1

Nataraja Theory A Theory for Revolution

(This is a short description of Nataraja Theory. A more thorough explanation will be published in Book 2 of Twenty-Twelve. Its the most radical theory Ive ever concocted and probably the most radical theory I will ever concoct. One will have a more thorough understanding of my stance regarding humanity and society if they read Volume 1 of Twenty-Twelve.)

Nataraja theory asserts that the world in general has reached a point it cannot naturally civilize or develop past without major new changes. Thats where Nataraja theory steps in. The biggest problems humans face now are the evils of the so-called democratic countries. The United States exemplifies this. Its capitalistic pseudo-democratic system have become far too powerful and successful. Many people within the United States are pushing for change, but it will be useless in comparison to the evils that are in power and the masses who allow it. There was a time long, long ago when people thought that democracy and freedoms such as freedom of speech would lead to perfect human development and a perfect society. But the nature of mankind is one that does not allow this. The progress for things like gay rights in the United States is minor compared to the evils. If the United States were a more democratic and socialist country, the personalities of the masses would not be as aggressive or intolerant and there would have been less hatred of homosexuals in the first place. However, the way the US system is set up is one in which it fixes a problem that should have never existed to such an enormous extent and then wont stop praising itself for it afterwards. Many countries have allowed for gay marriage long before the US. However, one knows that when the US finally legalizes gay marriage, which Im positive it will one day, it will praise its democratic system for having allowed this and use its media to make it seem like it was the primary driver of such change. However, few people point out it never had to be such a difficult road in the first place.
Copyright 2012 Lawrence Lai All rights reserved.

In many ways, the more difficult the road, the greater the achievement appears and the more adulation it seems a nation should give itself. More humane countries dont praise that which they should have had in place long ago. Thus, even progress in human rights is used by the US as a tactic to stabilize a system that will inevitably do (and is doing) more harm than good (in my opinion.) Thus, if the US will never truly become moral no matter how many rights appear to be achieved, then this phoney progress that doesnt lead anywhere is useless, even harmful, because it allows for the US to drape itself in decency that isnt truly there. At this point, genuinely decent people who are valiantly trying to make the US/society a better place are actually keeping the evils of the system afloat without realizing it. Now is the time for a better plan. From this point on, I will refer to the people who are best at seeing the truth as the intuits because I think it takes superlative intuition over simple logic and language skills to be able to decipher the extreme complexities of human beings, human society, morality, and the evils of the democratic countries. The intuits are people from all classes of society and walks of life. The best plan for the intuits are to move to a country that is less evil than the United States. Noam Chomsky (who disagrees with this theory) states that there is no decent country; only countries that are more or less powerful. I agree with him. However, if one looks at evolutionary theory, one can see that animals do not start off perfectly adapted to their surroundings. Small variations in traits cause some animals to be successful and selected for and others to not be. The same is true for countries, or at least can be. Animals take on very specific forms due to the pressures of selection. Selection also determines which businesses continue to thrive under capitalism. Thus, even with no perfect country, systems for how countries should be run can be molded and put into place with selective pressure until distinct new forms of government emerge (the ones that survive.) The intuits, if not already aware, should know that societies cannot exist without them. Amy Chua theorized that hyper-powers took advantage of the best and brightest talent from all backgrounds in order to achieve their status. The intuits are even more important than those of talent because they are what keep human groups stable and without them societies could crumble. The intuits, however, do not leave because they think they are being valiant by continuing to fight for whats right and that is commendable, but they merely need to organize themselves so that their fighting actually has effect. This is best achieved by all the intuits of the industrialized countries moving to the countries that have the most humane set-up. Even something like having more parties and representation in parliament is something that is worth selecting for.
Copyright 2012 Lawrence Lai All rights reserved.

The intuits also do not leave because they want to help the masses. But the masses treat the intuits like human garbage and are much more interested in their own shallow desires and lives and are more than happy to let the evils of society continue as long as they are getting what they want. Do successful groups ever dissent? Of course not, because things are working for them and natural selection has caused humans to naturally defend anything that benefits them. Noam Chomsky depicts the masses as people who are victims of power and taken advantage of by capitalism and propaganda. This is true, but they are also far more responsible than one would imagine. The average person easily chooses a person of success and power to treat well and will disregard or even attack the intuits to align themselves with power. The intuits warn the average person of the sinister nature of power, forgetting the sinister nature of the average person. This keeps things stable as the average person is less taken advantage of. If the intuit left, which he/she should, power would take its true effect on the average person which in many ways they deserve. In this world, there is only power. Power determines everything. States will do as much as they can get away with. The masses dont help if they are satisfied. Thus, there must be a power that checks the power of the states. This can only be achieved (as far as I know) through selection as all things are truly chosen from. Thus, if the intuits leave for a more inherently peaceful system, that system will become stable and selected for. Countries that crumble as a result have to question what they did wrong and design a system just as, if not more, peaceful. Thus, there will finally be something that inhibits states from being aggressive and imperialistic. Hostile states are ones where power is unchecked. Without the intuits this power will be further unchecked and will not only increase its level of aggression on the world, but also its own people. In reality, the state would just be acting the way its system has always wanted it to act, to the most unrestricted degree. If this is the way the state is inherently tailored, trying to fight for change while agreeing with the underlying system is useless. Countries can be much like people. When they show you who they really are, you must believe them the first time. States are the same. The United States has shown us what it truly is and it will never change from this; thus, it must be done away with. Furthermore, size of countries can be selection criteria as it is for animals. As the intuits leave, power along with the elites and the intellectual class will be free to do what they have always truly wanted to do take advantage. Thus, the average person will be taken advantage of until they can no longer bear it. They will eventually revolt against the government and will be forced to set one up one similar to the more stable democratic countries. Only the masses have that power. The intuits are far too tiny a group to have this effect directly. The protagonist in Orwelles Nineteen Eighty-Four stated that the masses could disassemble the government by noon if they really wanted to.

Copyright 2012 Lawrence Lai All rights reserved.

This theory is powerful because it cannot be stopped. The developed democratic countries cannot stop these ideas from being distributed nor can they limit mobility rights without seriously damaging themselves. Thus, people can leave the country if they want to. Next, the effectiveness of the theory does not depend on intellectual debate which has now just turned into useless bickering. If the individual believes it, thats enough and they can leave. The intuits are a minority and will have little effect in argument, but their absence can have profound effects on the stability of a nation. Furthermore, people who consider themselves insightful, but are not, will always be attracted to the power and aggressiveness of the US. Thus, if they think they are the ones with truly exceptional intuition, and follow this theory, they will end up going to a country like the US anyway and they will actually hurt more than help because they are always subservient to power. Furthermore, it can be difficult for one to disagree with this theory; even for the most ardent US supporter. This theory is based on the assumption that any country that is hostile should be destroyed. It also states that it can only be destroyed by good people leaving. If a strong supporter of the US truly believes the inherent nobleness of their country, then there should be no problem. The supporter should think that only the foolish and depraved would leave for a different country. The supporter should believe that decent people will flock to the US making it even more stable. Thus, even the most staunch US conservative should technically support this theory. If this theory is false, then the most decent people will not use it and there will be no harm. With these things in mind I urge those who would naturally see the benefits of this theory and already see the evils of the US system the greatest challenge to human development in our time, to leave and go somewhere better. Then all of your fighting and struggles will get greater results (though one should still do them even without great results if its the right thing to do.) However, there are certain stipulations that come along with this theory. Firstly, this theory is reserved for the democratic industrialized countries. It will not be effective against countries such as Russia that can limit freedom of speech. But countries that limit freedom of speech will invariably fall behind in the long run anyway (less ideas mean less inspiration for new creations) and are much less of a threat today than in eras before. I cannot speak for undeveloped countries; thus, all I can say is that I think this theory should at least be applied to the developed countries. Secondly, if the theory does start to work, one cannot go back until the US has not only changed its government system that has proven inherently evil, but also becomes smaller countries which will actually benefit the people by giving them greater control over themselves and so that one bad system does not affect everybody. It also limits the power (and corresponding ultraCopyright 2012 Lawrence Lai All rights reserved.

nationalism) of a group of people that were viewed as too powerful and hostile (and thus needed to be checked.) As the masses of the US suffer, one might be inclined to go back and help. But again, there are already countless people suffering now (in and outside the US) and I personally feel that the theory will result in less cruel and imperialistic systems in the long term. The greatest state crime is imperialism. Being subjugated by ones own people is already terrible, but to be subjugated by what one considers a foreign entity is far worse. Thus, if pain can slowly be shifted from the masses outside the US to the masses within the US, it would be more ethical. The masses are also partially to blame for crimes against innocent people outside the US. Those innocent people are not. The theory is simple. It will work if humans have enough intuits that are willing to adhere to it, a decision thats up to them. If a country falls as a result, then its likely that it was doing more evil than good and there was no way to change it from within the system. The theory does not always have to be applied. If one feels that the system is good enough that democracy and intellectual debate will be enough to create a peaceful, moral society, then there is not really the need to destroy it. The theory applies to countries that cannot change through intellectual debates for one reason or another. Just because a country has freedom of speech does not mean that there are not countless other factors than can silence dissent. -Lawrence Lai

Copyright 2012 Lawrence Lai All rights reserved.