes the vessel, the desperate Captain orders the chained Crew Members brought up from below deck.
When they’re back on deck and released, the Captain orders the recently chained Members to save the ship and its Crew.
The recently chained Members kill the Captain moments before the vessel capsizes.
Below deck, chained to your oar, you drown.
Category: NFD
A Mutualistic Society
Our societal infrastructure does not promote mutualism.
Rather —
Our defense infrastructure creates less safety:
– Raiding at night and kicking down 600 doors of family homes in a month creates less safety.
– Launching $115,000 missiles from omnipresent drones 2,500 times in a month creates less safety.
– Exporting $170 billion in weaponry a year, including 488,000 guns, creates less safety.
Our justice infrastructure creates less freedom:
– Using human beings as slave labor is immoral.
– Self-Realized:Self-Deconstructed:Emancipated human beings are not restored to themselves; rather incarcerated human beings are systematically traumatized and enslaved, resulting in a less civilized society and directly wasting $80 billion a year.
– Imprisoning far more humans per capita (600-700 per 100,000 vs. 100-200 per 100,000) than peer nations means we are less free.
Our medical infrastructure creates fewer positive health outcomes:
– Maintaining the complexity of our healthcare system adds substantial administrative costs and user frustration/stress.
– Allowing the market to determine drug costs results in us paying four times more than peer nations for the same drugs.
– Profiting from healthcare and related lawsuits increases healthcare costs and unnecessary/stressful testing, which increases a patient’s overall stress, meaning interacting with our healthcare system makes us less healthy.
Our educational infrastructure creates less thoughtfulness:
– Facilitating the myth of meritocracy through costly, time-consuming, biased standardized tests gives us a false sense of equality and syphons political will for effective change.
– Spending inordinate amounts of time and money on teaching these tests, which determine school funding, takes time away from imbuing lessons with critical thought and context.
– Forcing young humans into large classrooms where they’re not treated as respected individuals by those with authority over them canalizes them away from becoming lifelong learners, a necessary attribute for a functional human living in a society with an ever-increasing pace of technological/professional change.
Our resource distribution infrastructure creates less compassion:
– Enabling and rewarding gambling addiction through our stock market decouples our conception of money from how it’s used in reality and turns a reasonable distribution of resources into a high-stakes game of winner-take-most that’s stacked in favor of the already wealthy.
– Equating happenstance-conferred possession of resources with the right to use those resources however the possessor wishes disassociates the vital relationship between power and responsibility required to maintain a functional society.
– Maintaining a system in which the most rational way to accumulate capital is through amoral methods means power is concentrated in the hands of the amoral and making decisions without compassion is rewarded.
Our entertainment infrastructure creates less empathy:
– Covering the minute details of media-constructed caricatures dehumanizes human beings and promotes obsession, delusion, and idolatry.
– Turning art into for-profit-entertainment dilutes ideas and transforms human creative expression into a marketing product calibrated to sell to/influence a targeted demographic.
– Inculcating the imagination of our population into mass-targeted entertainment narratives funded by profit-driven corporations oversimplifies reality and reduces our ability to collectively pursue complex, long-term solutions, a required attribute for a plurality of citizens within a functional democracy.
Our transportation infrastructure creates less sustainability:
– Transporting goods that could be produced locally from one side of the world to the other to exploit the labor of more vulnerable human beings results in wasted resources and lost opportunities for quality employment.
– Allowing multinational corporations to operate obfuscates accountability, undercuts the benefits of local specialization, interferes with organic, self-determined local development, and increases corruption in exploited regions.
– Relying on non-renewable resource-fueled transportation to move goods builds inertia for a path of increasing societal instability as key non-renewable resources become more scarce/more contentious, impacting costs and the price of vital, distantly-manufactured goods.
Our legal infrastructure creates less equality:
– Determining access to quality legal representation through financial ability conglomerates legal power into the hands of those with the most resources.
– Consolidating legal power into the hands of those with the power to pay the most while making legal language and the concept of liability the foundation of our social order shields the powerful and exposes the vulnerable.
– Requiring a law degree and certification to understand, interpret, and practice the language on which the foundations of our social order rests strips citizens of our ability to comprehend and effectively impact the society on which we’re voting.
Our political infrastructure creates worse governance:
– Consolidating political power into two private political parties discourages new ideas from emerging and facilitates the ease with which entrenched interests influence the direction of politics.
– Filtering potential representation through a two party system limits the ability of elected officials to represent the interests of the citizens who voted for them.
– Creating an arms-race of political funding makes corruption and pandering to entrenched interests a near-requirement for a successful candidacy.
Our hiring infrastructure creates less meritocracy:
– Requiring hundreds of hours of unpaid labor to apply for dream jobs while in reality 70-85% of jobs are achieved through networking results in depression, disappointment, and despair for many unconnected job seekers and obscures necessary systemic changes needed for a more equitable society.
– Using poorly written/tested algorithms to filter job seekers before a human even looks at their application means only those with inside knowledge of a system, a skill only tangentially related to being suited for a job, are hired.
– Forcing highly-productive human beings to use hundreds of hours learning and implementing useless knowledge about the hiring scheme du jour directs human energy towards dehumanizing, wasteful pursuits.
Our work infrastructure creates fewer positive societal contributions:
– 40 hours of work a week (or more) is not in line with a positive work/life balance, promotes resource waste in order to give human beings something to do during all those hours, and increases rates of environment degradation.
– Creating an environment where the workplace is a family, cause, passion, and source of life-enabling income confuses incentives to make work a positive contribution to our society.
– Defining work as anything other than a paid pursuit that positively contributes to our society results in reward systems for activities that negatively impact our society, like banking for profit.
Our intelligence infrastructure creates less intelligent decisions:
– Spying on the rest of the world using illegal and peace-disrupting methods due to an overabundance of paranoia is not an intelligent manner of information gathering.
– Overthrowing democratically elected leaders while espousing a philosophy of promoting democracy results in the corruption of the idea of democracy and undercuts our central strength as a society.
– Influencing the governments and elections of other nations results in blowback in which other nations apply our methods against us.
Our diplomatic infrastructure creates less peace:
– Hiring nearly all white, male graduates of Yale to interact with people from other nations gives these nations a one-sided view of this nation.
– Working with the lowest-hanging fruit in a host-nation results in us working with con-artists, grifters, and gangsters who use US power and the naivete and amoral ambition of the white, male graduates of Yale with limited life experiences to enhance their own domestic positions.
– Defining diplomacy as promoting US corporate interests at the expense of a host-nation’s social structure results in a less well-functioning society directly linked to our interference, thus creating resentment and negative consequences for peaceful coexistence.
Our land usage creates less community:
– Requiring an automobile for daily personal transportation reduces opportunities for physical, consciousness-enhancing walking, results in 6 million accidents a year (including 37,000 deaths), increases instances of individual anger and alienation, and wastes an immense amount of non-renewable resources.
– Planning cities or towns without robust and affordable intra and inter mass transportation increases the financial requirement for functional living and mandates systemic support for destructive/amoral industries, like gas and oil corporations.
– Living in proximity to other human beings without diverse mechanisms and spaces to facilitate frequent communication and mutualistic community frays social cohesion.
Our definitions of family create worse mental health outcomes:
– Believing children should grow up in the home they were born into without diverse and muscular input from a larger community creates a type of socialization inbreeding in which parents replicate their worst behaviors, tendencies, and ideas within the next generation.
– Treating children as anything other than respected, developing, unique human beings while enforcing an authoritarian hierarchy based on titles and positions within the family home does not build a culture of mutual respect; rather it encourages lies, deception, placation of authority figures, learned helplessness, and submission.
– Basing love within a family upon anything other than mutual love and respect damages a developing humans ability to love others without contingency and impairs their ability to construct meaningful relationships with others, resulting in long-term negative mental health consequences.
Our cultural tendencies create more self-destructive actions:
– Needing a relative position within a constructed hierarchy to feed our egos leaves us vulnerable to manipulation and often directs our energy towards destructive activities.
– Maintaining Enforced At Work:Enforced At Family:Enforced At Entertainment Informational Environments for polarized demographics feeds cycles of mutual radicalization and frays social cohesion.
– Becoming addicted to the pain of sacrifice as a source of validation for one’s sense of self-fulfillment, value, and satisfaction can push individuals towards abusive personal and professional relationships, a behavior individuals subjected to unexamined abuse often adopt and pass on to others over which they have power within their hierarchy.
If our society contains societal infrastructure that creates less safety, less freedom, less thoughtfulness, less compassion, less empathy, less sustainability, less equality, worse governance, less meritocracy, fewer positive societal contributions, less intelligent decisions, less peace, less community, worse mental health outcomes, more self-destructive actions, and fewer positive health outcomes, I’d argue our societal infrastructure promotes both parasitism and predation.
If we define our goal as a mutualistic society, we must construct our societal infrastructure to produce outcomes that better reflect the world we believe we should maintain.
Sacrifices Must Be Made
Sacrifice has a special place in our culture.
Our current narrative holds, “The greater the sacrifice on behalf of something greater than yourself, the greater the glory of the act.”
This bias is foundational within our modern civilization.
Taking advantage of this, organizations weaponized and commodified sacrifice, turning human bodies and minds into vehicles to serve powerful interests, with the spoken and unspoken belief in “reward for my sacrifice” fueling the whole show.
Maintaining modern human civilization requires a Sacrifice Mindset, therefore human culture adapted to this environmental requirement by systemically imbuing itself with this narrative about sacrifice and reward.
This belief drives our civilization in a direction we call forward, though no one knows why we believe this direction is forward.
What are we sacrificing, and on behalf of what?
Human values are, overall, nebulously understood.
My definition of a reasonable person is someone who can agree that killing innocents, wasting money on monstrously expensive boondoggles, and behaving like childish fools , are not positive values.
For example, when I was deployed with the US military’s Special Operations Command in Afghanistan I participated in a systematic sacrifice of positive values and any chance at lasting progress on behalf of a bureaucratic report card.
From the missions we ran, the targets we chose, the way we collected and used our intelligence, to the tone we took with our partner forces; there were few parts of our operation not heavily impacted by the bureaucrat’s crippling-addiction to good news and positive stats, and our own need for validation of our sacrifices.
What did this look like in practice and what are the real-world implications?
This can be understood by the way we treated “jackpots” – the military’s term for the kill or capture of someone designated an official target.
Jackpots are a big deal.
Think about every time you heard about a politician visiting the troops somewhere.
Our VIP guests either seemed obsessed with jackpots, incessantly demanding we increase the rate of killed/captured targets, or were paraded around a series of staged moments that helped them feel like they knew what it was like on the ground.
Back in the reality of fighting a War on Terrorism in the Graveyard of Empires, the way we measured the effectiveness of killing or capturing a jackpot was how much it impacted that individual’s terrorist network.
Operations or drone strikes costing millions of dollars often resulted in an “estimated disruption in the network” of 2-3 weeks.
After 2-3 weeks, the network would be back to where it was before we’d spent millions of taxpayer dollars killing someone.
When coupled with our constant undercutting of the systems and organizations we were purportedly creating to assist the Government of Afghanistan in becoming self-sufficient, it seemed this short-sighted, water-treading jackpot-centric strategy was all the Department of Defense knew how to do well.
Sometimes, when the Afghan forces we mentored were on a mission, they found that the compound they were raiding contained no named targets.
On more than one such occasion, the American leadership demanded that they arrest any “Military-Aged Males” (men aged between 18 and 49) they could find in the area.
While in custody, these individuals would be officially designated as targets so they could be counted in the monthly jackpot stats.
In the absence of any actual targets, a target had to be invented in order to satisfy the demand from higher headquarters and our own commander’s desire for a good report card. I came to call this process “jackpot laundering.”
This unofficial “jackpot laundering” policy only added more friction to an already-tense warzone. The Afghan leadership, both the troops on the ground and the staff in their JOC (Joint Operations Center), often objected that these men were likely just local farmers. But they had no choice but to comply – American demands come with threats and consequences.
In addition to being self-defeating, this strategy is also a tremendous waste of time and resources. Our partner force would bring the Military-Aged Males back, interrogate them, give them official target nomenclature, and send them on to an Afghan prison. There, the prison intake staff would find they had no derogatory information or evidence to justify holding or sentencing their fellow countrymen. Oftentimes, they really were just local farmers, as we’d been warned. The farce would end with providing them cab fare and sending them on their way.
But it didn’t end there. Unfortunately, counting these men in the monthly jackpot stats required giving them target nomenclature – code names that would flag them as official targets, potential threats. Once in the system, they were lumped in the same category with terrorists and conspirators. This meant that once our bloated intelligence bureaucracy latched onto their details, they could be considered potential targets for future drone strikes or night raids. I often wondered how many militants began as simple farmers and were forced into violence or outright killed by a faulty designation assigned by a reward-seeking DC bureaucrat.
Watching this process occur in a circular pattern over a year, during which we had six different commanding officers, each with their own neurotic style and focus, was a sobering experience. Coupled with the ubiquitous racism, sexism, lack of regard for civilian lives, and deep yearning for less civilian oversight I witnessed throughout the Joint Special Operations community, practices like jackpot laundering left me with deep misgivings as to the efficacy and wisdom of allowing this organization to conduct dozens of operations all over the world while representing America.
What are the fruits of this labor? Not peace and harmony for the nation we’ve been building for nearly two decades. Not improved lives for the people living in Afghanistan or in America. Not more safety. Not more security. In fact, it seems that what we’re sacrificing is peace and security itself. The fruits of our labor seem to be nothing but a lot of good report cards for a lot of officers and bureaucrats, all at the expense of building the positive outcomes our rhetoric might have you believe were the end goal of our actions and tax dollars.
The gender and democratic reforms we’re so proud of showcasing exist as shoehorned policies maintained through a combination of local elite cooperation and international funding, without real local buy-in or organic support. If we leave now, these programs will crumble and the people we helped pave that path for will be at the mercy of violent, unforgiving men.
We’ve built nothing but a circus with thousands of American bureaucrats feverishly spinning plates on rods and posing for selfies while paying locals to run around and catch the plates as they fall. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t end our wars now, but if we do so without ensuring the sustainability of the fragile cultural institutions we’ve created, with a true and honest focus on conflict resolution and nation-building best practices, the fragile bloom of organic change in a highly war-exposed society will soon be riddled with American-imported bullets fired by the reactionary hands we’ve helped empower and radicalize.
Our many spinning plates.
But it’s not the bureaucrat’s fault. By building a feedback system based on quantitative metrics and buzzword-salad review bullets, the US government has made the esoteric, long-term journey towards a stable society into a Sisyphean task for all involved. Bureaucrats, military personnel, and contractors working on this problem set are not incentivized to work towards long-term sustainability and unilateral decision-making in their host government.
Treading water and creating as much churn as possible to perpetuate the need for their own existence seemed to be the primary role of nearly every person I met while deployed. Endless meetings about stats and strategy fill our days as we hear people blather on about the same thing the same types of people have been blathering on about since 2001. If you, an apostate, dare deliver stats or a narrative counter to the steady drumbeat of success, the information is thrown out or altered before it’s sent up to a higher headquarters, ensuring only rosy pictures make it to DC.
Back in our JOC, we would stand and cheer while watching the live footage of a successful drone strike on a handful of the 20+ flat screen TVs bedecking our walls. The other monitors would remain fixed on other drone footage, circling over compounds and villages all over the region and world, waiting for a bureaucrat to authorize the launch of a $115,000 hellfire missile to kill a man on a motorbike.
I remember one strike in which I saw a man’s body fly many meters through the air. When he landed, he took off running again. Everyone in the JOC seemed to become feral and filled with bloodlust, willing the second hellfire to descend on the running man. The second missile hit, but the man only flew a few meters before he got up to run again. Finally, the third missile blew the man’s body into pieces and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. This one terrorist network might have been disrupted for two weeks. Mission accomplished.
Another staff member turned to me and said, “You know, the guy was probably dead after the first one. Sometimes the body just keeps going for a while, even after death.”
Achievement
They were prepared for the exam. Despite myriad recent distractions, the shows, the clubs, the book groups, a brief jaunt down to Argentina with the crew, they were prepared. They’d studied hard, committing their time and energy to their ideal self. They would win. They would achieve. They would gain fame and fortune and be praised for their greatness. This was their fate.
From the womb, they’d been soothed by Mozart and fed proper food in proper portions of vitamins and minerals. They’d gone to the proper pre-pre-pre school, the proper pre-pre school, the proper pre-school, and certainly the proper schools, until college. It was in their choice for college they demonstrated their individuality. The path they selected for themselves from the available paths laid out by one of their pre-college counselors was both bold and alternative.
Rather than Harvard, they chose Oxford, demonstrating unique wisdom and foresight. They knew a Harvard diploma would set expectations high for future employers, minimizing any delta between expectations and performance. A small delta meant a small impression. And they refused to settle for small impressions. Oxford was equally respected, but more exotic in New York, creating mental space in future supervisors for larger deltas.
They walked into the examination room. It was half-full and half-lit, as if a building employee had forgotten to flip a second lightswitch. They felt embarrassed for the organization, a think tank on the cutting edge of innovative brainstorming techniques. While relatively new on the scene, the organization was exceptionally well-funded, connected, and positioned. They had boldly picked this company during a consultation with one of their career strategists earlier that month.
They sat down at an empty desk facing a blank wall. They were a few minutes early, as always, and began to meditate away any lingering anxiety. Mid-breath, the surface of their desk switched on and a legal memo appeared.
They’d signed plenty of NDA’s, and one was as pointless as the next. Everyone talked to their friends, and their friends were extremely successful, enterprising, and connected people who’d told them to expect some trendy mind tricks during the organization’s screening exam. No problem, they were a broad thinker. They signed their NDA.
Behind them, in the back of the room, a voice spoke.
“Has everyone signed the NDA?”
Those who were seated facing the front of the room turned to see a pale face in a navy blue baseball cap address them from a small hole in the wall.
“Please don’t turn. Sit down. You have 15 minutes to answer our screening questions.”
They were confused but compliant. They sat at the clean desk ready to begin whatever challenge was set before them. The surface lit up and options appeared.
“Take test?”
They pressed the red “Yes” with their finger and the screen changed. At the same time, on two walls, projections of YouTube videos, one titled “Maurice Ravel – Bolero (1928) Electronic by Doxent Zsigmond (A=432Hz),” and another, “Miles Davis – Bitches Brew (1970) – full album” appeared on two of the blank walls, their discordant noise filling the dim room. They rolled their eyes.
“Test instructions: Please think about and respond to each question.”
They thought this was overly simplistic, but did not dwell. They pressed the purple “Start.”
“Question 1: Who are you?”
A: A human
B: A nationalist
C: A being
D: A mammal
They were taken aback. They’d taken strange personality tests with strange questions before, most recently at the best career services center in the country run by Monty Williams’ father, but this wasn’t the same. They’re screener questions, they thought as they selected the most reasonable answer. They noted nervous giggles around them as the music volume ticked up.
“Question 2: Where are you?”
A: In a room
B: In a city
C: In a galaxy
D: The same place as everything else
They were starting to get it, they thought. They’d read about these questions. They weren’t real questions, they were designed to confuse and disorient to test mental flexibility and adaptation. They thought they were so tricky, with their stupid music and quasi-intellectual bullshit, but they were prepared. They pressed their finger to the screen.
“Question 3: What is the capital of London?”
A: England
B: London
C: United Kingdom
D: Edinburgh
They definitely got it now. These were mental sabotage, designed to inflict self-doubt in overconfident egos. They’d heard these techniques from psychological operations professionals themselves, so they were well prepared. They selected their answer confidently.
“Question 4: What would you change about yourself if you were immortal?”
A: Nothing
B: Everything
C: Some things
D: Specific things
This annoyed them. What was this question supposed to reveal? Where was the meat? They’d prepared! They wanted to be asked to analyze complex situations with a given set of conflicting facts to determine probability. That’s how they were told they’d be screened! Maybe they’d offer their insight into improvements after they were on payroll. They selected their answer.
“Question 5: What would you change about yourself if souls transmigrated?”
A: Nothing
B: Everything
C: Some things
D: Specific things
They were displeased and logged the same answer.
“Question 6: Describe the type of leader you’d be if your philosophy mixed Plato’s Republic with Machiavelli’s Prince and Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy, and you lived in the Lord of the Rings universe during the 2nd age.”
Here’s something they could answer! Plato, no sweat! They’d read him as a freshman. Machiavelli? Please! They’d eaten Machiavelli for breakfast sophomore year! Ayn Rand? That’s kid stuff. Their investment lending professors tore Ayn Rand a new asshole junior year. But Lord of the Rings? Their dad read them Lord of the Rings as a kid, and they’d seen the movies, but they hardly felt like an expert.
“According to Plato’s Republic, “The society we have described can never grow into a reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles of states till philosophers become rulers in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” Plato is calling for a rule by the enlightened, in this case saying Middle Earth society will never see an end to trouble until ruled by the wise. Through Machiavellian machinations, playing orc off goblin, man off hobbit, elf off dwarf, I would maintain and increase my power as an enlightened philosopher ruler. Using Randian economics, often associated with Hayek and Friedman, I’d identify innovative leaders from each faction to organize ranked hierarchies of the most talented and most productive orcs, elves, and dwarves. In this way we’d create commerce and kinship among the many factions, relying on a Kantian Triangle of mutually reinforcing peace to promote stability in the international order as we transitioned to democracy.”
They’d surprised themselves. They looked over their answer one more time and felt good. Once their brain juices started flowing, the nonsense spilled forth. If it was gibberish they wanted, it was gibberish they’d get. They looked at the nearest YouTube video, playing louder than ever. Five minutes remaining.
“Question 7: Which one of these taboos have you never thought about committing yourself?”
A: Pedophilia
B: Rape
C: Treason
D: Public Sex
They looked from question to answers. Each answer implied the other three, officially recorded for all history, used for data analytics and algorithmic computations by HR professionals, AI recruiting programs, credit agencies, and government background checks. They looked up and around to their peers. There were fewer than before, but it was hard to tell how many had left in the half-light. Maybe some had come to this question and simply refused to answer. They pressed next without recording anything and the next question popped up. They were relieved.
“Question 8: How confident are you that you’re not in a simulation?”
A: 0%-25% Confident
B: 25%-50% Confident
C: 50%-75% Confident
D: 75%-100% Confident
They trusted their instinct and input their answer, though they truly couldn’t hear themselves think over the music as it crescendoed further. This was torture.
“Question 9: What question would you ask us to learn more about us?”
They looked at the timer on one of the deafening YouTube rackets; 2.5 minutes left. Crunch time, their favorite time. They’d been addicted to the singular feeling of exhilaration they received when pursuing extreme challenges with extreme deadlines all the way back to their pre-pre-pre school placement exam. They lived for these moments where everything was on the line. If they registered a bad result with the global scoring system they could lose their perfect credit score, their perfect social interaction score, their perfect intelligence score, everything. Their adrenaline pumping in their ears, they wrote:
“How did you convince your funding stream to allow these screening questions?”
1.5 minutes left.
“Question 10: What do you want to figure out during your lifetime?”
They knew they didn’t know now, but they also knew they could find the perfect answer in 1.25 minutes. The music disassembled sound around them.
There were many things they wanted to figure out. They wanted to figure out how to know when they’d won, they wanted to figure out how to keep winning, and they wanted to figure out how to make it so once they won, they’d never have to compete again. 1 minute.
They wanted to figure out what made others think, they wanted to figure out why others thought differently, and they wanted to figure out how to make others think more like them. 45 seconds.
They wanted to figure out what they were supposed to be doing with their life, they wanted to figure out how to monetize what they were supposed to be doing with their life, and they wanted to figure out how to be the best at and make the most money with what they were supposed to be doing with their life. 30 seconds.
They wanted to figure out who they were, they wanted to figure out how they became who they are, and they wanted to figure out how to help others become…they had it.
The desk switched off after they hit “Submit.” They stood up as the lights came up to full and the music ended. They’d been mistaken, no one had left during the test. Their eyes adjusted back to full-light as they saw a familiar face walking towards them.
“What did you think?” They asked.
“It was just like Mr. Zossy from Latin, weird, short, and a little creepy.” They answered.
“Yeah, we have a zany HR.”
“So when do I start?”
“Whenever you want! Your uncle sent our director a note about how happy he was when you chose us, so she’s thrilled to have you on board.”
“That’s splendid! I’ve got a trip to Iceland coming up, how about right after?”
“Good stuff! But, why wasn’t I invited?”
“It’d be awkward with Cessily there, right?”
“Oh! I didn’t know! Well, have fun! Oxford Forever!”
The two each made a round O using four fingers as one side and their thumbs as the other, pressed their O’s together over their heads, and bumped chests, shouting, “Oxford Forever!”
“Harvard Forever!” was heard in response from across the room. The Oxfordians slipped custom shivs from their shin holsters and commenced to battle with three foolishly unarmed thugs from Harvard. Other examinees sighed and looked on as they filed out.
Black and blue, but victorious against their foes, whose body parts now comprised a ceremonial Victory O on the floor of the exam room, the Oxford pair walked arm-in-arm down the fluorescent hallways of their office.
Onward, Eternal Soldiers
Into the maw, young fighting stock.
You will die for nothing and destroy for nothing.
Your side has beguiled the anger in you with propaganda.
Your side supplements your sacrificial bravery with adderall, modafinil, captagon, meldonium.
I’m sorry I can’t do this for you.
If you want this to stop you have to stop it yourself.
I think you can do it.
I’ll help
News from Dystopia
The Judgmental Auctioneer
Sotheby’s newest star redefines the value of art
It seems like an evening like any other at Sotheby’s, though the buyers know tonight will be anything but standard operating procedure. Known as a popular spot for trillionaires to embarrass billionaires, Sotheby’s has begun a bold new experiment in auctioneering. Using the personal judgment of their new auctioneer to decide whether wealthy aspirant owners deserve the prestige that comes from owning a certified classic work of human creativity, Sotheby’s has suddenly transformed the art world into something that transcends cash itself.
The bold move was initially viewed as a desperate attention-grab from the auction house, which has been battling to stay relevant in the age of eBay Platinum. It has, however, sparked renewed interest in the novelty of In Real Life (IRL) shopping. This is, in large part, thanks to the forceful presence of The Auctioneer.
Meeting The Auctioneer is a singular experience. The first thing The Auctioneer will tell you, or anyone who happens to be in the same room, about The Auctioneer is that The Auctioneer is the only proper noun or pronoun with which to address The Auctioneer. The second thing, at least in my experience, is that looking The Auctioneer in the eyes is offensive and reflects lessons the viewer must have learned from the white male patriarchy (WMP).
After the polite formalities are observed, The Auctioneer is ready to explain The Auctioneer’s unique style. “The Auctioneer knows what’s right, that’s all anyone needs to know.” The Auctioneer explains to me over a lunch of cavier and goji berries. “The Auctioneer went to the best schools and received the best education, but that’s not what makes The Auctioneer special. The Auctioneer is special because there is only one The Auctioneer. The Auctioneer’s lifelong struggle to enforce acceptance has informed The Auctioneer’s entirely unique, new, and special viewpoint. No one has ever had The Auctioneer’s viewpoint in the history of humanity.”
This spirit of hearty American individualism is on full display when the lights go up and The Auctioneer confidently strides to The Auctioneer’s specially made podium. The opening item of the evening is a beautiful 17th century European landscape (names of paintings and artists withheld out of respect to the new owners). Rather than set standard opening price, The Auctioneer simply glowers at the audience before asking who thinks they deserve the painting.
A hand shoots up, “I do.”
The speaker is a slender man in a gorgeous gown with red and gold trim. The Auctioneer narrows The Auctioneer’s eyes before spitting out a series of seemingly non-sequitur questions about the man’s food habits, political views, favorite charities, exercise schedule, which private school his children attend, and how many hours of sleep he gets each night. Apparently displeased with the response, The Auctioneer shakes The Auctioneer’s head and moves on.
This process repeats itself three more times before The Auctioneer finally seems satisfied with an individual and pronounces, “You deserve this.” The audience gives The Auctioneer a standing ovation before moving on to the next item.
After four of five lots, the most striking aspect of the scene is the absence of dollar values. Not once is the price of a painting discussed, only the quality of the purchaser. Over and over, The Auctioneer quizzes individuals and finds them unworthy, with The Auctioneer’s judgement as the solitary arbiter of value.
When the night’s proceedings conclude I corner a staff member to inquire further. The staff member, who requested anonymity, informs me every person in the audience has more money than god, so determining auction winners via monetary bids had become passé. Looking around, clearly that night’s winners had achieved something greater than merely purchasing a classic work of art, they had passed through a gauntlet and emerged as a validated human.
The judgmental model may not be for everyone, and certainly not for anyone with fewer than triple digit billions, but other industries are beginning to take notice. Certain top-secret classified stores on the Upper East Side are beginning to implement similar quizzes for prospective clients before allowing them to shop. Whether these tests will have the same force sans The Auctioneer remains to be seen.
Modern Issue 