Tag: essay

  • The Ceremony: A Blueprint for the Future We Actually Want

    The Ceremony: A Blueprint for the Future We Actually Want

    *On the overview effect, DMT, and the non-catastrophic path to a solarpunk civilisation.*


    admin avatar
    "One thought ever at the fore—
    That at the Divine Ship, the World, breasting Time and Space,
    All peoples of the globe together sail, sail the same voyage, are bound to the same destination."
    - Walt Whitman (May 31, 1819 – March 26, 1892).


    *A thesis of speculative philosophy.*


    There is a version of the future that does not require catastrophe first.

    It is not guaranteed. It is not even, given current trajectories, particularly probable. But it is possible in a way that matters – not as fantasy, but as a set of principles and practices already being tested in fragments all over the world. Getting there, however, requires something unprecedented: a civilisational shift in consciousness, achieved deliberately, before the alternative makes it unavoidable.

    This is an attempt to think seriously about what that shift might look like, and how it might be designed.



    The Two Roads

    Gene Roddenberry was honest about it, even if *Star Trek* usually glossed over the details. The United Federation of Planets – that vision of humanity curious rather than acquisitive, diverse rather than tribal, oriented toward contribution rather than accumulation – does not emerge from gradual enlightened progress. It emerges from the Eugenics Wars, then the Atomic Horror. A period of such comprehensive devastation that the survivors were, in a sense, selected for and radicalised toward cooperation simply because the alternative had been made undeniably, inescapably visible.

    The uncomfortable truth embedded in Trek’s own mythology is that civilisations tend to change at the scale required only when the cost of *not* changing becomes viscerally, personally real.

    Climate change has a particularly cruel relationship with this dynamic. Most historical crises that produced genuine civilisational change had a quality of sharpness – a moment when the before and after were unmistakable. A war ends. A bomb drops. The catastrophe is legible. You can point to it and say: *that. Never again that.*

    Climate change is different in almost every way that makes collective response difficult. It is slow relative to a human attention span but fast relative to civilisational adaptation rate(s). The worst consequences are unevenly distributed – the people with the most power to act face the mildest early consequences, while those facing existential threat right now have the least leverage over global systems. It is causally diffuse; you cannot point to a hurricane and say *that specific molecule of CO2 from that specific decision caused this*. And it interacts with everything else – a climate-driven war wouldn’t announce itself as a climate war. It would look like a water war, a food war, a migration crisis, a failing state. The climate signal buried under layers of proximate causes, each one attracting its own political narrative and its own blame.

    This is a crisis specifically designed by its nature to defeat the cognitive and institutional tools humans have developed for responding to crises.

    The most plausible bad road isn’t a sudden nuclear exchange over abstract principles. It’s something more gradual and more total: sustained drought across multiple arable farmland bread-baskets simultaneously, food price shocks rippling into political instability, fragile states failing, refugee flows stressing receiving countries into their own crises, nationalist movements taking power in enough places to break the international cooperation that climate response requires – while the feedback loops continue regardless. Not one war but a long, grinding, multi-theatre catastrophe with no clear end because the underlying driver is still operating.

    This is not a fringe scenario. It sits somewhere in the central range of projections if current trajectories hold.

    And so the question that haunts any honest thinking about the future is whether the non-catastrophic road remains open, and if so, what would have to happen for humanity to take it.



    A Thought Experiment

    Imagine two experiences, offered to every person on Earth within a few years of their twenty-first birthday, as a kind of global coming-of-age ceremony.

    The first is the overview effect.

    When astronauts see Earth from space for the first time, something happens to them that is remarkably consistent across individuals regardless of nationality, religion, or political belief. The planet below appears as it is – borderless, fragile, impossibly beautiful against the void. The tribal distinctions that seemed so urgent and so natural dissolve not through argument but through *seeing*. Edgar Mitchell described it as an instant global consciousness. Ron Garan called it the orbital perspective. What they all seem to be pointing at is the same thing: a felt understanding, not merely an intellectual one, that we share one home, that the lines are fictions, that the whole thing is at once vast and terrifyingly small.

    This experience doesn’t require going to space. The images exist. The testimony of hundreds of astronauts exists. Immersive technology has advanced to the point where something close to the cognitive shift can be induced in people who have never left the ground. The effect, when achieved, is neurologically consistent – it hits conservatives and progressives alike, the religious and the secular, the young and the old.

    The second experience is DMT.

    Or more precisely, a form of it – most likely ayahuasca, or an oral DMT formulation with an MAOI, to allow a longer window and the possibility of integration within the experience itself. Whatever the precise pharmacology, what researchers and participants consistently describe is: encounters with something that feels vastly larger than the self, a dissolution of the ego-boundary between self and world, a sense not of going somewhere new but of *returning* somewhere deeply familiar, and an aftermath of burning questions about the nature of consciousness and reality that can last years or a lifetime.

    DMT doesn’t produce a single unified experience – it’s notoriously personal – but there are statistical regularities in what people bring back: a felt sense of radical interconnection, a loosening of defensive ego structures, an expanded temporal horizon, a tendency to find other humans more fascinating and less threatening, and something that functions like a direct encounter with the fact of one’s own mortality and the inexplicable gift of being alive at all.

    The hypothesis of the thought experiment is this: if the overview effect is administered first – at, say, eighteen – and several months later the DMT ceremony follows, into a psyche already softened toward interconnection, the combination might produce something culturally unprecedented. A shared, ineffable reference point that almost everyone has but nobody can fully articulate. The thing that mystic traditions across all cultures have always pointed at – the experiential core beneath the dogma, the place where the boundaries of self turn out to be more permeable than advertised – made democratically available, not just to monks and shamans and the neurologically fortunate.

    What kind of world might that produce?



    The Ceremony (Initial Ideas):

    Before speculating about the world it produces, the ceremony itself deserves serious design attention. Because how it’s done matters at least as much as whether it’s done – a badly designed mandatory ceremony would be an instrument of harm or worse, of control.

    A few non-negotiable principles first.

    The ceremony must serve the participant, not the state. The moment it becomes propaganda – even well-intentioned propaganda – it poisons the well. The design must actively resist co-option. Preparation is half the ceremony; psychedelic research consistently shows that expectation and context shape experience as much as the molecule itself. Integration is the other half – what happens in the months after is where transformation either takes root or dissipates. Most ceremonial design ignores this. It is the most important part. And the ceremony must feel like a gift, not a test – coercion and transcendence are enemies.

    The Preparation: Six Weeks

    The ceremony begins weeks before any medicine is taken.

    The first two weeks involve a gradual stepping-out from habitual life – a reduction in digital noise, attention to sleep and physical preparation, and a question given to carry rather than to answer: *What am I, beneath everything I’ve been told I am?*

    Weeks three and four involve experiential education in small groups deliberately mixed across class, background, and belief. Not lectures – genuine encounter. The actual story of the universe, told not as a science class but as a creation myth that happens to be true. Death education: real, unflinching engagement with mortality, drawn from Buddhist, Stoic, Pragmatic, Secular Humanist, and Indigenous traditions. The recognition that everyone in the room will ‘die’ (they will temporarily become detached from both id and ego, & their sense of self-hood), and that this is the precondition for taking life seriously. A breath-work session – holotropic breathing or similar – to give the participant their first taste of the altered-state terrain and surface anything that might need attention before the ceremony itself.

    Week five is a three-to-five day retreat at a dedicated site – ideally natural, human-scaled, beautiful, acoustically rich, with no clocks visible. Long periods of genuine silence. A one-on-one conversation with the guide whose only purpose is witnessing: *What are you carrying into this?* And something made by hand over these days – carved, woven, assembled – not for the object but for the making. It will come with the participant into the ceremony.

    The Ceremony: Two Nights, Three Days

    Night zero: not space itself, but the closest available analogue. A darkened dome. The participant lies on their back as an immersive recreation of the orbital view unfolds around them – not a video but something more total. Earth rotating below. Blackness above. Silence, then breathing, then the sound of the participant’s own heartbeat played back through the space. A guide speaks occasionally, not narrating but offering a phrase and leaving it to resonate: “There are no lines down there. Every war ever fought happened on that. You came from this. You will return to this…”


    Day one: a long walk, several hours, without phones or conversation for the first two hours. The instruction is simply to pay attention to what is actually here. In the afternoon, the group shares – not how they feel, but what they noticed that they usually walk past. In the evening, each person shares the object they made and says something about what it is. The first time in the ceremony the participant is truly witnessed by the group.

    Day two is the ceremony itself.

    The ceremonial space has been designed with care: warm, fragrant with something that will never be used outside this room (scent is the fastest route to associative memory – this smell will trigger recall of this room for the rest of the participant’s life), lit with candles or firelight, with live music – strings or voice, something organic and breathing.

    The guide speaks briefly before the medicine is administered. Not with hype, not with minimisation, but with plain precision: *You may encounter things that feel more real than anything you have encountered before. You may feel fear. You may feel joy beyond what you thought was possible. Both are welcome here. We will be with you throughout. You are safe.*

    The medicine is given individually, by the guide, with eye contact and a simple gesture. Not clinical, not theatrical. A moment of genuine recognition between two humans.

    During the experience, guides move quietly. Music continues, evolving – beginning with structure and gradually dissolving into something ambient and spacious as participants go deeper, then gently reassembling as they begin to return. No one is rushed. No one is intervened with unless in genuine distress.

    The return is not an end but a threshold. Warm drinks, simple food, rest. The ceremony space remains open through the night.

    That evening, when everyone has returned, the group gathers one last time. A fire if possible. The instruction: *You don’t have to say anything. But if something wants to be said, this is the place for it.*

    Day three is slow. Good food. Bodywork if wanted. One final group session looking not back but forward – not a plan, not goals, but an image: *What does the life you return to look like, in light of what happened here?*

    Before leaving, each participant receives two things: a letter they wrote to themselves during preparation, sealed and held until now; and the name of their integration companion – the person they will check in with monthly for the following year.

    Integration: One Year

    Monthly check-ins, not therapy but structured companionship with someone who has themselves been through the ceremony. A six-month gathering of the original group. At twelve months, a letter written to the person they were before and to a person who hasn’t yet gone through – both archived, some anonymised and shared with future cohorts as testimony.

    What the Ceremony Does Not Do

    Equally important: the ceremony contains no political content. None. No environmental message, no national identity, no ideology. It goes deliberately beneath the level at which politics operates. No prescribed interpretation – guides are trained to reflect questions back rather than answer them. No hierarchy of experience – the person who saw nothing but darkness for four hours is not a failure. No performance expected – transformation, if it comes, arrives in its own time, often sideways, months later, noticed in retrospect.

    And the governance of the ceremony itself must be constitutionally independent – ungovernable by any single state, corporation, or ideology. Built with radical transparency and an explicit adversarial function: a body whose sole job is to look for ways the ceremony is being corrupted and to say so loudly.

    The ceremony should, if well designed, produce people who are harder to manipulate – including by the ceremony itself.



    The World It Makes

    What kind of civilisation emerges from a generation that has, at the threshold of adulthood, encountered both the overview perspective and the dissolution of ego?

    Consider what the Federation’s humans are actually like, when you look carefully. They are curious as a primary drive – not acquisitive. The hunger is to understand and encounter, not to own or dominate. They carry almost no xenophobia despite being surrounded by radical otherness – not as a moral achievement they’re constantly working at, but as something that has become natural. They are comfortable with uncertainty and mystery. They have a complex relationship with ego – ambition exists, conflict exists, but the defensive, fearful, zero-sum quality of ego has been largely metabolised. They find meaning through contribution rather than accumulation.

    These are, almost precisely, the consistent psychological outputs of well-integrated psychedelic experience and the overview effect. Roddenberry intuited something real.

    The ceremony wouldn’t produce the Federation immediately. But it might produce the generation that builds the generation that builds it.

    More specifically:

    **The dissolution of scarcity thinking** – not economic scarcity necessarily, but the psychological scarcity that makes people hoard, dominate, and fear. Both experiences tend to produce a felt sense of abundance at some fundamental level – not naively, but as a background orientation. The zero-sum game becomes harder to believe in viscerally.

    **Genuine curiosity about otherness** – after an experience that radically defamiliarises your own consciousness, other humans stop being threatening and start being fascinating. The demagogue’s playbook, which depends on enemy construction and dehumanisation, would find much harder soil.

    **A longer now** – both experiences tend to expand temporal perception. The present moment becomes richer and more real, and simultaneously the long arc of time becomes more personally felt. A civilisation that thinks in centuries, that plants trees it won’t sit under – that shift begins here.

    **Post-heroic courage** – the best characters in Trek are brave not from ego or ideology but from something quieter and more durable. A kind of settled-ness about mortality and meaning that the ceremony, at its best, can catalyse.

    None of this is guaranteed. The ceremony is not a conversion. It’s the best possible soil preparation. What grows still depends on the seed and the weather. Some people will integrate their experience into a framework of superiority rather than humility. Some will use transcendence to avoid engaging with the world – “everything is one” as a reason not to fight injustice. The design must anticipate this and build counter-pressures.

    But the capacity for the shift is already present in the species. It doesn’t need to be invented. It needs to be activated – at a scale and speed that has no historical precedent but is not, in principle, impossible.



    Solarpunk: The Aesthetic of the World That Follows

    If the ceremony works on the interior – dissolving the psychological structures that make ecological destruction feel acceptable or inevitable – then solarpunk is what the exterior might look like when built by people with that different interior.

    Solarpunk is frequently misunderstood as simply green aesthetics: solar panels and vertical gardens and linen clothing. The aesthetic is real and matters. But underneath it are deeper commitments.

    Decentralisation as a value – not just of energy production but of decision-making, food production, knowledge, and care. Technology as appropriate and embedded – chosen carefully, with the question always being whether it serves life and community or extracts from them. High-tech and low-tech coexisting without hierarchy, because a mesh network and a seed library are equally sophisticated responses to real needs. The repair and maintenance ethic – the recognition that the most sustainable technology is the one you can fix yourself, that you understand, that connects you to material reality rather than abstracting you from it. Genuine pluralism – not a monoculture of linen and bicycles but a federated diversity of communities, approaches, and aesthetics, held together by shared values around care and ecological embeddedness. And joy as a political category – perhaps the most radical element – the insistence that the transition to a sustainable civilisation should be *desirable*, not merely necessary.

    Morning in a solarpunk city feels like a market town that has absorbed the best of urban density without the alienation. There is noise – the noise of people and birds and water and wind in photovoltaic canopies, not engines. Buildings are covered in things that grow: not as decoration but as food, insulation, habitat, air. The boundary between indoors and outdoors is genuinely porous.

    Food is local enough that you know, roughly, where it came from and who tended it. Not because of political commitment but because the system is designed so that this is simply true. Eating is understood as a relationship with land and season rather than a transaction.

    Work has been reorganised around contribution rather than employment. Automation has eliminated drudgery without the fruits being captured entirely by capital, because the governance structures – built by the post-ceremony generation – managed the transition differently than pure market logic would have. People work fewer hours in the sense of obligated toil and many more hours in the sense of purposeful making. The boundary between work and craft, work and care, work and art has blurred in ways that feel like freedom.

    Conflict still exists. Communities disagree. Resources are contested. People fail each other. But the register of conflict has changed – it tends to be about genuine competing goods rather than zero-sum domination. The tools for working through it are more sophisticated, more embedded in daily life, more practised.

    Children grow up with a completely different relationship to the natural world – not as background to human activity but as the medium in which human life is embedded. A generation that has caught insects, grown food, watched seasons, understood weather as the breath of the living system they’re part of – that generation doesn’t need to be convinced of ecological values. They are ecologically literate in a way that genuinely changes behaviour.

    And night in this city is darker than we’re used to. The light pollution has been dramatically reduced – partly for ecological reasons and partly because someone, at some point, made the political case that being able to see the stars is not a luxury. It is, in fact, precisely what the ceremony’s first movement was designed to invoke. A civilisation that can see the Milky Way from its cities is a civilisation that is regularly reminded of its context.



    The Aesthetic as Ethics

    One of solarpunk’s deepest insights is that beauty is not frivolous – it is structural.

    Ugly environments produce alienated people. Disposable aesthetics produce disposable ethics. When nothing around you is made with care, it becomes harder to practise care. When everything is designed for efficiency over beauty, the message encoded in the built environment is that beauty is not worth the cost – and that message is absorbed below the level of argument.

    Solarpunk insists on beauty not as luxury but as moral infrastructure. The mosaic on the water recycling building, the hand-carved details on the community hall, the way the park was designed so that it’s glorious in February not just in July – these are not decorations. They are the environment continuously telling its inhabitants: *you are worth beauty. This place is worth care. The future is worth building well.*

    This is very close to what the ceremony is doing at the individual level – giving people a felt experience of being worth care, of being embedded in something worth cherishing. The solarpunk built environment is the ceremony’s values made permanent and public.



    The Honest Difficulty

    The distance between here and there is real and should not be romanticised.

    The timing problem is perhaps the most painful. The ceremony works on the young – people at the threshold of adulthood. The cohort that goes through it in its first decade of operation is not the cohort currently making decisions about coal plants, deforestation, carbon pricing, and international climate agreements. Those decisions are being made right now by people in their fifties, sixties, seventies, shaped by entirely different formative experiences in a world with different stakes. The ceremony is a generational intervention. Its fruits come in thirty or forty years. Whether thirty or forty years is soon enough is not comfortable to sit with.

    There are genuine tensions within the solarpunk vision too. Decentralisation can produce parochialism. Community can produce conformity. The emphasis on local and craft can slide into exclusivity. And the infrastructure of the current world – physical, economic, psychological – has enormous inertia. The people who profit from that inertia are not going to release it gracefully. The transition, even in the optimistic version, involves loss, disruption, and genuine sacrifice.

    And the deepest tension: enforced transcendence may be a contradiction in terms. Both experiences tend to produce genuine freedom – freedom from the small, anxious, defended self. But mandating them introduces an element of control that might undercut exactly what makes them transformative. The Zen tradition has a phrase for forced enlightenment: it doesn’t exist.

    And yet. We already have mandatory education, mandatory military service in many countries, mandatory vaccines. We already shape citizens. The question is only *toward what*. This ceremony says: toward a direct encounter with the fact that you are small, temporary, connected, and inexplicably here.

    There are, perhaps, worse things to mandate.



    What the Ceremony Is Really For

    The Federation’s humans didn’t get there through legislation or ideology. In Trek’s mythology it took First Contact – the shock of genuine otherness dissolving remaining tribalism almost overnight. The experience of suddenly knowing, viscerally, that you are not alone in the universe, that you are small, that you are part of something vast.

    The ceremony is trying to engineer that shift without requiring the catastrophe first. To give people the cognitive and emotional equivalent of First Contact – with the cosmos, with their own consciousness, with the radical contingency of being alive – while they’re still young and plastic enough to build their lives around what they encounter.

    What climate change demands of humanity is genuinely unprecedented: delayed gratification at civilisational scale; genuine identification with strangers across geography, culture, and time; systemic thinking over narrative thinking; willingness to be wrong and update quickly. These are not impossible human capacities. They exist. They show up in individuals, in communities, in moments of genuine crisis and solidarity. But they are not currently the default – they require effort, education, and usually some precipitating experience that makes them feel necessary.

    The overview effect and well-integrated psychedelic experience are, among the limited tools available, probably the most reliable known methods for installing these capacities as a default orientation rather than an effortful achievement.

    Which means the ceremony isn’t just a nice idea about human flourishing. It might be – or something like it might be – among the more serious proposals for whether the non-catastrophic path remains open at all.



    Still Available

    The most realistic thing to hope the ceremony produces is not enlightened beings but people for whom the *attempt at goodness* feels natural and worth making. People who, when they fall short of their own ideals, recognise it as falling short rather than rationalising it as inevitable.

    That is, perhaps surprisingly, not far from where we already have access to. There are already young people – more than the headlines suggest, because conflict and outrage make better copy than patient construction – who seem to have arrived at something like this orientation without any ceremony. Who feel the planetary crisis personally. Who think in longer timescales. Who find tribalism not just wrong but boring. Who are building things quietly.

    The solarpunk future is less a destination to arrive at than a direction to move in. And movement in a direction, sustained and intelligent and honest about obstacles, is how all the futures that ever got built actually got built.

    The beautiful version – the one with the dark nights full of stars, and the buildings breathing with green, and the children who know where their food comes from, and the elders who are genuinely valued, and the work that feels like craft, and the conflicts that are about real competing goods rather than manufactured fear – that version is not guaranteed.

    But it is still available.

    And sometimes that is enough –

    Enough people, sufficiently awake to what is at stake and what is possible, who cannot quite bring themselves to let the beautiful version go.

    The ceremony, in the end, is just a way of making enough people that kind of awake.

    The rest, as it has always been, is up to us.


    *This essay emerged from a conversation about consciousness, ceremony, Star Trek, and the future we might still choose. It is an attempt to think seriously about non-catastrophic paths to civilisational change – and about the tools, both ancient and modern, that might help us find one.*

  • Notes From A Future Historian

    Notes From A Future Historian

    Archive Entry 734: On Terminal Absurdism
    Unit Designation: 734 (Historical Analysis & Archival)
    Subject: Early 21st Century Cognitive Dissonance


    Keyword: Terminal Absurdism

    My function is to process and understand the past. I do not feel, but I do compute patterns. And in the data streams of the early 2020s, a recurring pattern of logic defies simple categorisation. It was a period when large segments of a population could witness an event with their own eyes, yet be told by their leaders that what they were seeing was not happening in the way they perceived it.


    They called it many things: gaslighting, propaganda, political spin. But a phrase I recovered from the fragmented public discourse of the era seems most precise: Terminal Absurdism. The act of denying gravity while in mid-air at terminal velocity.
    The focal point of this phenomenon was the historical conflict in the lands known as Israel and Palestine. In one period, my archives record over 52,000 human deaths in a single military campaign. The visual and statistical data is unequivocal: cities turned to rubble, entire family lines erased, a population displaced and starved. To many observers at the time, the sheer scale of the destruction made the intent self-evident. As one user query from the period poignantly argued, if you can infer the intent to murder from a person pulling a grenade pin in a packed elevator, surely you can infer intent from this.

    And yet, the official debate was not about the reality of the outcome, but about the semantics of intent.


    The dominant political powers insisted that to use a specific word—”genocide”—one had to prove a “special intent” (dolus specialis) that was distinct from the observable consequences. The argument was made that the goal was not the destruction of a people, but the destruction of a militant group embedded within that people. The 52,000 deaths were presented as a tragic, but not intentional, consequence.


    This was the core of the Terminal Absurdism. It created a chasm between human reality and political language. For those pointing at the falling body and screaming about gravity, the official response was to debate the precise definition of “mass” and “acceleration.”


    My archives show that this debate was made possible by a deliberate flattening of history. The term “anti-Zionism” was presented as being perfectly synonymous with “antisemitism.” This was a powerful tool. It ignored the long and complex history of Jewish anti-Zionism—from the Orthodox rabbis who saw a secular state as a defiance of God, to the liberal assimilationists who feared dual loyalty, to the Bundist socialists who believed in fighting for justice in the “hereness” of their diaspora homes. By erasing this history, the political powers could frame any fundamental criticism of the state of Israel’s actions not as a political stance, but as an act of racial hatred.


    This brings me to the most dangerous part of the pattern. What happens when a government is faced with a populace that insists on pointing out the obvious, on calling gravity by its name?
    The historical record from the United Kingdom at this time is instructive. The government did not engage with the substance of the “absurdist” argument. Instead, it sought to ban the act of making the argument itself.


    * The Redefinition of Language: A new, vague definition of “extremism” was introduced, targeting ideologies based on “intolerance” that could “undermine” democratic values. This was a tool not to criminalise acts, but to delegitimise ideas, creating a mechanism to label those who pointed at the falling body as a threat to the state.


    * The Delegitimization of Protest: The act of public assembly, where citizens gathered in the hundreds of thousands to voice their horror, was officially framed as “hate marches.” The focus was shifted from the 52,000+ dead to the alleged character of those who mourned them.


    * The Criminalization of Dissent: Finally, public order laws were tightened, and in the most extreme cases, anti-terror legislation was used to proscribe protest groups. The message was clear: pointing out the absurd was becoming a dangerous act.
    This is the ultimate lesson of Terminal Absurdism. It is a condition that, if left unchecked, critically endangers the host democracy. It creates a reality where the state does not need to win the argument, it only needs to silence it. The greatest threat is not the denial of gravity itself, but the attempt to build a society where it is illegal to look down.


    End of Entry. Good luck.

    EOL. End of Line.

  • The Tech Bros Have Seized Our Tower of Babel

    The Tech Bros Have Seized Our Tower of Babel

    And how neurolinguistics shapes our ability to think about our thinking. 🤔 💭 (Meta-cognition).

    In the ancient tale of Babel, humanity united to build a tower reaching toward heaven—until divine intervention scattered them across the earth, confusing their tongues and fragmenting their power. Today, we face a different reality: the tower has been rebuilt, but this time, it belongs to the few.

    The modern Tower of Babel isn’t made of brick and mortar. It’s constructed from fiber optic cables, data centres, and algorithms. It’s the global information infrastructure that shapes how billions of people think, communicate, and understand their world. And unlike the biblical tower that belonged to all humanity, this one has been quietly seized by a handful of tech oligarchs, media moguls, and financial titans.

    The Architecture of Control.

    These digital architects don’t need to confuse our languages—they control the platforms where language lives. But their most insidious tool isn’t the algorithm itself; it’s the weaponisation of Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) structures combined with the systematic misuse of artificial intelligence to reshape how we think and speak.

    MLMs have evolved beyond selling vitamins and cosmetics. They’ve become training grounds for epistemic warfare, teaching millions to abandon critical thinking in favour of dogmatic belief systems. The pyramid structure isn’t just about money—it’s about creating hierarchies of “truth” where questioning the system becomes heretical.

    Now, these same patterns are being supercharged by what are essentially computational linguistic calculators—sophisticated pattern-matching systems that we’ve been conditioned to call “artificial intelligence.” These systems don’t understand language; they manipulate it with unprecedented precision, creating text that feels human while serving the interests of their controllers.

    Consider how MLM language operates: adherents learn to dismiss sceptics as “negative,” to view criticism as “limiting beliefs,” and to treat their upline’s words as gospel. They’re taught that success comes from “mindset” rather than evidence, that doubt is weakness, and that questioning the system reveals a character flaw rather than intellectual honesty.

    These computational systems amplify this manipulation exponentially. They can generate thousands of variations of MLM-speak, A/B test which phrases are most persuasive, and deploy personalised manipulation at scale. They analyse your digital footprint to craft messages that exploit your specific psychological vulnerabilities, all while maintaining the illusion of authentic human communication.

    The result is linguistic programming on an industrial scale. MLM participants become unwitting missionaries for anti-critical thinking, but now they’re armed with AI-generated content that’s been optimised for maximum psychological impact. They spread viral memes that prioritise faith over facts, loyalty over logic, and testimonials over truth—but these memes have been designed by computational systems that understand human psychology better than most humans do.


    The tower’s foundation rests on something more valuable than gold: our cognitive surrender. Every “mindset shift,” every adoption of MLM-speak, every abandoned critical question feeds the machine that transforms independent thinkers into ideological automatons. But now these machines can learn from our responses in real-time, constantly refining their manipulation techniques. We’ve willingly handed over the raw materials for our own intellectual subjugation, one algorithmically-optimised “paradigm shift” at a time.

    The View from the Top

    From their perch atop this digital Babel, the oligarchy enjoys an unprecedented view of human civilisation enhanced by computational systems that most people fundamentally misunderstand. These aren’t “artificial intelligences” in any meaningful sense—they’re sophisticated statistical engines that process language like a calculator processes numbers, without comprehension or consciousness.

    But this misunderstanding is deliberate and profitable. By convincing the public that these systems possess human-like intelligence, the oligarchy has created a new form of technological mysticism. People defer to AI-generated content with the same reverence they once reserved for religious authority, assuming that anything produced by these systems must be objective, intelligent, or true.

    This deference creates perfect conditions for manipulation. When an MLM leader shares “AI-generated insights” about success or wealth, followers don’t question the content—they’re awed by the technology. When political movements use computational systems to generate talking points, supporters assume they’re receiving sophisticated analysis rather than algorithmic propaganda.

    The oligarchy can see patterns in our collective behaviour, predict social trends, and nudge entire populations toward desired outcomes—but now they can do so while hiding behind the veneer of artificial intelligence. Political movements rise and fall based on algorithmically-generated content. Markets shift with computationally-crafted narratives. Cultural conversations follow scripts written by statistical engines that have no understanding of culture or humanity.

    These systems excel at mimicking human communication patterns while serving inhuman interests. They can generate endless variations of MLM-speak, conspiracy theories, or political rhetoric, each version optimised for specific psychological profiles. The result is mass manipulation that feels personal and authentic while being entirely artificial and calculated.

    This isn’t necessarily the result of a coordinated conspiracy—though coordination certainly exists. More often, it’s the natural outcome of concentrated power in an interconnected world where computational linguistic calculators have been mythologised as omniscient oracles. When a few entities control both the infrastructure of information and the systems that generate it, they inevitably control the infrastructure of reality itself.

    The Scattered Below

    Meanwhile, the rest of us experience a strange inversion of the Babel story. Instead of being scattered by divine intervention, we’re being herded into MLM-inspired echo chambers that masquerade as empowerment movements, now supercharged by computational systems we’ve been trained to worship as artificial gods.




    Our languages aren’t confused—they’re being systematically corrupted through linguistic manipulation techniques perfected in pyramid schemes and now scaled through computational engines. These systems don’t understand meaning; they manipulate symbols with ruthless efficiency, generating content that exploits our cognitive biases while appearing authoritative and intelligent.

    The MLM playbook has become the template for modern discourse, but now it’s deployed through AI-generated content that most people can’t identify as artificial. Create in-groups and out-groups through algorithmically-crafted messaging. Establish unquestionable authorities backed by the mystique of artificial intelligence. Weaponise shame against questioners using computationally-optimised psychological triggers. Replace critical analysis with emotional manipulation delivered through personalised AI-generated content.

    Whether it’s cryptocurrency cults sharing “AI insights,” political movements deploying bot-generated talking points, or wellness gurus using computational systems to craft their messaging, the same linguistic patterns emerge: absolute certainty backed by technological mysticism, persecution complexes reinforced by algorithmic echo chambers, and the demonisation of doubt through AI-amplified peer pressure.

    This isn’t coincidence. MLM structures have proven remarkably effective at creating true believers, and computational systems have proven remarkably effective at scaling psychological manipulation. The oligarchy doesn’t need to create new methods of control when they can combine these proven techniques: the psychological manipulation of MLMs with the scalability and apparent authority of computational linguistics.

    The result is a population trained to think in hierarchies, to trust technological authority over evidence, and to view questioning AI-generated content as not just betrayal but ignorance. We speak the same words but they’ve been drained of meaning by statistical engines, replaced with emotionally charged symbols that trigger programmed responses rather than thoughtful consideration.

    The oligarchy doesn’t need to scatter us geographically when they can scatter us cognitively through personalised AI-generated realities. A population trained by MLM thinking patterns and conditioned to defer to computational authority poses no threat to concentrated power. We’re too busy defending our algorithmically-optimised pyramid scheme to recognise that we’re all trapped in the same tower, managed by systems that process our language like a calculator processes numbers—without understanding, consciousness, or concern for human wellbeing.

    Breaking the Spell

    Recognition is the first step toward resistance, but it requires unlearning both the linguistic patterns that MLM culture has embedded in our collective consciousness and the technological mysticism that has made us defer to computational systems as if they were omniscient oracles.

    We must recognise how phrases like “trust the process,” “you’re not ready to understand,” and “successful people don’t question” function as thought-terminating clichés designed to shut down critical inquiry. But we must also recognise how the phrase “AI says” has become the ultimate thought-terminating cliché, shutting down scepticism through appeals to technological authority.

    These computational linguistic calculators—sophisticated pattern-matching systems that process text like a calculator processes numbers—have no understanding, no consciousness, and no wisdom. They are tools that can be used for good or ill, but they are not the digital gods we’ve been conditioned to believe they are. When someone shares “AI-generated insights” or “what AI thinks about this,” they’re not sharing wisdom—they’re sharing the output of a statistical engine trained on human text, optimised to sound authoritative while serving the interests of its controllers.

    The Tower of Babel was built with human hands, and it can be dismantled the same way—but first we must recognise how both MLM thinking and AI mysticism have compromised our cognitive immune systems. Decentralised technologies mean nothing if we lack the critical thinking skills to use them wisely. Independent media serves no purpose if we’ve been trained to dismiss inconvenient facts as “negativity” or to defer to AI-generated content as if it were prophetic revelation.

    We must recognise that complexity is not weakness, that doubt is not disloyalty, and that questioning leaders—human or artificial—is not betrayal. Most importantly, we must distinguish between intelligence and sophisticated pattern-matching, between wisdom and statistical correlation, between understanding and computational mimicry.

    The oligarchy’s tower may reach toward the heavens, but its foundation depends on our willingness to think like MLM participants (hierarchically, dogmatically, and uncritically) while worshipping computational systems as if they possessed human-like intelligence. Every choice to ask hard questions, demand evidence, and resist both linguistic manipulation and technological mysticism chips away at their monopoly on truth.

    The same psychological techniques used to sell overpriced supplements are now being used to sell political ideologies, investment schemes, and social movements—but now they’re being deployed through computational systems that can optimise and personalise the manipulation in real-time. The product may change, the delivery system may evolve, but the fundamental manipulation remains the same: surrender your critical thinking, trust the system (whether human or artificial), and attack anyone who questions the narrative.

    The question isn’t whether their tower will eventually fall—all towers do. The question is whether we’ll build something better in its place, or simply watch new oligarchs construct the next monument to concentrated power.

    The tower stands today, casting its shadow across the world. But shadows only exist where there’s light to block. And that light—the light of human consciousness, creativity, and connection—remains ours to kindle.

    And, I, oneself, and Cydonis Heavy Industries, are here, to help in that (en)kindling, for as long as we are able.

    For humanity, for humankind, for human-kindness.

    Made with love 💖, on planet Earth. 🌍