Changing The World Today? Invention; Not Revolution

— Thinking differently about changing the world will change your planning, execution, and style

There, I fixed it. Examine Carefully.


It’s a 4,500-word sea-change of a post, as I continue to hone in on what my Members want the most from me.

Revolutionary change is often hailed as the key to transforming society, but what if we’ve been looking at it all wrong? Frankly, what we regurgitate as standard narrative and call “revolution” is often just a byproduct of individual inventors who take bold new steps to change the world—as leaches and parasites seek to reframe it as a collective, “revolutionary” contribution, for delivering fake feelings of self-esteem and importance to their subjects (that they secretly hate).

In this exclusive post for my Membership, I’ll explore the idea of invention versus revolution, and why it matters. Discover the power of individuals to create lasting change, and why supporting innovation is more important than getting on the revolutionary bandwagon. Don’t miss out on this thought-provoking essay that will change the way you think about progress and more importantly, decide, take action, evaluate, and adjust…to capture for yourself the most you can muster.

  1. Introduction
  2. The bogus aspect of “revolution”
  3. Revolution doesn’t change the world any more than evolution changes the world
  4. Invention changes the world
  5. Inventor, teacher, employee, parasite, or ward?
  6. But what are social parasites, who are they, and what is their weapon? (the “money” section)
  7. Invention is self-correcting or surpassed

The bogus aspect of “revolution”


That marketing or political slogan underlies more fraud and bullshit than any other saying in all of human history.


Because we’re conditioned and indoctrinated to love it.


The American Revolution! (1775-1783)

(… But we’ll forget about these…

  • The French Revolution (1789-1799) which led to the establishment of the First French Republic and the execution of King Louis XVI.
  • The Russian Revolution (1917) which led to the establishment of the Soviet Union.
  • The Chinese Revolution (1949) which led to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China.
  • The Cuban Revolution (1953-1959) which led to the establishment of a socialist state in Cuba.

… OK?)

This is the realm of the parasite.

… And humanoid parasites are by and large the least understood aspect of society, and that’s because so many of them are clever and smart. Indeed, many of them are lauded and heralded as the greatest in society—the polar opposite of who they really are, and this is without doubt the greatest impediment we face as citizens of a universal civilization:

We have not yet gained the widespread ability to detect and recognize human parasites.

Developing that awareness, skill, and distinction is the first step towards true intellectual freedom along with the unbounded capacity for creating wealth, genuine power, and the respect, love, and admiration of your friends, family, and society.

Some are fans of the French Revolution, but that’s only because they have no clue what it was about (NOT liberté, égalité, fraternité).

The French Revolution did not directly produce the 19th century ideologies known as socialism or communism. But the Revolution did provide an intellectual and social environment in which these ideologies, and their spokesmen, could flourish.

The French Revolution has been the inspiration and model for all socialist and communist revolutions in modern history. As so many today seem entranced by the deceptive promises of communism, it is vital that we look again at what communism really is and why so many rose up in resistance against it.

Bing AI Chat

Now, in thinking again about your love of revolution because of remembering America and forgetting the other revolutions, read this.

The tools of the French Revolution were: dis-information, propaganda, the subversion of language, malice, envy, hatred, jealousy, mass murder and foreign military adventurism as a diversion to distract the masses from the failure of government.

French Revolution: The Horrifying Precursor to Communist Revolutions – Liberty Sentinel

Sound at all familiar, Americans and those of the West generally?

Nether evolution nor revolution change the world. Everything is just always in a state of evolution. It’s baked in the cake, and sometimes it takes a long time to bake and others, it burns quick.

We don’t call a hurricane a “reweathering” or an earthquake, a “regeographing.” It’s just weather and geography.

So, next time you hear the word “revolution” used, no matter for what, ask what the conman is trying to peddle and doesn’t want you to think critically about.

In summary, [r]evolution doesn’t change the world. The world just changes, and we sometimes call that evolution. It takes place on all levels, from physical to political to social to spiritual.

Revolution doesn’t change the world any more than evolution changes the world

Revolution is a term that’s often used to describe the transformative changes that have shaped society throughout history. From the agricultural “revolution” to the industrial “revolution” and beyond, these changes are celebrated for their ability to create a better world. But what if the idea of revolution is more of a myth, co-opted after-the-fact, than reality? What if the true drivers and deliverers of change are individual inventors and stakeholder investors who take bold new steps to create something entirely new?

Revolution refers to a sudden, radical change in society, seemingly brought about by collective action. Invention is the creation of something new, the initial sparks of which are brought into reality by an individual or small group.

What’s interesting is that many of the changes that we tend to call “revolutionary” are really the result of invention. How the con works is that once an invention is transformative in some way—meaning widely adopted by people, so it’s transformative by sheer mass—those in authority shift the narrative to one of revolution so that everyone with zero responsibility or contribution can feel like “we’re all a part of this.”

It’s just looting, really. It creates fake self-esteem across the board; while politicians and their bedfellows (elite, media, academia, professions, activists, charities, and institutions) get to claim credit for “creating an environment for…” when the truth is, all of them getting their miserable, butting-in, parasitic asses Out. Of. The. Way. is directly proportional to invention and innovation happening and then becoming transformative for the betterment of individuals and societies.

Often enough, it happened because government is—fortunately—incompetent enough (and isn’t comprised of enough idiot savants) that some shit slips through the Leviathan tentacles and fingers.

The agricultural “revolution” was driven by innovations in farming techniques, inventions of equipment, and domesticating “work horses” (meaning, all manner of farm-hand animal); while the industrial revolution was fueled by the invention of new labor-&-back-saving machines and technologies. In each case, it was individual inventors and investors who took bold new steps to create something entirely new that changed the world.

Similar to “revolution” being a term used to describe a during-or-after-the-fact social upheaval…and just as often, to co-opt or loot credit for it (when viewed positively…and when not, could be “terrorists!” or the like), “evolution” is a term we use to describe the various natural processes that have led to the development of Earth, living and non-living…rather than a single, unified force or mechanism that drives these processes (or that’s simply co-opted too, such as in “intelligent design:” scientism, to put a sciency facade on faith).

There is no single driving force behind evolution that can be considered intelligent or purposeful. Rather, the evolution of Earth is the result of a complex web of interactions between living organisms and their environment, as well as a multitude of other factors such as geological changes, climate patterns, and cosmic events.

“[R]evolution” are human constructs, used to describe the natural and man-made processes that we observe in the world around us. However, the underlying natural processes that we call “evolution” would still occur even if we did not have a word for them. Therefore, it is important to recognize that “evolution” is a description of the natural world, rather than a separate entity or force that operates independently of it. Correspondingly, revolution happens because of human action, but the distinction to draw there is between the individual, small group, and investor-stakeholders and the affected population at-large, once the inventions and innovations have already begun inexorably to move society or alter its course.

So why does this matter? By recognizing the true drivers of change, we can better understand how to truly create a better future for ourselves. We can support and encourage individual inventors, rather than waiting for collective action to bring about change. We can celebrate and emphasize culture that values and rewards invention and innovation…and that remembers, ceremonially and periodically, how it truly came about.

Invention changes the world

— Now we’re talkin’

In the spirit of using life-changing inventions, I just asked ChatGPT-4 to give me a list of important inventions from the printing press forward, just name and approximate date of invention or deployment. Took maybe 5 seconds. You can quibble with the list, but it’s not bad.

Probably I could find a single source link where such a list has already been laboriously put together by someone. That could take anywhere from a few seconds to some minutes. But since this is for illustration purposes and not precision, why not just ask a tool in plain English to do it, one capable of understanding what you mean (unlike all the search engines, which have been rendered idiotic)?

  1. Printing Press – 1440
  2. Steam Engine – 1712
  3. Spinning Jenny – 1764
  4. Telegraph – 1837
  5. Bessemer Process – 1856
  6. Telephone – 1876
  7. Electric Light Bulb – 1879
  8. Radio – 1895
  9. Airplane – 1903
  10. Assembly Line – 1913
  11. Penicillin (discovery) – 1928
  12. Internet (ARPANET) – 1969
  13. Microprocessor – 1971
  14. Personal Computer – 1975
  15. Global Positioning System (GPS) – 1978
  16. World Wide Web – 1989
  17. Human Genome Project – 1990-2003
  18. Smartphone – 2007
  19. Electric Vehicles (mainstream adoption) – 2008
  20. CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing – 2012
  21. Artificial Intelligence (Deep Learning) – 2012

Now, intuitively knowing about what shape it would be, I asked ChatGPT to suggest a best way to graphically represent this using Google Sheets. In a few more seconds, it gives me the whole data table to simply copy/pate into Google Sheets, along with step-by-step instructions—which I didn’t need ’cause I’m a spreadsheet expert going back to 1988 and Lotus 1-2-3 (no shit). It won’t be long before it’ll just produce the chart for you to download as an image.

You get the point. Of course, you could always create a cherry-picked list to give you a pretty curve so as to be immediately believed, cherished, and oh-wowed by idiots who aren’t clever enough to get what’s going on intuitively anyway.

Another takeaway might be, well, why has it rounded it off and not exploded upward? That’s in the simple choice of parameters. I used years and 0 years between big inventions is as small as you can get. Had I used months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, second, micro-seconds, planck-time (5.391247 × 10^-44 seconds), it would look pretty ridiculous. So, since big inventions that change everything happen more frequently now, then what becomes relevant in terms of data is how many per period of time. We’re probably at a point of how many per decade being a good way to measure that data.

Another way to look at it, of course, is amplitude; i.e., how big is the effect on individual, societal, cultural, and wealth factors and how quickly. We’ll expect to see larger and larger effects more and more quickly.

We already know this: an image I keep in my keepers folder for easy reference.

Now if you eyeball my crude chart, above, along with this one, you see that it’s the late 1800s when shit starts to get real for the betterment of increasingly many numbers of folks, and likely most impacted positively are all those we’re told constantly by liars who don’t actually give a fuck about any of them—hate them actually…treat them as useful idiots…that they are oppressed.

Almost nobody is oppressed. There sure are a lot of fuckups, though, still. And that’s, of course, because of the assholes doing everything in their elitist, authoritarian powers to keep them down and feeling entitled. They don’t say it, but that’s how they build constituencies.

Ironically, in spite of all the invention that has made their lives royal compared to their ancestors, all the clamoring for REVOLUTION!!! seems to have done squat, and I’m sure any objective and honest quantitative analysis would show that “revolution” holds them back from experiencing the full opportunity and potential of invention.

Inventor, teacher, employee, parasite, or ward?

Not everyone can be an inventor that makes a real difference in society at large. Almost everyone can be an inventor, loosely speaking, simply by creating values for others and society. Creators/artists are inventors in that sense.

Inventing something that changes the whole world is not an imperative. It’s a great-to-have and striving to create and produce such a value(s) is noble and virtuous, whether one ultimately achieves the highest level of success or not. Not everyone can occupy the top; otherwise, we’d call it something else, because there would be nothing particular or special about it.

Another way to participate in invention or creation is to invest in or sponsor inventors and creators. Hundreds now support my creative efforts in that way, with my gratitude.

Teachers and instructors often get a bad rap, but they serve an essential role in the creative process, whether it be to teach specific skills in an inventive or creative area, or in the fundamental, elementary, core areas of knowledge an individual requires to progress to advanced and more specialized or targeted areas.

“If you can’t do, teach,” is a bit of a smear or besmirch, that while true for some—who likely don’t make good teachers anyway—the fact remains that there are plenty of teachers who teach because they have talent and a knack for it and if they enjoy doing it, why not? All the glory won’t be coming your way, but I’ve observed plenty of appreciation showered on good teachers, the best judges of that being former students.

… In a past life, I was married to a 5th and 6th-grade elementary-school teacher. She’d already been at it for 20 years when I met her, and it wasn’t rare for her to be approached by a big, grown-ass man out and about somewhere, who issued her a bear hug. Yep…a former 5th grade student, now with children of his own.

That’s validation that she was a good teacher who supported lives and their development.

Employees are, again, essential and some folks simply do their best that way. It’s a good way to acquire various skills. If you desire to start or run a particular kind of company some day, you couldn’t go wrong by spending time in some of the regular jobs associated with such a company.

So, in that respect, being an employee is another form of being taught or instructed toward an eventual entrepreneurial role of invention and creation.

The above serves all the ways I can think to be a net producer of values for others and society throughout one’s life. One not mentioned yet is mothers, but that’s a natural, biological role…as is being a father. So while it’s creation, invention, teaching, and support all in one—hopefully, for sure—it’s pretty much the “metaphysically given” for the human species. So, do it, and at least, for God’s sake and the children’s, do it right.

There are a couple of other kinds of people. Let’s cover the innocuous, first. Those who, while not net value producers in their lives; meaning, they require in various forms of support, more than they produce, so they are a net drain.

The innocuous are wards; those who, for no fault of their own, cannot take care of themselves. This can apply to children up to the point where they’re aged and mature enough to go it alone. Then there are others, such as the mentally retarded, infirm, or otherwise disabled. In the case of the latter sort of ward, we can, as benevolent societies and cultures, invent and create ways and means of caring for such people while continuing to objectively and rationally acknowledge that they are a net drain in at least most ways.

Also, the more affluent societies and cultures become, the less that drain is impactful to the rest of society and opportunities exist to direct portions of bountiful production toward the well-being of the less fortunate.

But and however, we do not want and should not seek to create what amounts to synthetic wards of society—those who can, but in the calculation, chose dependency instead, such as welfare and other forms of public assistance that go far beyond a temporary leg-up to get one’s self back on track toward net socially productive health.

This is the realm of the parasite.

… And humanoid parasites are by and large the least understood aspect of society, and that’s because so many of them are clever and smart. Indeed, many of them are lauded and heralded as the greatest in society—the polar opposite of who they really are, and this is without doubt the greatest impediment we face as citizens of a universal civilization:

We have not yet gained the widespread ability to detect and recognize human parasites.

Developing that awareness, skill, and distinction is the first step towards true intellectual freedom along with the unbounded capacity for creating wealth, genuine power, and the respect, love, and admiration of your friends, family, and society.

But what are social parasites, who are they, and what is their weapon?

Let’s first draw a distinction between all the aforementioned net value-producers, and the parasites, which are net value-drains; or, it could be said, value destroyers. Integrating further, we can ask, “who are the value producers and who are the value destroyers?”

A further elementary distinction: the value producers require nothing but to be left alone or unfettered by the value destroyers. Value destroyers require that others first produce values for them to loot and destroy.

Finally, the producer has no need or use for force or coercion. Indeed, the whole stock-in-trade of inventing, creating, producing, and marketing one’s values is to persuade others to give ‘er a try. The parasitical value destroyer relies upon lies, manipulations, frauds, force, and coercion—since nobody knowingly and willingly gives up their values. This last point is why parasitical value destroyers are amongst the cleverest magicians of the mind that exist as humanoids, disguising their sociopathic and psychopathic natures in tough-to-detect ways that’s not yet apparent to the average wholesome human being at this stage of societal evolution.

Parasitical value destroyers employ the intentional use of mysticism to create false realities and illusions. They master techniques for usurping values, money, and power by using mysticism to manipulate others, similar to many confidence schemes and cons.

These techniques and more are the essential means by which politicians, clergymen, bogus-job bureaucrats, and white-collar-hoax business quislings use to usurp jobs, power, money, and pseudo self-esteem from others.

… Mysticism is an evasion of reality that is never supported by honesty or objective reality. Mysticism—the stupidness disease—harms human beings in five ways:

  1. Mysticism cripples the integration capacities required to accurately understand reality. That accurate understanding is necessary to make decisions competently, to solve problems effectively, and to live competitively.
  2. Mysticism short-circuits or blocks the mind to prevent unlimited, wide integrations that let one know and understand everything possible, without limits.
  3. Mysticism drains one’s intelligence, efficacy, and ability to live competitively.
  4. Mysticism blocks the long-range thinking integrations needed to prosper continuously, love romantically, and live happily.
  5. Mysticism subjects individuals increasingly to the control of professional mystics and clever, parasitical value destroyers.

Mysticism is arbitrary, has no link to reality, and is based on nothing. Thus, mysticism is nothing. Yet, by manipulating rationalizations, non sequiturs, aphorisms, parables, superstitions, modern art, poetry, songs, rock music, chants, slogans, newspeak, quotes, or facts out of context, a professional mystic or parasite can create illusions to seemingly justify almost any harmful action, including thefts and murder. Such “justifications” are essential for their unjustifiable pillaging of value producers.

Mysticism and parasitical value destruction have been used for 2000 years to create illusions that “external authorities” protect the lives of individuals, can solve problems for others, and can provide livings for non-producers. But, in reality, all such “authorities” are merely value-destroying manipulators using deception, force, or coercion to extract their bogus livelihoods from the value producers. And those parasites are the fountainhead of crimes and human-imposed suffering.

Mysticism and its manipulation by parasitical value destroyers are the main causes of pain and failure among human beings. Mysticism and such manipulation are anti-life—death-oriented. The core of mystics and parasites is dishonesty and laziness. Their task is to beguile value producers into supporting the value destroyers.

…While all governments have the power, none ever have the moral right to initiate force or coercion against any individual. The only beneficial and moral laws are those designed to protect the life and property rights of individuals from initiatory force, the threat of force, and fraud. In turn, the only moral use of force is for self-defense: That is for protection of oneself, property, or country from force initiated by other individuals or governments. …Self-defense by any means, including force, is not only a basic moral right, but a moral duty.

No government has ever helped an individual produce more values or greater happiness than that individual could have produced without government. Governments differ only in the degree they harm people. In fact, except for protecting individual rights, no valid reason for government exists. Indeed, the entire concept of government is invalid and mystical. Government is nothing more than a mystical, big-lie hoax perpetuated through the centuries by parasites through force, non sequitur, and the manipulation of mysticism.

Government is not the equivalent of one’s country. Governments are based on invalid mystical notions that have no basis in reality; countries are objectively real entities of defined territories. A person can love his or her country, but properly despise the government that with usurped power constantly harms and drains everyone within its realm.

The most harmful manipulative, parasitical value destroyers operate through government, religion, public education, and dishonest journalism. Such people must always fake self-esteem to justify their destructive existence. They do that by slyly attacking businesses, their products, and those who through heroic efforts create productive jobs for others (a supreme moral virtue). For, by attacking through the bizarre, inverted ethics of altruism, even the most destructive value destroyers can fake a moral superiority over great value producers and their works. Indeed, attacking values is the only way those neocheaters can gain a drug-like relief from their anxieties caused by living destructively. They get relief by destroying values. That destruction gives them a sense of power—a faked self-esteem needed to survive—needed, perhaps, to ward off suicidal feelings or execution.

… All destructive authorities and other neocheaters would become powerless if the value producers withdrew their support and said “no.” If all victims simply said “no” to their victimizers, all professional mystics and neocheaters would lose their power to plunder others and destroy values.

Consider this quote from A Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boétie, written in the 16th Century:

The oppressor has nothing more than the power you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had not cooperation from you?

Stanley Milgram in his book, Obedience to Authority, demonstrates through the famous electric-shock experiments done at Yale that the majority of average, honest citizens will follow authority to do destructive, immoral acts up to the point of injuring, even killing other people. As quoted from Milgram’s book:

…ordinary people simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

But what is that external authority? It is a myth that has no basis in reality. Such external authority always develops into a destructive machine when the majority unthinkingly or out of fear accept, obey, and follow the commands and wishes of that authority. In reality, no one has genuine authority over anyone else. Once that fact is realized, a person can say “no” and break the destructive habit of obedience to the myth of authority. Then the neocheaters would be abandoned by the value producers. And all value destroyers would founder with no power to survive.

[Adapted and edited from “The Neo-Tech Discovery,” published in the late 1980s.]

Invention is self-correcting or surpassed

If the foregoing section has your head spinning a little, here’s something more to drive it home.

I think I’ve established the distinction between value production and who does it, and value destruction, and who does that. It’s really pretty simple when dot-connected and synthesized down to the core essentials of what’s required for survival, prosperity, and happiness…contrasted with all that serves to impede one’s progress and drain that which has already been accomplished.

And it’s never enough. That’s why you’ve got to search and destroy the stray mosquito in your room immediately upon detection. If you don’t, you’ll end up with a half-dozen itching blood-sucks by the time you start scratching at the first.

I’m talking specifically of the mosquito pestilence here in Thailand, which is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced. It serves as a good analogy to what I’ve been discussing. At times, when this happens, and I’ve not detected it at all before it’s too late, I’ll catch myself anthropomorphizing them out of rage:

“Isn’t one enough? Can’t you just fucking suck your fill the first time and be done with it!?”

Notice that in terms of laws globally, at all levels from the lowest local to the highest federal, the books never get thinner. They just keep on pilin’ on. More and more and more, ad infinitum. Almost none ever get repealed.

If they’re ever modified at all, it’s usually to make them tougher, bolstering the illusion that they’re just busy prodicin’ values and lookin’ out for you.

It’s bullshit, and it’s not like there’s a contrast to observe, where value inventors, creators, investors, and teachers strive endlessly to improve their values, either by ushering forth new ones, correcting deficiencies and problems with existing lots, superseding them with new releases and updates, junking what’s no longer competitive…and the process never ends.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.