New book: The Creation of Me, Them and Us

The Creation of Me, Them and Us is available now at these locations:

Amazon: paperback or Kindle


Barnes and Noble

Google play

Donate to support my work through Paypal. Join the discussion on reddit and Goodreads. Leave a review at Amazon and / or Good reads and / or anywhere else. Thank you!

image2 copyThe single greatest tool for making moral people commit atrocities is group affiliation. The single greatest tool for promoting global human rights and equality is to end group affiliation.

This book is an expansion of the thought above, written in Binding Chaos in 2013. In 2013, so many things seemed simple and self-evident. In 2020, the goal seems as clear as ever, but the road seems much longer and many things have to be examined in detail that were glossed over a decade ago. Like our journey, this book is more complicated than the book written almost a decade ago. It will take longer to read and longer still to debate, but like Spain’s 15-M movement used to say, we are moving slowly because we are travelling a long way.

When our quest for justice falls apart we, like Inigo Montoya, need to go back to the beginning. This book is the beginning. It is part of a series that will cover the structure of our institutions, but before we can discuss our institutions, we need to discuss who we are. This series begins by examining the nature of self, life, will, reality and power. The rest of the series looks at the societal institutions which have grown up around nations, economy, law, governance, architecture and technology. These books are all a further examination of the problems identified in Binding Chaos in 2013.

By the time we reach the end of this series, we will hopefully be back on the road to building a better world, armed with a better understanding of where and how we were derailed. I hope it is some help to each of you on your own paths.


The Binding Chaos series

A look at the world – Binding Chaos

Self – The Creation of Me, Them and Us

Life – Abstracting Divinity

Reality – Shaping Reality

Will – Free Will and Seductive Coercion

Power – Great Men, Commoners, Witches and Wretches

Nation – The Fourth Age of Nations

Economy – The Approval Economy

Law – Law and Chaos

Governance – Autonomy Diversity Society

Architecture – Rethinking the Moats and Mountains

Technology – Code Will Rule

The first of the new books is live now and will be available in other formats and serialized over the next weeks.



Comments are open for those who just want to say hi or comment on this book or series, but I am not around here much so it is not a good place for promotion or lengthy discussions of things, people and projects unrelated to the work here. I have no idea who or what is being promoted in the comments, so don’t do that. Maybe start a subreddit or whatever it is people do now for wider discussion? If people use the comments to promote other people and projects I have to shut them because I don’t have time to moderate – also this is not the place for that. If you want to start a place for a wider discussion of this book plus other things, feel free to link it below.

Yay, someone did it! Here is a reddit forum for all of you that want to talk to each other.


45 thoughts on “New book: The Creation of Me, Them and Us

  1. I’m delighted to hear of this. I only very recently got a round tuit and bought the Kindle edition of Binding Chaos. The Kindle Cloud Reader sez I’m 92% done reading it. I take it Patreon, not Kindle, is what actually supports living authors? I’ll bear that in mind. I look forward to your new book, though for me it will wait until next month. Gotta get new tires. I live in the country that managed to engineer cars into an economic necessity.

    Binding Chaos, to me, reads like a philosophical treatise, which actually works well for my neurotype.

    The similarities as well as the differences between your worldview and mine are remarkable, so I try to maintain a positive attitude and focus on the similarities. Your obscene emphasis on the word ‘trade’ suggests to me that you might be one of the half dozen or so anagorists in the world. My biggest hope is that that particular aspect of your worldview hasn’t changed much, but I’ll find out (hopefully) in about a month.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Awesome to hear from you!
      I have resisted Patreon because why do people prefer to donate where a chunk of their money goes to a platform?? But even random twitter accounts seem to have success on patreon and no one ever donates through paypal for all the work they say they want me to do so … maybe.


  2. Great to hear from you Heather! We will share the news and get a copy for sure! We are very grateful of the support in the creation and development of #OpGabon and #OpDeathEaters. All the best with the new release. Keep it up and stay in touch!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank so much for the support – miss you all. Here’s to some greater progress for all of us in 2020! I wish there was some way I could get these translated to French and other languages but I guess right now I’ll focus on just getting them all written. 😉


  3. Early into the book but nevertheless started to wonder if your ideas would make a good fit with Complimentary Holism . The merging Perhaps of two kinds of complimentary endoselves…sorry, probably bastardised the idea of the endoself but such is my way…read Binding Chaos some time ago and have forgotten much…also my way…But this analysis has me intrigued to a degree I remember Binding Chaos did…just so much to hold in the friggin’ head it becomes a bit of memory issue. I am a free improvising musician, non-performing, because I disagree with Isaac Stern that music only exists in performance and I see involvement in the making free improvised music as being directly related to the break down of hierarchies. Many, most people in fact, have no real understanding of improvising, other than that Jazz musicians do it, let alone when someone places the word free in front of it…but something breaks down when one involves oneself in such an endeavour…in fact, many things break down and many things once thought to be meaningful no longer seem to be…in fact meaning itself becomes problematic…Anyway, I digress…

    The merging of The Creation of Me, Them and Us with Complimentary Holism and it’s elucidation in the book Liberating Theory was my main thought here.



    • Let me know by the end of the book if you still think they are related? I hadn’t heard of complementary holism but from a glance at the link I don’t think so. Re music, and improv, absolutely that is a way to bypass cognitive filters and access something completely different, like all art, and the resulting euphoria and expansion exists shared or not. That gets talked about a lot in both Abstracting Divinity and Shaping Reaity, which hopefully I will finish one day.
      Nice to hear from you. 🙂


      • Hi Heather,

        Thanks for the reply. I actually agree. I do not think they are related. It was more a passing thought, perhaps a trivial one, that your analysis could serve helpfully in someway regarding revolutionary action, along with problems of sectarianism, within the spheres of society outlined in Complimentary Holism.

        Still haven’t finished it yet…up around p122. Enjoying it. Can get hard to hold everything in the head but I must say there is something that feels intuitively correct about it all.

        I am also starting to think about free improvisation and the outcomes of such activity…mainly occurs in music making…and how it seems to, by its very nature, and if I understand your analysis correctly, avoid the endo-ideal or endo-reality. I could be wrong but it feels to me that my view of what free improvisation is, making shit up immediately without any predetermination of the outcome but with acceptance of it (to expect, desire, want or predetermine an outcome would, by definition, be a violation of free improvisation), avoids the endo-ideal and cannot be claimed by it.

        That being said, ironically, I do not tend to feel self-emergence, stigmergy, or other such somewhat improvisational approaches to change is the way to head into the future. I tend toward things like Participatory Economics devised by the same people who developed Complimentary Holism. I think commoning, p2p ideas (Bauwens/Siefkes who have both debated with Michael Albert), along with the plethora of community economics needs to be tempered and guided by wider vision like Parecon. I could be wrong and most likely am…I am only a mann after all.

        Still reading James


  4. I just came across a thread on Twitter that references your book, The Creation Of Me Them And Us. Here are two quotes from the same thread.

    “The single greatest tool for making moral people commit atrocities is group affiliation”

    “In order to defeat our enemies”

    Could you explain how these ideas fit together?


    • No, because the quote re enemies is not from the book and I don’t know what the twitter conversation was about.

      In general though, the enemy of any exosocial person is any person or structure that seeks to stop exosocial expansion.


    • Yes, it features heavily in Binding Chaos, the first book in this series from 2013. So much so, it is included in the glossary (see above). A primary motivator for writing these books was to test Robert Michels’ conclusion and I am now quite sure that he, like Hegel, described a law that exists only within endosocialism, not without it.


  5. Thanks for the reply. I will have to read the book. I’m quite skeptical that humans can avoid bureaucracy. Are you familiar with the book The Occult Technology of Power?

    “The nations of the world are either autocracies (monarchy or dictatorship) or oligarchies (formal or informal cabals of military and/or economic elites). All routtinely claim to be “public servants”, working for the interests of the entire citizenry. As long as this image is maintained, by a mixture of propaganda and force, the autocracy/oligarchy remains in power. If it fails, the result is revolution and the eventual institution of a new, similar elite. Yes, this is a very harsh, banal, and depressing portrait of humanity; it is unfortunately also coldly realistic. The “science-fiction” of George Orwell’s 1984 has quietly become the contemporary way of life.”


    • Again, this is an Einstein’s elevator scenario. From within the box, we can certainly prove all that is within the box and think we have discovered universal laws but that is not, and has never been, all there is. Creation explains the basics of what I mean and the next two (about life and reality) explain more technically how this works and when I get to the book about governance I will go over what those gentlemen were looking at.

      Would love to hear back from you after you have read Creation.


  6. “Exosocial people fight for liberation, or freedom to develop healthy euphoric conduits. Endoselves fight for subordination, or the right to enforce reflection and sublation and prey on others.”

    Free improvisation is a fight for liberation of rules, laws and tradition governing the direction and outcomes of music and all associations and relations therewith. When these rules, laws and traditions are wilfully ignored, discarded, dropped, shunned, all hierarchy and “greatness” in creative actions is lost…it falls away. When it comes to Art, this is usually considered an abomination. Free improvisation is the last bastion of the musical scoundrel. There is no conquering of creative terrain when one free improvises. There cannot be. There is no terrain to conquer. And this is what musical endoselves, groups and the endo-ideal rail against. In fact I go further outside the musical domain, and declare, fuck Hegel.


    • Haha poor Hegel! It’s interesting, most of your comments re art, creation and the interception of euphoric conduits are covered in the next book, Abstracting Divinity but you’ve already anticipated them. Improv definitely allows your brain to escape linear progressions and intuit accurately in all directions. It is interesting because endoselves have extreme difficulty understanding anything that requires a bit of a jump or extrapolation. – which becomes much more interesting in the context of what we view as reality and the power of endofilters blah blah third book.

      Nice to hear your thoughts!


      • 🤘🏿Yeah, poor Hegel. Got a thing about Hegel. Wrote a rather long comment I was going to post about that chapter! Just read a book by Peter Hudis about Marx’s relationship to “Utopian” visions or alternative systems to capitalism and it was riddled with bloody Hegel (Marxists love it. I don’t. Richard Wolff rarely mentions him, if ever. I like that much better). I thought, shit, I don’t care about subject/object inversions, being and non-being, negations of negations and stuff. And neither do all the workers down at the local! Just tell me what you think Marx thinks about stuff like Parecon for instance. Tell me what he thinks, Michel Bauwens, Gar Alperovitz, Takis Fotopoulos, Ethan Miller, and the folk down at Commons Transition think and I’ll fight ya about it! 🤪


  7. “ These discrepancies, such as all the people like Van Gogh who would purchase paint before food, are, predictably, dismissed as insane. ”

    As the writer, painter, musician, Don Van Vliet, aka Captain Beefheart (rip), is considered by many and would probably do himself and who once had to drive off the highway into the Mojave desert for some hours to calm down as a result of seeing a bumper sticker on a car that read, “If Van Gogh was alive today, he’d use British Paints.”


  8. Long end note. Hope it’s coherent. I’m not so sure.

    As I reach the end of the book, I wonder why, setting the Hegel chapter aside, I felt drawn to the ideas within it. There is I think, at least in the way I relate to it, some correlation with an alternative economic system I like, called Parecon, albeit maybe subtle, maybe not, and this comment is also largely a positive response, to the chapter The Science of Sociopathy, and this sort of thing,

    “Diagnosis puts the blame and stigma for an illness on the person instead of the cause and allows claims that only some overly-sensitive (defective) people have adverse reactions, and it is their problem to resolve. The cause of the illness retains its normal standing. This is predictable since the causes are usually earning profit for corporate endo-ideals and the victims, according to the laws of endoreality, are the negative image. Like IQ in the last century, which was always tied to personal shortcomings, preferably attached to sex, race and class, illness today is a stigma of weakness in the victim.”

    The focus needs to be not the personal but on the environments we build around us that foster certain behaviours and ways of thinking.

    Parecon is a set of economic specific institutions design to foster certain values like equity, solidarity, diversity, classlessness and self-management (defined as making decisions in proportion to the degree one is affected by them within a federated system of nested councils…old school kind of anarchism…Mick Bakunin and Pete Kropotkin style). One could say the institutional structure is designed to foster an openness and non-hierarchical approach to economic and naturally, personal relations, or exosocial expansion without sacrificing needed efficiencies within ecologically sound production, consumption and allocation. Something I think needs careful consideration and not something to be arrived at through an improvised approach or ideas of self-emergence…unless one concludes something like Parecon for instance, could be part of an improvised, exosocial approach. Which in some sense it is considering even the freest of free improvising comes attached with a whole plethora of shit and wats of doing the improvisor has accumulated just by virtue of being alive.

    In relation to a comment above about bureaucracy, one needs to look at the institutional structure, the environmental conditions such thing create and the consequent internal and external social relations. A structure, seemingly bureaucratic, slow or slowish convoluted seemingly inefficient decision making process, or whatever, may in fact at times be necessary to foster certain values. It may be that the cost of the structure is outweighed by the benefit, without impacting negatively on other structures and institutions, ways of relating, in surrounding and supporting environments and places. The input and output of a workplace contains the worker as well. People, humans. When they go in they are in a state…are they in a better one when they come out, or at least not worse? However, that being said, I believe bureaucratic structures would tend to negatively impact and create endosocial rather than exosocial relations.

    Bureaucracy is usually immediately always associated with public institutions and negatively contrasted to private tyrannies which are apparently far more efficient. A neat little propagandistic meme to spread around and which is believed even among those on the portside of politics. Of course they are more “efficient”, there is a surplus that needs to be made and distributed according to a whole set of arbitrarily designed mechanisms that are rarely if ever questioned…such as, that the CEO or order-giver or anyone higher in the chain of command, obviously deserves more remuneration, access to the social pie, than the person putting that one bolt in the backseat of a car 6 days a week, 8 hours a day. But at what sacrifice is such apparent private tyranny efficiency achieved. A clearly huge one for the majority of the worlds population. It is certainly not to improve the mental state of consumers or workers. The mental state of the order-giver or CEO is significantly different to that of the bolt inserter, leaving remuneration out of the equation. It is necessary to acknowledge that if information and knowledge acquisition and dispersal was truly democratic and open, there would also need to be institutional structure that fosters the confidence to use it for participatory decision making to be effective.

    To change bureaucratic systems one needs to also change the wider institutional structure that surrounds and supports it and the outcomes. The bureaucratic efficiencies of private tyrannies are supported by surrounding economic institutions that are insidiously abhorrent and help create many of the very issues Heather is analysing in her books.

    To make schools or educational institutions more open and exosocial would be to change everything surrounding and outside them…the very environments one enters when one leaves an educational institution. If educational institutions are constructed to foster exosocial expansion then the outside surrounding workplaces or destinations for the learner cannot be predominantly the opposite. That would create tension and instability. In fact it would be absurd.

    The thoughts above haven’t come out of my head exactly as I would have liked and perhaps they’re not so clear, but I am trying to point to some kind of sympathetic correlation between Heather’s analysis and something like Participatory Economics. And that is regardless of what I see as a closer relationship of Heather’s position with p2p ideas, including things like stigmergy, and commoning and regardless that thinkers like Michel Bauwens and Christian Siefkes have both debated with Michael Albert and that there are considerable disagreements between them. I think stigmergy as a means of getting stuff done, on the hardware material production side , has merit but also has drawbacks. It is limited in a way that participatory planning is not. And I do not believe participatory planning would be a bureaucratic nightmare, but rather a necessary cost with greater benefit in the end. Something that achieves better accounting of what is getting produced and consumed and therefore ecological outcomes, further tempered by the surrounding and complimentary institutional structures of Parecon.

    Does the above make sense? I’m kind of trying to show how I relate to these ideas. It’s also why I have made those points regarding free improvisation. Trying to personally relate. I am seemingly attracted to both the ideas in Heather’s books and Parecon. There must be some reason why I don’t feel an inherent tension between the two things.

    However there does seem to be a tension between modern day pursuits for liberation (see John Jordan quote below*) and particularly among groups more familiar with and embedded in the world of technological progress and digital world of the internet. A tension that characterises things like Parecon as a kind of archaic throwback belonging to old school traditional portside politics and “revolutionary”, as opposed to liberating thinking.

    I agree totally with this,

    “None of these tactics will matter as long as the subsequent structure is simply another revolutionary or transcendent endogroup, however. Dismantling power is an urgent necessity, but creating replacement structures is far more urgent. The rest of the books in this series are an attempt to examine the problems before us in our paths to build these structures and to suggest where we might look for solutions.

    In the coming years, dismantling power will prove to be shockingly easy [not totally convinced by this] . The most difficult part will come in being ready for what comes next. Recognition of the law of the last circle, the swarm of migratory endo-ideals and targeted alienation are essential to avoid regression into previous tyrannies. Recognition of the methods of totalitarian coercion are necessary to resist the transcendental mono-empire. Most importantly, recognition of our drive towards exosocialism and the methods in which this is blocked is essential to our liberation. We cannot escape the walls we do not see.”

    To avoid regression is difficult and could be more difficult, if adopting a more improvisational approach to change, which is how I kind of see notions of self-emergence. It is why I have a foot in the door, or perhaps more of my body, maybe most of it, in the old school dark and dingy out of mind room where Parecon lurks. But I am not saying I am right. Jazz operates with preconceived ideas of outcomes and is improvised around very specific structures to create outcomes that fit most often inside a creative endo-ideal. The musicians, the ones we call the “greats”, are endo-ideals….this who have conquered the creative landscape and terrain. But at least one can see more clearly or be more certain as to the outcome of the musical endeavour. With free improvisation there is no certainty of outcome…none. Yay just have to accept it. This works for music, and I prefer “occupying” the free improvisational landscape than the controlled, tempered and conquered one…no problem. I feel liberated and free in it. But I’m not so sure whether such an approach to societal change is the best. I am sure however that most people would have a more tempered approach, like that jazz. But for jazz to work, one needs some set of predetermined, minimalist/maximalist structures around which to build otherwise the thing could go anywhere, even to place many would hear as AER pollution…which in music, is just the way I like it*

    * “Our movements are trying to create a politics that challenges all the certainties of traditional leftist politics, not by replacing them with new ones, but by dissolving any notion that we have answers, plans or strategies that are watertight or universal. . . . We are trying to build a politics . . . that acts in the moment, not to create something in the future but to build in the present, it’s the politics of the here and now.”(In A Post-Capitalist Politics by J K Gibson-Graham)


    • Some corrections…

      “this who have conquered the creative landscape and terrain” should be “those”.

      “ Yay just have to accept it. Should be “you”.

      “ more tempered approach, like that jazz.” Should be “like that of jazz”

      “ even to place many would hear as AER pollution”. Should be “EAR pollution”


    • “Heather’s position with p2p ideas” – what? I have never had anything to do with that mess. My only position with ‘p2p ideas’ is that their endo-ideal spent years openly cut and pasting complete articles of mine attributed and copyrighted(!!) to himself. When called out on it (not by me) he blackballed any mention of me or my work on his ‘horizontal’ forums. Imo he is a snake oil salesman and ‘P2P theory’ is a cutesy name for libertarian. I made that clear in the economy section of Binding Chaos (which is probably the real reason for the rage-banning). No idea what you mean by relating my work with that, I haven’t kept up with whatever he has stolen in years. That whole mess is a great example of an endogroup tho.

      For the rest, stigmergy is a very specific tool for a very specific purpose and institutions will be coming …


  9. Third attempt.

    Oh, sorry about that. I was not aware of that history. And I just reacquainted myself with Binding Chaos and those chapters. So I realise my stupid ignorant error now and apologise. It’s the word stigmergy that got me. I’ve only heard it in relation to p2p shit and am ignorant of it origins in biology (even that’s probably wrong!). I’m not enamoured of p2p myself, for various reasons, not the least a tendency for “inside” type confusing language and over intellectual and philosophical banging on. But then so many who craft their own special economies tend to do that. It’s why I like Parecon really. No frills or bullshit and it’s not vague…it’s coherent, clear and concise. And it’s certainly not reliant on people becoming better people. But what would I know. I’m just a member of the bewildered herd who finds citing Hegel as an unnecessary blight on the revolutionary landscape.

    I look forward to more about institutional structure in the future and hope I can understand it. It’s hard going reading through all this shit when you have few to help you get a handle on it all. Comparing and contrasting ideas becomes a mind-#&$#$. Does the little head in. Gotta go over Binding Chaos now.

    Confidence is an elusive cat.



    • Re stigmergy, his original use of the idea was from my articles but who knows how he has garbled it by now.

      “I’m just a member of the bewildered herd who finds citing Hegel as an unnecessary blight on the revolutionary landscape.”

      Well I would agree if you are citing him as an authority. Not mentioning him when you are trying to change modern institutions is akin to not mentioning mud when you are trying to renovate a mud hut. But once people see there are far better building materials out there, no one will have to mention him ever again – or any of the last few centuries of social authority he spawned.

      “I look forward to more about institutional structure in the future and hope I can understand it.”

      It gets a lot easier (less abstract) as we move from topics like life to topics like economy and architecture, for sure. Also, I put the primary abstract / historical stuff in one chapter in Creation and it’s easy to skip without losing the thread with the rest of the book. I’ll try to make the division more clear and the invitation to skip that part clear in the future. I don’t agree that I can write a book with a new vision of self without answering all the people who created the old vision (and the same applies for all these topics) but I do agree that you shouldn’t have to read it to understand what I am getting at.

      I also agree it is very hard to go through everything by yourself. I know what’s in my own head but for other people to understand what I am getting at and how that relates with all of whatever is in their heads definitely requires a group – and that need will just increase as the series progresses. Idk what to do about that, I have my hands full just emptying my own head, but I am thinking about it. Hopefully something evolves.


  10. A note upon reflection.

    “Not mentioning him [Hegel] when you are trying to change modern institutions is akin to not mentioning mud when you are trying to renovate a mud hut.”

    I have never come across Hegel in my readings on Parecon. Totally unnecessary. In fact, I rarely come across citing of anyone at all really, only when a rare quote is being made. Bibliographies at the end of those books are incredibly small. There is no need to mention anyone when coming up with balanced job complexes to replace hierarchical/corporate divisions of labour. No need to mention anyone when changing remuneration mechanisms, or mechanisms that account for fair and equitable access to the social pie, from market based ones (bargaining power) or ones that favour output (luck) to one that prefers remuneration for effort, sacrifice and onerousness. No need to mention anyone when changing decision making processes from up/down to across…self-managed decision making in proportion to the degree one is affected, within nested councils, inside and outside work places, as people are both consumers and producers, incorporating consensus, super-majorities, one to one voting, or whatever else is out therefore needed etc., depending on circumstances. There is no need to cite anyone like Hegel or the “great” thinkers of the past to try and show that mutual cooperative participatory planning can be done, as an alternative to markets, a mix of markets and planning, or central planning. Perhaps Alex Nove may need to be as his claim there is no third alternative to markets or central planning was a part of the motivation to create Parecon.

    All that needs doing is for those new alternative institutions to be clear, concise and coherent. Then one has to try and show they will achieve desired ends…in Parecon’s case to foster certain values, specifically, equity , solidarity, diversity, self-management and classlessness as well as being ecologically sound. Then one has to invite debate and criticism of said institutions in order to be sure of them. Subject them to a severe scrute! Openly and willingly and if anything is questionable it must be revised.

    All this must be done in a way that is accessible to everyone in the world and understandable to them. Separate from sectarian and personal disputes and egos. All alternative economic systems for instance must be cross referenced with each other. To discover pros and cons. To discover similarities or sameness that is obscured by inside specific language.

    So, an approval economy must be cross referenced with gift and sharing economies, with commoning ideas, with cooperative ideas, with existing local community efforts, like the Seikatsu Consumer Co-operative in Japan, to get very specific (there are Pareconish features to this Co-operative but the authors of the book referencing it don’t make that call because Parecon is either out of sight or has been shelved…for naive or arrogant reasons usually and wrongly) . But it must also be cross referenced with pluralist commonwealth ideas, as promoted at the Next System Project, market socialist things like David Schwieckart’s vision, with Takis Fotopoulos’s Inclusive Democracy, with voluntary simplicity ideas like Ted Trainers hodgepodge vision, with Steady State ideas and social ecology. And further to show where some visions fall short institutionally or are vague and reliant on a kind of hope or wishful thinking. Parecon is described as maximalist/minimalist.

    Without cross referencing, without collating all these ideas with a view to determining how truly different they actually are or illustrating that, beyond the specific lingo groups use and ideological preferences, they are all much the friggin’ same (as most appear to me unless you want markets, planning or a mix for allocation), and all done using easily understandable language, clearly, concisely and coherently, and with few citings of ancient or modern “greats” and “authorities” who have written “classic” “great” books which always put the average ordinary citizen/reader on the back foot intellectually, then change will be just a shit fight with us all crawling out of the chaos as Clive Hamilton feels will be how things will transpire. Which will also be the case if all this information is strewn across the Internet on individual and group sites who rarely talk to one another, regularly and with a common goal, in a way that shows, to the average ordinary citizen at all class levels, they can openly and willingly get along.



  11. Hello Heather first of all I want to say thank you for expanding further on the binding chaos theory. I am half way through The Creation of Me, Them and Us so I’m still unpacking alot from the concepts and ideas you’ve presented. 😎

    I want to take this opportunity to invite you and others to come join our us at

    This sub is administered by students and explorers of the Binding Chaos theory. We are creating a community to help understand the theory as it applies to our daily lives. Since a new book has just arrived and more are about to follow, we felt it was a lot of material to go through alone. Different perspectives and applications are very helpful to our understanding.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Your 1st book changed my life, your 2nd book was mind blowing, can’t wait to read this 3rd book. Hope you’re well. Miss you, love your videos, specially the censored Oxford Union panel on whistleblowing, oh, the irony…

    Liked by 1 person

      • You are most welcome my friend, merry meet and merry part, and merry meet again.
        and by 2nd book I meant all the amazing stuff you have on this blog
        and by 3rd book I mean your 2nd book.
        I will pass both books onto the next generation.
        UK John McDonnell heard using your words, “horizontal” governance and about time too.
        It is an amazing time to be alive, we are safe on earth, safest place in the universe.
        We have nothing to fear but the billionaires.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It is truly amazing what we have heard this year. Countries preaching governance by transparent, two-way epistemic communities, governments going against IP, people in the US calling their rulers ‘death eaters’ … 😀 Finally, time to stop tearing things down and start creating – I need to get busy in my corner. Hope all is well in yours!


  13. Hey I just want to say thank you for bringing light to the darkness. I tried I few times but Looking back on it I think it’s better explained when there are other people around to relate to. So I appreciate that 🙏🏾💜

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Hello, I have just finished reading Binding Chaos which I got to know from Anon’s tweet; the book totally changed how I see the world. I can’t look at the world the same again.

    Since I am very poor, I can not buy books via online and they don’t sell “The Creation of Me, Them and Us” in where I live. So I have to search for pdf/epub file to download everything I want to read. I would appreciate it, if you can provide me a link to download Book 2. 🙏🏼🙇🏻‍♀️

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Pingback: &#8212 Views of happiness: Journey versus destination, part one of two

  16. Pingback: &#8212 Review of education books, part one of two

  17. Pingback: &#8212 Benefits of making a timeline, both personal and anti-corporate … plus global resistance news

  18. Pingback: Dissociation about endangered kids replaced by saving a child – Douglas Lucas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s