Richard Dawkins and soviet atheism

I watched a Joe Rogan podcast with Richard Dawkins, in which Richard said that he hopes that one day the world will be religion free.
This remind me about he effort of french revolutionaries and of the soviets to free people from religion.
They had more means than Richard Dawkins and they didn't succeed. Why he should succeed ?
I am disappointed by Mr. Dawkins because he is a scientist and he should be less dogmatic and more curious about the persistence of religion.
Despite scientific breakthrough there are smart people who believe in religion, and new religions appear even today. (In US there is scientology for and in Papua New Guinea  the cargo cults).
Why he is not curious about it ?
In same discussion he notices that in US despite of decrease in number of religious people, the extremist religion lobby is powerful.
Of course they have more influence,an united group in disunited society has more influence than its size.
It is Darwinism,a term which the biologist Dawkins uses often, but fails to comprehend when it is under his nose: a man in a group has more chances of succeeding.
The danger that I see in promoting atheism is not that it will destroy the moral fabric of society. The pious inquisitors who burned people at the stake were not moral.
The danger I see is that atomising society in individual atheist, fringe religious groups will have a stronger influence.
A cult within a society of atheists will be like a pack of wolves within a flock of sheep.
I don't agree with one big religion either.
All the religious states with one big religion have stagnated.
Portugal and Spain were overtaken by more liberal Holland.
Turkey by the Europeans.
Vatican was dismembered by Italy.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are resisting only because of oil.
I think that religion should be limited only to personal space and kept away from your job,politics and law.
Richard Dawkins also tried to promote his atheistic ideas to younger children, to deprogram them from religious influence of the parents. This is a risky business:
I have 2 friends who are at least non religious if not atheist, and one day their child asked them:
"I am going to die ?"
"Yes, his mother said"
Then the boy was scared and agitated all the time, whispering "I am going to die"
I think in this case is better to pretend that you believe in some religion, in some afterlife, in angels and heaven, to avoid to make your children life miserable.
Science can heal many illnesses but it cannot cure death. Death we have to face it one day, and we must prepare for it. A child doesn't have the mental strength to face it.
In 1961 when soviet cosmonaut Gagarin entered cosmos he said that he didn't see god.
In 1991 after the fall of Soviet Union, Russians collected money and rebuild the monastery "Jesus the Savior" demolished by Stalin in 1939.
70 years of hard line atheism didn't change anything in mind of people. Maybe Orthodox church has a lesser influence.
It good that Richard Dawkins combats religion, from opposition of ideas we can get better ones, but is bad that he tries to do what the soviets tried: to make a totalitarian state in which only 'rational' ideas exists.
Rationality of ideas depends of the current knowledge, Thomas Jefferson a smart man rejected the ideas of stones falling from the sky (meteorites) saying that most likely the scientists who proposed this are mad.

How thinking slow can save lives in US police shooting

I heard few days a go a news from US Texas:
A former police officer woman, mistook her apartment, busted in her afro-american neighbour condo, and shot him, believing that he was a thief.
What better example of police racism ?
Well, is more bad police training than racism. I will explain below:
I am reading Daniel Khaneman's book ''Thinking fast and slow'. He argues that there are 2 types of reasoning a fast one and a slow one.
The fast one reasons based on stereotypes and makes causal relations. It is happy when everything makes sense. It can make sense of everything even if it is not related.
The slow one is more analytical, more detailed oriented, makes better decisions based on facts not on stereotypes, but it is using more working memory.

The fast thinking system triggers when you are under pressure,tired or distracted.
 The policewomen was after a 12 hours shift, she was texting and she believed that it was an intruder in her apartment and she acted on her stereotypes.
How the racist stereotype is constructed ? If you are a white officer, even if the criminals you are dealing with are 50% white and 50% non white, you will met more white people that are not criminals. Your mother is white and not a criminal, your family,your colleagues are white and non criminals so a stereotype white and criminal cannot be formed easy.

 But stereotype non white and criminal can be formed. And if the officer is under stress he/she will act according to stereotype.

I was using white police example because it is easier, but stereotypes against white people also exists.

An US american moved in to Japan, and left his bicycle outside his dojo, together with other bikes. In one evening because it was dark, he could not found his bicycle and he was fumbling.
A japanese policeman saw this, asked him what was he doing, checked his papers and then left him alone saying: "You foreigners make all the crimes in Japan". Racist ? Maybe. Stereotype for sure.

Anti racist education helps to overcome stereotypes ?
Education targets the slow decision system, which in a gun shoot out doesn't work.
Maybe anti racist education will work and afro-americans won't be so easily shot by the police, but what you do with others ? Like, my friends who are europeans:
Four of  my friends travelled in Detroit area in a rented car.
They were pulled over, and kept at gun point and then released by a fearful policeman.
At the TV news they saw that in Detroit was a shoot out in which a policeman was killed.
If one my friends would put his hand in his pocket for showing the passport they will be all dead, because of this policeman who feared for his life.

In order to give time to the slow thinking process to intervene you must slow things down and remove the pressure.

Lets wrap up a conclusion:
Policemen are fearing to be shot this makes them act hastily and judge on stereotypes.
The learned to act aggressively to deter anyone to use force.
They learn to shoot at head not at the feet, which makes a police encounter more deadly. You can shoot in the legs a nut with a knife from 6 m with same effects.

Their aggressive attitude makes suspect act nervous which amplifies the policeman fear.
Because of fear the suspect can act stupid.

The key words are guns and fear.
US americans won't give up their guns not even if half population is killed, so we must get rid of fear.

Taking time reduces fear. If the Texas police woman would call back ups and wait for it, she would realise that it was not her apartment.

Trevor Noah describes  very funny how police should handles suspects. And South Africa is far more dangerous as US.
Instead of pointing a gun and shooting out, US policemen should point a gun and be polite: "Good day sir, please put your hand on the driving wheel, where I can see it. How do you feel ? Where you were speeding ? Why you were speeding ?"

Book review: "Permanent record" by Edward Snowden

I just finished the reading of "Permanent record" by Edward Snowden, its autobiographic book.
I find it interesting because it is revealing the atmosphere in US before and after 9/11, and the state of mind of Snowden and NSA in that period.
The book becomes interesting when Edward Snowden discovers the internet in the '90.
Being anonymous on internet allowed him a teenager to interact with older and wiser people from universities.

He summarise his experience in the following phrase that I quote from memory: "so what if you were older and stronger than me ? In internet we are all equals and it matters who is smarter"
It makes you wonder:

With instant access to information what value have the knowledge of old people ?
Old people have social skill and patience, their social network precedes the birth of current contestants, no wonder that most leaders have above 40 ears of age.

If the strength would not matter why people are fleeing Afganistan, Syria and Africa ?
In a society where is no violence and humans rights are respected physical strength doesn't matter.
A school girl like Greta Thunberg could protest  in XXI Sweden but not in viking era, where the size did matter in hand to hand combat.

Snowden deplores the fact that Internet transformed from a platform  where people exchanged ideas , in a place in which money are extracted and fake news are spread.
The Internet is based on cables,servers, electricity and this doesn't pay for it self. The entering of  business extended this network, and allowed thousand of new economical possibilities.
Without internet thousand of young Asians, east Europeans, Africans, south Americans would be unemployed because the outsource and software business would not exists.

Snowden then describes how he started to hack internet sites while his parents divorced.
He says something interesting: When something new is created, the one who creates cannot foresee its effects.
For example: a colony of termites constructs a mound but this has as side effect attracting apes who are eating termites. Termites create the mound to protect but they concentrate and  attract other predators.
Other examples unintended consequences: NSA needed cyber experts, it outsourced this to different companies who brought young idealists like Snowden in contact with its secrets.
The first contact  he had with goverment was when as teenager he entered on the Los Alamos Laboratory site and read a lot of private documents.After some effort we convinced the site admin to fix the issues.

It seems that US administration have a chronic problem with security.
Snowden as a teenager entered in Los Alamos Nuclear laboratory site and read a lot of private information.
Then at 18-19 years of age he as civilian we worked on premises of Fort Meade without clearance. Then at 27 years he runaway with documents from an NSA compound in Hawaii.

He seems that he has a privacy problem also:
In the book he details the infatuation that he had for his boss in 2001, a married woman, and how he lived 9/11 attacks.
Serious Mr. Snowden ? You preach privacy but you disclose details that could affect the life of a married woman ?

After 9/11 he joined the army despite his fathers advice. He was disappointed and he was released on medical grounds.

Then he joined CIA in order to be a kind of Q in IT, but in more dangerous places.

He enters in conflict with his superiors because he demands better living conditions. During training they were living in a shitty motel with a broken stair who finally collapsed.
After demanding to his superior to fix the accommodation, and not receiving an answer he escalated the issue to higher echelons.But instead of  receiving an answer for his demands we was reprimanded because he didn't used the hierarchical channels.
So Snowden a white middle class american man, raised in spirit of constitution, who believes that   the people rule and politicians are servants of public interests, and you can make a petition and the problem is analysed, was reprimanded because he used his rights.
As punishment he is dispatched to Geneva not where he wanted: Afghanistan.
In this way he was separated by envy from his former colleagues who all wanted an European post.

It seems that is a CIA tradition to be cheap with new recruits, former CIA chief of operation for Europe Tyler Drumheller recounts on his book: 'On brink' how in 1975 when he was recruited he received a 250$ check with which he could buy only one suit.

In same book Tyler Drumheller says that during Bush Jr. administration  (2001-2009) CIA was very politicised, being ruled effectively by Dick Chenney and it mattered more political obedience than the professionalism.. (Maybe Cheney's politics trickle down to Snowden superiors?)
Tyler Drumheller says that Bush administration tried to change privacy laws in Western Europe. In same time NSA widen its dragnet.

In Geneva Snowden recalls how difficult it was for CIA to hide its searches online. It has to spend money to make a front company in order to search on internet some scientist.
It seemed that CIA was lagging behind NSA in terms of technology and importance. In his own words Edward Snowden said that it was easier to infect the computer of a target and stole the informations unknowingly than to try to bribe him. So NSA tools we cheaper and safer than the ones of CIA. He describes how CIA agents hurried and failed to recruit a Saudi official.

The suspense part is when he works for NSA in Hawaii
He is overworked and starts to have epileptic seizures.
He finds out about the desire of NSA to put on permanent record every information about a person in pure Chinese style. He says that by mistake he have found a file that describes everything.

He explains the rationale behind the intercepting communication of american civilians: the terrorists hid within a population, US must prevent another 9/11 we must intercept all persons of interest and the persons who are related. Within this dragnet also US citizens personal information can be collected breaking the constitutional right. it seems that 9/11 was the excuse for invading Iraq and spy US citizens.

He decides to tell to the media, and searches for a safe heaven far from US but not controlled by China or Russia. The only place is Hong Kong.
The most thrilling part is we he gets away with the SD cards full of information and then he waits 10 days in his hotel chamber for journalists.

He tried to reach Ecuador but is trapped on Moscow. His passport his cancelled but can use a UN refugee passport given by Ecuador.
He waits 44 days in airport eating burgers and refusing offers from FSB.

What is the fuss with privacy ?
Personal information modifies the our social image and determines the social alliances that we can have. More friends we have more powerful we are.

The Catholic Church controlled its believers using the guilt for the original sin, and guilt of the priests who broke their celibacy sermon.
Only catholic church could redeem your should and forgive your sins and welcome you in middle of community.
The sins of the clergy were tolerated because a vulnerable priest could be punished easily.
A holy man as Jan Hus was more dangerous to the church hierarchy than a Borgia.

The actual masters of digital information control are doing the same, they can forget  Justin Trudeau sins and present him as an exemplary  who welcomes brown refugees from Syria, or they excommunicate him and show a picture in which Trudeau is dressed as Aladin and with face painted brown.
Justin next time respond to the phone.

In this world only children as Greta Thunberg can change something, because they don't have a past, they don't have children to fed, they don't have a job to attend to. They are generous and hopeful.
But even children as Greta can be denigrated: in purest soviet style her speeches and actions are dismissed as actions of a deranged girl with Asperger and depression.
What is worse to be mentally ill and fight for a good cause ? Or sane and work for evil politicians and CEO as a pen for hire?

The solution to avoid mobbing and shaming is to forgive as it is said in prayer "Our father":
"
And forgive us our trespasses, 
as we forgive those who trespass against us. 
And lead us not into temptation, 
but deliver us from evil. Amen."

If we don't forgive others online trespasses ours won't be forgiven.
If we forgive the mistakes of the people and we don't became tribal, the leaking of personal information won't have any effect.

Conclusion:
After Snowden affair, the future has 2 possibilities either will be a world like in novel "We" by Evgeni Zamiatin , where people lived in transparent houses and everything was monitored and controlled either it will be a world in which we will use encryption more often and we will forgive more.

Regarding encryption: US Navy Intelligence developed free Tor browser to cloak internet traffic, Snowden exposed flaws used by NSA to spy.
People don't foresee consequences when they are doing something: those who tried to spy supply you with tools for self defence.
It seems that entropy wins every time.

3 ideas how to fix US

I am not interested in US elections but I watch a discussion between Bernie Sanders and Steven Colbert.
I was surprised to hear from an US senator the "tax the rich" shout of the 'sans coulotes' from French Revolution or of the Bolsheviks.
If you tax heavily top 1% they leave the country, then the burden will fall on top 10%. These either will leave the country or not invest too much and the burden will fall under the shoulders of 25%, they will not leave the country but they will invest and buy less.'
Many Jacobins and Bolshevik were idealistic and wanted to make a better world, but didn't understood the reality and especially the historical and cultural traditions, and many Bernie supporters could make the same mistake.
The Jacobins ignored the french catholic culture, the Bolsheviks ignored  the Russian orthodox culture and Mr. Sanders ignores american culture of the personal initiative.
If he ignores this it will be difficult for him to make some reforms. Jacobins had guillotine and Bolshevik had gulags from Siberia to speed up the reforms, US president as less room for manoeuvre.

The US american will not transform themselves in socialist as the french monarchists didn't transform themselves in citizens.
The problem with personal initiative is that you must have an even playing field, that allows the best to succeed. Te american pioneer had no kings to obey, no tradition to follow.
He elected it own president and made his traditions on the go.
Now it seems the playing field is not even, it is tilted.
How  ''mom and pop'' company who pays taxes can compete with a corporation that stashes billions overseas ?
How can you compete if you are bankrupt because of an illness ?
How can you use your skills better if student loans force you to take the most financial safe career ?

Here I have 3 ideas that fix these issue that costs nothing:

1. Flat tax: Put a tax of 20% on the profit. The fiscal code is simple and corporations cannot hide the profit. It evens the playing field between small and big companies. Less bureaucracy.
Make fiscal amnesty, tax with 20% all the money that are returning from off-shore accounts.
Don't tax revenues that are made abroad. Only US is doing it.
A comparison between UK and US fiscal system.

2. Offer university scholarships for poor youth:
From what I understood US government offers some subsidies for student loans.
In a market economy the the greater demand for a steady supply increase the price.
The places in university are in steady supply, the loans increase the demand, this increases the price, making education more difficult for  intelligent but poor youth.
Why don't we use the same money to offer scholarships in affordable universities ?
Students will be saved from poverty.High school students will be motivated to work hard to get rid of bad neighbourhood and gangs.
The government money will help good universities , not some diploma factories. These money can help develop local economy, the influx of students will increase commerce and propriety value.
Without loans the prices will decrease the education will be affordable for many students. They will not need a loan anymore.
The workforce will more qualified.
All you have to do is to spend differently.

3. Health insurance and medicines: Either the government can offer a basic insurance to complement the private one either offer a scheme for current insurance to cover the poor and ill:
Make a tax deduction for the revenue obtained from poor and ill so to be profitable for insurance companies to serve this market segment
Fix the price of some medicines that are monopoly of some companies.
If you are the only holder of a patented medicine you are a monopoly and in case where it is a monopoly  state intervenes and negotiates a fair price. (A fair price can be a fix percentage added to manufacturing costs for example)
Also let medicines coming from other countries to enter in US market easily.
If a medicine is approved in EU why it is not safe to sell it in US ?
If a drug company uses money for promotion these costs must not be deductible, many bad medicines are sold because of good marketing.

But this is not communism/socialist intervention in the economy ?
No.
The communist state owned every thing, the socialist took from rich and gave to poor.
In this case the government negotiates for the citizens because it represents them. In theory.