An Appeal (brief introduction)

I’ve always been put in the political box.Obviously politics is an interest of mine, and part of what I am providing to you at beenawake.com is some political analysis, but it’s why my analysis is different that I want to share with those of you who are currently subscribed, and your friends and family.When the Intellectual Dark Web was becoming a thing, I was introduced to a word by Eric or Bret Weinstein I hadn’t quite heard before - sensemaking.Eric argued on Joe Rogan and elsewhere that part of what has gone wrong with American society, and by extension The West, was our sensemaking apparatuses were not functioning properly.Of course this isn’t a new phenomenon, I’m fond of reminding people the corporate press like the New York Times have purposefully misled their readership many times in recent history. The “paper of record” lied about communism and the genocide in Ukraine known as the Holodomor. More recently the paper lied about WMD’s in Iraq and its 1619 project lies about the origins of American Society and how to interpret history.Sensemaking therefore, was already an issue. Enter beenawake.comIn a very simple way, I’m trying to make sense of the world, and your email address is the ticket for a front row seat as I explore issues on my podcast and provide analysis in my newsletter. I may not get everything 100% right, but I’ll provide you the tools to analyze and understand things on a deeper level. Sometimes the lesson will use current politics, but after Nov 3 I look forward to focusing on more foundational philosophical ideas presented in an easy to digest format.This project can’t grow without you, and if you’ve read this far know I’m grateful.
Next time you read something that benefits you, think of your friend or family member who would enjoy the content and share it with them in a private message.No need to blast a post on Facebook where people will attack you, just send someone you care about an email or text message with the link. Ask them to subscribe so I know there are people who enjoy the work I put into this.And I’ll continue to provide compelling content 5 days a week

The Better Path Begins (Preface)

It’s incumbent on me to tell you why the future posts and conversations on Been Awake will help you navigate the world. The realm of ideas is a poorly mapped landscape, it requires us to have and use tools to make sense of what is ahead. Been Awake will act as a compass, giving you a heading based on the reasoning of your humble author L.B. Muniz, and any friends we pick up along the way.I am not one with the woke, I neither believe in their philosophical principles nor their popularized narrative, less even so with their ideological fervor, political positioning, and policy prescriptions. The name of this space is an answer to their inevitable question“Why aren’t you one of us?”“Because I searched for the same answers and found a better path to understanding”This is to say - I am not woke, I’ve been awake.Categorization is a useful tool, but unlike rocks and plants, human ideas are not so easily separated from one another. Complicated arguments about the world being reduced to a single word like “woke” will cause many “respectable people” to dismiss me. Yet if I’m effective, standing against these same people will result in me being accused of something I am not. In later posts on beenawake.com their arguments will be presented, and argued against in reasonable fashion. Even in this way, the most devout will deny the very idea of reason in favor of the woke narrative. This itself is a clue into what we fight against.Been Awake is not for the critics, though they are free to read and participate. Been Awake is for those looking for an understanding of the world that goes deeper than the woke, addressing the injustice of our times without the sacrifice of our civilization, and diffusing the rhetorical bombs they employ to overcome your reasonable objections.Be warned, reason is a double-edged sword. It is not without imperfection, and only as careful as the one who wields it. Been Awake is the instruction and practice of the skeptical frame of mind (doubt before assent), and the defense of property rights, what one could call liberty or human freedom. These two tools will open a path to understanding that will help you succeed - not in some narrow political sense - but in all endeavors.

Don't Give Up the High Ground

Despite narratives to the contrary most people don't go looking for a fight. This isn't an effect of law or law enforcement, but the order provided by civil society and peaceful people. At a very basic level humans have evolved to exist and act within a group. To explore the various ways this is manifested in an individual will be the work of later pages, but defending the sovereignty of the individual gives you the high ground, don't give it up.The most common arguments against individualism rely on a straw man. It purposefully frames a very narrow understanding - rugged individualism - and uses this as a justification for you to dismiss the idea entirely. The woke are part of a broader movement which is collective in nature. They claim you are not an individual, but a representation of your group identity. If you accept this it means there is no thought outside of your group identity, and there is no way for you to communicate across groups. This sentiment is expressed in a popular slogan following the protests after George Floyd's killing in Minnesota “I understand that I will never understand, so I will stand.”It is only natural for a social creature to attempt empathy, but the collectivist woke forbid it. Since empathy is technically impossible, which is why you'll “never understand” - you are prohibiting a meeting of the minds, an understanding, between people. In the absence of an understanding, you are left with subjugation or domination, particularly in the world of ideas. Empathy is possible, and it's possible in part because of individualism.Individualism isn't about some atomistic claim that every man is an island (another strawman) of course we rely on one another! Without civil society the complexity and richness of our world could not exist. Individualism does not deny the group, it instead posits that by beginning with the individual we can better understand and help the collective. You are not some wooden representation of a group identity. You are the base unit of reality, and should be considered that before any arbitrary group designation the woke will make you a part of. If you are defending the individual you have the high ground - don't be the fool who loses it.

The Meme That Changed My Life

We humans are memetic creatures, while the idea of a meme can represent a picture or screenshot like above, it is a broader term that in many ways explains our evolutionary success. There are all kinds of memes on the internet, and I can’t exactly remember when I stumbled across this one, but it was sometime between 2010-2012.I’ve always been someone who like gadgets and using technology. In the years between the Motorola Razer and smart phones becoming the standard, there was the Palm Centro. Mine was pink because it previously belonged to my then step-mother. Jokes were had at my expense, but I had a phone that had power. Not only did it have a full keyboard, but a stylus, a touch screen, and a good sized screen for reading. I read classics like Treasure Island and Sherlock Holmes on that phone. I also used the news “app” to read the AP and other sources continuously. This was before mobile was big, and right around the time of the first iPhone’s release.Years later I stumbled upon the above meme that asks the question on RedditIf someone from the 1950’s appeared today what would be the most difficult thing to explain to them about life today?
The answer given by user nuseramed?"I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man. I use it to look at pictures of cats and get into arguments with strangers."
When I read this meme, I made a resolution to myself. I said that I wouldn’t be caught in the pattern everyone was adopting with their phones. If I was going to have such a device in my pocket, if I was going to spend a great portion of my day using it, then I was going to use it to increase my knowledge, not passively entertain my fancy. A lot of people want to blame technology for the state of society, but technology (whether a smart phone or a door bell) is a tool that you get to decide how to use.If the world was about white and black hats it would be a lot easier to make your way. Defining what makes something “good” or “bad” has been the work of religions, governments, media outlets, and now tech platforms. I will answer those questions as well, but always presented as a conclusion that could change based on further evidence. What I won’t falter on is that we all deserve the freedom to use technology how we wish.For those who are content with arguing with strangers or watching cute videos of animals (I have been known to do both) there is nothing wrong with your position. What I resolved to do, which is why the meme changed my life, is use technology to increase my personal knowledge, exploring the intellectual landscape as far as I dare. It saddens me to think it’s not the same internet as it was ten years ago when I really started my journey (read my first red pill), but it's important to remember that hope is not lost. The fatalism age can bring will cloud our judgement if you don't remember - It all comes down to the choice you make, and that’s far more important than voting.

My First Red Pill

"[The process of Red Pilling is] demonstrating to someone that what is presented as fact by the corporate press and entertainment industries is only (at best) a shadow of what is real, that this supposed reality is in fact a carefully constructed narrative intentionally designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power and to keep everyone else tame and submissive"
-Michael MaliceYou’ve probably heard the term red pill used online or in person. Almost definitely it was used incorrectly. Because most people can’t escape the duopoly of American politics (you’re either on Team R or Team D) many mistakenly think the red pill has something to do with something as narrow as party politics. For the purposes of Been Awake, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The definition of Red Pilling as put forward by Michael Malice above, with the accompanying warning of not taking the whole bottle, is the best definition of what we are referring to when I claim to be red-pilled.I was thinking recently about what my first red pill was. Certainly having family members that fled communism helped, but that is an inoculation I didn’t choose to take. Taking the red pill by contrast is a choice about how you view the world. This is similar to Plato’s allegory of the cave, and other metaphors found in great works of philosophy and art.In an earlier post, I argued that “unlike rocks and plants, human ideas are not so easily separated from one another.” The parasitic woke and their ideological predecessors demonstrate the way language can be distorted, the greatest example of which is the term Liberal.In the 1956 paperback edition of The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek clearly wrote out what to me looking back, was a massive red pill in my intellectual development.He writes: (my emphasis)"There is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camoflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term, but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium [criticism]. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives."To this day, it remains the case that “liberalism” in the United States has been associated with far left ideas about wealth transfers, and high levels of taxation. This is not true for the rest of the world. As a consequence, the intellectual descendants of Hayek & Mises had to refer to themselves by a new name - libertarian.As Thomas Leonard demonstrates in the book Illiberal Reformers, the roots of American Progressivism are illiberal (or socialistic) in nature. Progressivism and liberalism should not be considered synonymous, and yet they are. I believe that the ascendency of the woke over the last 10 years has shown this to be the case.As a very simple exercise, consider that “free speech” is not only a political debate, but that the “right-wing” have a claim over its defense. The left-liberals found in groups like the heterodox academy or broader intellectual dark web are great examples of people who have diverged for reasons grounded in the bedrock freedoms espoused by liberalism.Wokeism is a parasite sucking the blood from bedrock liberal values of freedom and justice, all in the name of tolerance. If you are a conservative leaning American who believes in the constitution, you have participated in the tradition of liberalism and Hayek points out. Part of skepticism is recognizing that without a certain level of order, ideas (especially contrary ones) cannot exist.Part of Western Civilization is the promise of peace amongst disagreement. This is a value that needs to be taught, as it helps curb our more instinctual drives. Variants of conflict theory like the woke deny individualism as we’ve already discussed, and reject that you can have understanding across groups. As a consequence they amplify the instinctual drive to stamp out differing ideas because words are not tool by which we can understand one another, but the method of control. The alt-right and other radical elements use the same element, another lesson of Hayek who rightly called fascism and communism “two heads of the same coin.”

Why We Don't Need Intersectionality

"How many categories do you need to add in an intersectional analysis before you’re actually down to one in a billion? . . . let’s just use 100 as an example . . . if you have 6 categories with a probability of 0.1 then you’re one in a billion, so you just need 6 dimensions of intersectionality before you’ve fractionated the population down to the level of the individual. So that means the individual comes sneaking back into the collective ideas of post-modernism once you hit six intersectional categories. . . So if you’re a multi-racial, woman, bisexual, 27 years old, smart, 30th percentile for attractiveness, 10th percentile for familial wealth, and 80th percentile for education you’re the only one in the world like that."
-Jordan PetersonOne of the reasons Jordan Peterson was so purposefully maligned by the press is because of his effectiveness. He provided a better way of viewing the problems of society, and stood his ground on basic non-authoritarian principles. His voice is sorely missed as he has recovered, and what I hope to do here is flesh out what he is discussing in the clip above that is useful to you the reader. I will give a brief explanation of intersectionality today, and tomorrow I will show through demonstration how methodological individualism is a better system.What is intersectionality?
According to Vox.com Kimberlé Crenshaw was responsible for coining the term in the legal field. In her 1999 paper Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics she lays out one of the first understandings of intersectionality, though not through a strict definition. She writes:"I will discuss how it contributes to the marginalization of Black women in feminist theory and in antiracist politics. I argue that Black women are sometimes excluded from feminist theory and antiracist policy discourse because both are predicated on a discrete set of experiences that often does not accurately reflect the interaction of race and gender. These problems of exclusion cannot be solved simply by including Black women within an already established analytical structure. Because the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated. Thus, for feminist theory and antiracist policy discourse to embrace the experiences and concerns of Black women, the entire framework that has been used as a basis for translating "women's experience" or "the Black experience" into concrete policy demands must be rethought and recast."In other words, critical race theory teaches us about how pervasive racism is, and feminist theory teaches us how pervasive sexism is, but both discriminate at the intersection of black women - the ways in which society discriminates against that group being unique. The idea has certainly expanded from this narrow legal definition, but still belongs to a school of thought that thinks the world is only about conflict and subjugation of one group under another.From my perspective, Intersectionality effectively attempts to invert the racial hierarchy established by Progressive Intellectualism of the early 20th century. It takes the same poisonous and anti-individualist Critical Race Theory and elements of Post Modernism to say “because the world is racist, we need to elevate marginalized voices and bring them to the center” It takes for granted that racial discrimination is fundamental to the human experience, and therefore you have less to say if you are not a “person of color" and even less if you are not a woman who is a person of color.This is an effective way to stifle free thinking men and women from exploring the idea. The nature of my being puts me at a disadvantage in front of a largely woke left wing audience because who is saying something matters more than what is being said. To me this shows the same level of discrimination as the despicable Supreme Court decision of Dred Scott vs Sanford. It didn’t matter that the man was able to articulate an appeal for his freedom to the highest court - his race made him a slave in the eyes of the law regardless of where he stood. I’m sure Crenshaw and others would take exception to my using the Dred Scott decision to demonstrate why individualism is better than intersectionality, but they have no more a claim to history than any other individual. And while there is merit to Crenshaw’s point, her ideological roots create problems at the societal level.On college campuses, intersectionality is a means by which professors and students alike are silenced. It’s why cis white heterosexual men for example need to “check your privilege”. The idea of intersectionality as it became more mainstream came creates the impression that personal experience is just as if not more valid than empirical evidence. When it’s mixed in with post-modern skepticism about meta-narratives, and critical race theory’s conflict theory a la Marx. The valid point Crenshaw brings up is still recognizable through a liberal philosophy and understanding which is individualist rather than collectivist, and we don’t have to have the negative effect of silencing opposition to realize a better order.

Plotting a Point in Space

Plotting a point in space
If I was trying to direct you to the Sears Tower in Chicago, I might tell you it’s at 233 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL 60606. I could also say the building is located at the intersection of W Jackson and S Franklin. To be even more precise, I could use the coordinates 41 degrees 52 minutes & 43 seconds North, by 87 degrees 38 minutes & 9 seconds West. All of these measurements will get you to the same destination, but only one gives a unique enough location that it can be plotted relative to any other point on the earth. You’ll notice that longitudinal coordinates use 6 data points to effectively map the skyscraper’s location. Similarly if we plot the location of a planet in space, we need at least 6 data points, then there is the case of the Voyager project. The Golden Record included in the probe created a “galactic map” by using the nearest pulsars as a way to map our solar system’s location.From pbs.org"Pulsars are the rapidly spinning remains of dying stars—the leftover cores of supernova explosions. They're only about 12 to 15 miles in diameter, but most contain more than twice the mass of our sun.
Their rapid spin and intense magnetic fields cause the pulsars to emit narrow beams of light, which flash like the beam from a lighthouse every time they pass across our field of view.
Each pulsar has its own signature pulse rate, making them easy to identify, and ideal as reference points on a map. Frank Drake used 14 pulsars to create a map with our sun at the center. Each pulsar is connected to the sun by a solid line. The length of the line represents the pulsar's approximate relative distance from the sun."Another problem faced by Drake and other scientists would be how to calculate the frequency of the pulsar, as “one second” is not a universal measurement."Drake felt he needed a base unit that was more universal—one that intelligent life anywhere would be able to calculate, no matter what system of timekeeping they use.He based his calculations on the hydrogen atom, and more specifically, on the time it takes for the spin of a hydrogen atom’s electron to change relative to its proton. It’s known as the hyperfine transition period of hydrogen, and he illustrated it on the map."Keeping up so far? there are many ways we can measure the location of something on earth or out there in space, but the more data points we collect the narrower our field of search is. For example I could add a time of day and elevation to our location of the Sears Tower to make it even more precise, or let you know it’s technically called the Willis Tower today.To make each individual unique then, we need at least 6 data points which make up the intersection of their identity.Why the last thing I am is a Libertarian
In his economic treatise Human Action published in 1949 Ludwig von Mises argued for what he called a methodological individualism He defends himself (Chapter 2 section 4) from critics like Crenshaw and others fifty years before they would write. (my emphasis)"First we must realize that all actions are performed by individuals. A collective operates always through the intermediary of one or several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as the secondary source. It is the meaning which the acting individuals and all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that determines its character. It is the meaning that marks one action as the action of an individual and another action as the action of the state or of the municipality. The hangman, not the state, executes a criminal. It is the meaning of those concerned that discerns in the hangman's action an action of the state. A group of armed men occupies a place. It is the meaning of those concerned which imputes this occupation not to the officers and soldiers on the spot, but to their nation. If we scrutinize the meaning of the various actions performed by individuals we must necessarily learn everything about the actions of collective wholes. For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members' actions. The life of a collective is lived in the actions of the individuals constituting its body. There is no social collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some individuals. The reality of a social integer consists in its directing and releasing definite actions on the part of individuals. Thus the way to a cognition of collective wholes is through an analysis of the individuals' actions."The beauty of his prose notwithstanding, Bob Murphy helps to make this idea more salient in his study guide"the “nation” does not bomb another country; individuals in the armed forces choose to obey such orders. The collectivist mindset is apparent when people refer to “we” when in fact such individuals had nothing to do with the actions in question. If a U.S. citizen says, “We won World War I,” this is of course literally false. There is no such confusion in the term “I.”"It’s very common to conflate yourself with a group you belong to. You might say “we won” if your favorite hockey team wins the Stanley Cup. This is a harmless application, but when we conflate ourselves with the actors in government, we do more harm than good. The State is not synonymous with society, a corporation is not the same thing as it’s members, and a team is not every player in one body. The promise of a free society is where each of us are recognized for what makes us unique, not the narrow categories of race and sex (though those too can make an individual unique.This should also remind us that we are not the sum of our political ideology. For many on the left, politics is reality. Art is political, food is political, existing within American society as a person of African descent has literally been argued to be a political act. This is because many reject the idea of individualism, and instead can only see it through the narrow view of something like intersectionality.Part of what makes them believe existence is political is they fall victim to what Mises refers to as a polylogism Marx argued that the bourgeois mind operates on different principles from the proletarian mind. Part of the switch institutions like the Frankfort school and Critical Race Theorists make to this formulation is to be one between the races or sexes. It’s not enough for a man to listen to a woman therefore, he literally cannot comprehend her perspective. Of course, there are differences between men and women, and their contributions to society should be noted. This is why Mises rejects such a drastic difference between groups. There might be differences of perspective, but we all have the same logical structures to our minds that make us “human.”Another way of putting this is that a humanist perspective supersedes any claims a feminist or critical race theorist might produce. We can have the same critical analysis without sacrificing basic ideas like individuality to the altar of equity.Let’s apply this idea to your author to better understand what I’m driving at. I am a man who was born in the USA within the last 30 years, I was raised in the Catholic Church and attended 3 different universities never graduating with a bachelor’s degree, I am of average height, slightly overweight as I write this, and philosophical skeptic. I am of Cuban and Irish ancestry, when I’m not writing this newsletter I have a job in sales, and am a devotee of the Austrian School of Economics, and as a consequence have generally libertarian politics.I just demonstrated 14 data points that make up who I am as a person. I could get even more specific until we can effectively map who I am as an individual. Even then if you were to map me 10 years ago my responses would have been different. This is why approaching things through a lens of individualism and seeking to understand first is preferable, and why I say the individual is the base unit of society. It is in this way the “last” thing I am is Libertarian.

Stop With the Binary's

Fixing Mitsakes
Our brains are funny things. Have you ever read a sentence that wasn’t properly formatted? Maybe they mispselled a word or used the wrong won entirely, but your brain will immediately try to understand what it is the author was trying to say and correct the mistake. The brain is a problem solving machine, even when it works against you.This is a natural thing we do that can be exploited very easily. A great example of this is how radical sloganeering works in the political space. Consider how #KillAllMen is supposed to be interpreted as “it would be nice if the world sucked less for women.” according to Vox’s Ezra Klein. There are countless examples of these hashtags and calls to action, and most engage in a motte-and-bailey defense This means you take a horribly controversial opinion like exterminating half of the human population, and defend yourself by saying you only meant things can sometimes suck as a modern American woman.Here’s another example from the right broadly speaking. At the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even today as it relates to country like Iran you may come across someone who says we should turn countries like this (sometimes even the whole middle-east) into a “parking lot.” Direct Translation? Exterminate the populations by using nuclear weapons on the region.Extreme? Absolutely
To be taken seriously? Let’s hope not.If I was interested in being a partisan and employing the motte-and-bailey strategy I could write an article like Klein did above expressing how a phrase like “turn the middle-east into a parking lot” is really just an expression of frustration with the status quo that means “can’t the terrorists just suck less?”I draw the heavy handed distinction to serve the point, depending on your perspective or situation you may interpret facts differently, and be more willing to defend a proposition that would be better left with the emotional baggage it came with. I offer this advice to myself just as I do to anyone who reads this post. This is where the practice of skepticism helps - not to stop your emotional reactions, but to properly categorize them. Otherwise you may fall victim to the binary’s way of life.Enough with the Binary
Have you ever watched this video?It shows local news anchors from across the country telling you how false and misleading information news stories are extremely dangerous to “our” Democracy. With identical scripts they sing a chorus that I could liken to the Greek tragedies of old, except the Chorus usually had necessary information for the audience.Obviously the type of content I produce here is not the same thing as what is released by CBS, NBC, Fox News, etc. While I source my work as much as possible, it doesn’t mean you should inherently trust my analysis, but nor should you theirs.Just because it’s true that I and other independent media ventures may get stories wrong doesn’t mean that the big players by default get things right. That’s the type of binary thinking the Corporate Press implies when propaganda pundits like Brian Stelter claim there are massive misinformation and disinformation campaigns being waged by “right wing media sources.” Or when the Washington Post trots out warmonger neo-cons like Karl Rove to say Republicans should not expect a victory for Trump and should not support his efforts to sue various states.I’m neither on Stelter’s nor Rove’s team. Nor am I on Biden’s or Trump’s. This isn’t to say I’m without preference or bias, but when it comes to the mainstream I have no dog in the race. A lot of time, this makes my position difficult to determine - especially when you operate from the traditional binaryTo begin understanding though, you only need to throw out the binaries that are presented to you in the Corporate Press, Government, and Hollywood.Things are not always “either or” sometimes things can be “either one, or the other, or both”. I’ve spoken elsewhere about a type of dualism (i.e. the yin yang of Taoism) Binaries of this sort are the dark side of a natural part of the brain, and exploited by those who should know better.When you start to notice how false binaries cloud your judgment, you'll begin to see how influence can work in a broader sense, and that gives you power.

Stop calling them Liberals

The most liberal Senator
According to Fox News, in 2019 Kamala Harris was “The most liberal member of the Senate.” In response, CNN asks the question “Fact check: Is Kamala Harris the most liberal member of the Senate?” Turns out? They agree. According the to accepted Narrative in the Corporate Press Kamala Harris is one of the most “liberal” members of the US Senate. CNN even goes so far as to say she was more “moderate” in the past.Let’s recap what that “moderate” and “liberal” label is supposed to represent. According to Reason Magazine Part of Harris’ legacy as a “moderate” includes"It is true that Harris pursued diversion programs and other progressive issues as San Francisco D.A. (It's also true that the San Francisco D.A. is probably the most progressive in the state as a general rule. Harris actually ran as a law-and-order candidate in 2003 against the incumbent lefty D.A.) . . . Harris avoids addressing why her office did things like defend egregious prosecutorial misconduct, fight exonerations, oppose civil asset forfeiture reforms, or appeal the removal of the entire Orange County district attorney's office from a high-profile death penalty case after a bombshell report revealed an unconstitutional jailhouse snitch program."What makes her more liberal now? She supports the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Giving out money so people can buy homes under the guise of “racial equity.” These are all policies better left under the umbrella of Progressivism, or Leftism broadly speaking. Of course she has had to mollify her rhetoric as Biden’s VP, but I’m not sure how any of this qualifies her (or Bernie Sanders for that matter) as a “liberal” senator. Bernie Sanders you will recall, calls himself a Socialist. So how is he the second most liberal Senator? To discover that answer, we’ll have to do some math.Number line(s)
If you recall elementary school math, you will remember what a number line is. Here's an example,

It is a very simple way of representing positive and negative numbers, they are laid out linearly and can assist in basic addition and subtraction problems for children. Put another way, a number line is uni-dimensional you can only go two directions, left or right. When children get older and learn about algebra and calculus they will discover the Cartesian Plane, seen below

The Cartesian Plane uses two number lines intersecting at zero, giving one the ability to perform and represent more complex mathematical equations, and therefore gain a better understanding of the world. The Cartesian plane is named after the rational philosopher Reneé Descartes who created this system for visualizing abstract numbers and points. Given that you are using two (sometimes three) number lines this is a multi-dimensional analysis. Instead of pointing to a single place like 1, you must use a coordinate system (1,1) for example. Moreover the Cartesian Plane is separated into four Quadrants, giving one another way of aggregating data.You’re probably asking “So what does all this math have to do with Liberalism?”I’m so glad you asked.As a primer, you may want to read a few pieces I’ve written here at BeenAwake.com.Don't give up the high ground
Pt 1 - Why we don’t need intersectionality
Pt 2- How to plot a point in space
My first red pillAcross these four articles I talk about how individual analysis is better than intersectional or collective analysis, and how the term Liberal has been corroded in popular American discourse.Let’s be better than the past
The majority of legacy opinion molders, especially those in Washington, would prefer you believe that a subject as complicated as political philosophy can be distilled into the simple number line above. On the left the (common wisdom dictates) you have Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, and Liberalism. On the right you have Conservatism, Nazism, Fascism, and Libertarianism. If you take this as being true (as many people do) someone like Joseph Stalin is comparable to Bill Clinton, and someone like George W. Bush is comparable to Adolf Hitler. This rhetorical masterpiece is a key component in the game of Political Football many power-brokers in Washington D.C. play with the American people. Put plainly, an over-simplified version of the political landscape makes it easier to mislead the public at large.What happens then, when one introduces a second number line to the mapping of political ideologies? Enter politicalcompass.org, they use a Cartesian Plane to map political ideology not only in terms of Left and Right (which are ambiguous and as I will argue elsewhere, contextual), but also in terms of Authoritarianism and Libertariansim. If you’ve never taken the test before I encourage you to do so. It’s a useful exercise in how you can classify yourself. While not perfect, it’s far better than the Binary presented by modern American Politics: Liberal Democrat or Conservative Republican.Liberty written down

The oldest known language on Earth is Cuneiform of Ancient Sumeria it is there we find the first reference of liberty or freedom in the written word. The word “amagi” literally means “return to the mother”, and was part of a reform movement in ancient Sumeria. Today LibertyFund.org uses it as across their publishing as a homage to how ancient the idea of freedom or liberty is to humanity. They write"According to Samuel Noah Kramer in From the Tablets of Sumer (1956), Lagash was the site of the first recorded social reform movement. Once considered a relatively free society of farmers, cattle breeders, boatmen, fishermen, merchants, and craftsmen, the Lagashites found that a change in political power had stripped them of their political and economic freedoms and subjected them to heavy taxation and exploitation by wealthy officials.Sumerian historians believe that at this low point in Lagash’s history, Urukagina became the leader of the Sumerian city-state of Girsu/Lagash and led a popular movement that resulted in the reform of the oppressive legal and governmental structure of Sumeria."In English, Liberalism and Liberty share the same root, even Wikipedia still defines Liberalism as an ideology based in the idea of Liberty. Liberty and Freedom require that the individual is entitled to self-determination. One day I might be able to untangle the web that has led Americans to conflating liberal policies with progressive and socialist ones, but for today it is enough to say Liberalism and Progressivism have fundamental differences, and deserve to be separated. Liberalism as great minds like Thomas Paine, Thomas Locke, John Stuart Mill, Murray Rothbard, David Hume, Ludwig von Mises, and F.A. Hayek argue is a philosophy based around the ideas of human freedom, property rights, civil liberties, an open society, and free markets. This freedom they speak of is largely the freedom from government, not nature. Liberalism is by definition then is non-authoritarian in nature. Libertarianism as coined by Murray Rothbard only needed minting because Liberalism came to mean something completely different from its root. It is this tradition that your author endeavors to be a part of as well.The reality of modern American politics is both political parties are largely Progressive Corporatists who want to centralize power and control via technocrat dictate from Washington D.C. This is an authoritarian mindset that wears the harvested skin of liberalism like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even a charismatic politician like Barack Obama had behavioral scientists and influence experts consult with the campaign during his runs for presidency. Propagandists have been attempting mass influence going back over 100 years. Part of this involves the corruption of language to serve their narrow political ends.Conclusion
Many on the left have abandoned the term Liberal in favor of Progressive or Socialist. I believe we are all better for this. Conservatives who defend the constitution need to stop looking at liberals as an enemy, and referring to leftist politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris as being “Liberal” in any meaningful way. True Liberals who have been marginalized by the rise of woke intersectionality need to stop viewing conservatives who defend the constitution as fascist, and to separate the warmonger neo-cons politicians from the constitutional base.When you remove the veneer of Liberal from politicians in Washington you see them for who they are - power obsessed cronies who don’t care about civil liberties. They are Authoritarian and believe they are better than you. It’s time we center around libertarian and liberal ideas, and extinguish their power.

Dis- or Mis-

Whenever possible, I prefer to use my words precisely. This article in some sense is the embodiment of being pedantic - narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned. In other words I'm going to define words very precisely for a precise meaning. In The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Unconscious Bias Training I showed that through a clever rhetorical ruse, using the prefix un- instead of the scientifically demonstrable prefix sub- they are able to lay the claim that you are not in fact in complete control of your mental faculties (which is why you need their tutelage) They aren’t simply trying to present psychological research and telling you to be thoughtful when hiring or promoting, if this were so they’d note the issues and objections to the literature. Instead they create a dogma.I think the way we use language matters. I especially think the way talking heads and politicians use words matter. Given that we live in an age of information - how we use the word itself should be examined. One way wordsmiths of various kinds use language to convince you of something is through the employment of prefixes which are close in meaning, but not precisely the same thing.The information age
It’s generally regarded that our economy has shifted from an industrial to an information economy. As Merriam-Webster explains"the modern age regarded as a time in which information has become a commodity that is quickly and widely disseminated and easily available especially through the use of computer technology"Just like the shift from agricultural to industrial, it doesn’t mean industry has disappeared, it generally means that fewer people (at least in the United States) have jobs in manufacturing. The type of wealth that can create such a world is only possible through Capitalism, and is something that should be celebrated. There are downsides certainly for some individuals, but I do believe for most people the future can be a bright place.The problem of 21st century life with social media and 24 hour news isn’t access to or the availability of information - rather it’s how to interpret it (and then what to do with it). This isn’t a narrow point about political outcomes, this stretches to all aspects of our lives including professional endeavors and personal relationships.For example, what kind of leader should you be if you are supervisor or business owner? If I search “How to be a leader” in Amazon Kindle I get over 1,000 results. That’s over 1,000 authors saying they have information you can use to make yourself a better leader. So which one is best? Since it’s Amazon I can limit my search results to 4 stars and above, and sort based on who has the best ratings. If I do that, then Jocko Willink’s book Leadership Strategy and Tactics: Field Manual is the best book on leadership available to humanity (at least in English).Authenticity
Is this true? I couldn’t answer that question honestly as I haven’t read 1000 books on leadership, nor have I read Willink. (update the book is listed at #49 for leadership best sellers) Arguably his book will rely on ideas from books on leadership that have influenced him, training in the military, all with his own spin of course. For example, Willink is known for getting up at 4am to start his day. How does this differ from the aphorism “the early bird gets the worm”? Part of what makes Willink different from many others is that he lives the advice he offers, which is to say he is authentic. When your product is information, it’s important you don’t ruin the value by being inauthentic. If Willink told everyone to wake up at 4am, but always got up at 7am he probably wouldn’t have 91% of his ratings being 5 stars nor 1.7 million Instagram followers.Part of being authentic in my mind is giving you the tools I use for analysis, which is why I like to define terms and ideas as much as possible as well as source my material. It’s very common in today’s climate to add various prefixes and pretend words we weren’t using yesterday are as commonly understood as “please” and “thank you”.So here’s an authentic look at the similarities and differences between misinformation and disinformation.Prefixes
The prefix mis- means I am incorrectly or badly applying what the root word means.Therefore if I am misinforming you - I am giving you bad or incorrect information.The prefix dis- means I am reversing or removing the meaning of the root word.Therefore if I am disinforming you - I am trying to remove good information from you.Or as Merriam-Webster puts it “false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth”In that these terms are conflated where they should not be, we can see the benefit of lying to people that these are interchangeable. Anyone can be honestly misinformed, but only a malevolent personality would knowingly engage in disinformation.Take a fluid situation like the 2020 presidential election. In 2016 if you watched CNN you were given the talking point that it was legitimate to question the integrity of the election, because obviously Russia Hacked it (which was a lie). They used anonymous sources, the Mueller investigation, and people’s hatred of Trump to fuel narrative that never panned out.Now in 2020, if you (arguably) don’t call Joe Biden president-elect, you are engaging in disinformation.The reality of course is when one candidate does not concede, we must wait for the electors to cast their votes and for the Congress to certify them. Of course this is worrying to many Americans, but the process is longer than a 24 hour news cycle.

Dunces, Dictators, and Democracy

It’s useful to make sure you’re using words correctly.It’s also useful to learn how others will manipulate you with words.I’d like to discuss two words with you Dictator and Democracy. One implies evil, the other implies good. Both are used to trigger emotional responses.Let’s begin with Democracy.Democracy
The word comes to us from the Greek demo meaning many and ruler or archy. In 21st century life the word is used in a technical sense (our democratic processes), but is more often used as a general synonym with “The Good.” “Our Democracy” as it relates to the United States is meant to prejudge your rational faculties. Majority rule is seen as the best way to represent the “will of the people” - the argument goes something like the more people who agree with something the better that thing is in reality.There are many instances in which Democracy is a good thing. A family might vote on what movie they want to watch or game they’d like to play together. A board of directors might vote on who the new CEO of a corporation is, or change the structure of a company to better serve their customers needs. In both of these cases, this exercise in “democracy” is within the bounds of a voluntary relationship. Everyone more or less agrees that they are bound in a some sense to the other people in a group. Don’t want to be on the board? You can sell your shares. Don’t want to attend game night? A child shouldn’t be forced to play a board game or watch a movie and might stay in their room, an adult in turn can make the choice to not attend such events.Less talked about however are the dangers of Democracy. Any student of American History will tell you that the Founding Fathers did not like the idea of democracy as a whole. While much of the modern story around the American Revolution deals with our revolt from Monarchy, it was Parliament that raised taxes on the American Colonies. It was the democratic process then that created the conditions for a revolution and the phrase no taxation without representation. This is why the Constitution is written in such a way to not let a simple majority rule determine who wins the Presidency. They didn’t like the idea of high population States dominating lower population States. The electoral college then is a check on democracy (and purposefully so) allowing States to retain differences across the large geographic area that is the U.S.A.In stark contrast to this idea of the founders, today the federal government will justify waging war in order to make the world “safe for democracy.” Once the lies about Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s were routed out, the warmongers in Washington defaulted to platitudes about Democracy. After all, Saddam was dictator.Dictator
If Democracy contends that rule by the many is a better representation of the people’s will, then a Dictator is it’s obvious enemy. When I was growing up, I was told Fidel Castro was a dictator and that made him bad. Other dictators were added to the list: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Kim and so on. Today we might also point to Chavez, Putin, Kim, Xi, Bolsanero, Trump, Pinochet, Assad, Gaddafi, etc. All of them have been labeled as a dictator. The point here is that there are many political leaders across the world labeled a dictator by one person or another. There is however no correlation between being called a dictator and your underlying ideology, system of government, or religion. The dictator Vladimir Putin of Russia is something of a traditionalist who crafts a vision of Russia that combines the Orthodox Church with a history of greatness in the czars of old and soviet power. The dictator Hugo Chavez by comparison was a left wing socialist who endeavored to give Venezuela “to the people”. Both, ironically enough were democratically elected in their individual countries, and both have high degrees of support from the people they purport to serve.If Democracy is good, then why is it a democratically elected politician can be labelled a dictator? This is because for whatever else it may mean, dictator is used as shorthand for “world leader I don’t like.” Using the word is a kind of magic spell that can allow you to dismiss someone’s viewpoint without providing an argument as to why. The emotional trigger of “dictator” does enough.This realization that they’re Democratically elected doesn’t defend rulers like Putin, Trump, or Castro. What I hope this short meditation does is give you pause the next time someone uses either word in a general sense. Asking a couple of good follow up questions will help you better understand what the other person actually means.