Coopetism 5.7 – Extremism: Is it a Source-Problem, which is Directly Solvable, or a Symptom, which can only be Solved Indirectly?

The self-trapped West: why, rather than solving our single source-problem, does it obsessively attempt to solve each of its symptoms?  And, to extract our collective-cranium out of this mess, how can this laser-focus be fractured?
Australia Raises Terror Threat From ‘Possible’ to ‘Probable’

‘Civil War is inevitable,’ Elon Musk (re: British riots), August 4, 2025

‘Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) director-general Mike Burgess says Australia’s terror-level threat has been raised … due to a rising mix of ideologies where more people think “violence is permissible”.’

Paul Johnson, ABC, August 5, 2024

With Mr Burgess citing the radicalisation of minors and youth, a rapid progression from indoctrination to action, a surge in previously unknown antagonists, a broadening spectrum of “religiously motivated, nationalist and racist violent extremism” and being “hooked on the violence elements” rather than ideology, he has declared “politically motivated violence now joins espionage and foreign interference as our principal security concerns.”

‘Mike Burgess … has redefined our security challenge to recognise an increasingly intolerant and divided country [and] been forced to broaden ASIO’s traditional focus to respond to a host of new and disturbing trends that, taken together, have undermined social cohesion and increasingly have normalised violence as a part of protest and public debate. …

“There are manifestations of political violence now in our society, or concerns around them, that go beyond terrorism,” Lydia Khalil [Lowy Institute] says. “It’s becoming an increasingly blurry line between what is legitimate in a democratic society and what should be proscribed … Now it’s very muddy” …

“A lot of people are frustrated with the way that democracy is working and they’re increasingly believing that it doesn’t meet the needs of the average person, that it’s really focused on elite interests,” Khalil says. Perceptions of growing inequality and cost of living have led to frustration with governments, fuelling anti-authoritarian views and a wariness of institutions.

“I think it’s not just an issue for ASIO, they’re just one part of the broader spectrum of the response,” Khalil says. “This isn’t just a security issue. … The rest of it is really a broader societal issue.” …

But his conclusions are a wakeup call to the real-life consequences of the country’s drift towards intolerance, violent political rhetoric and crumbling political and social civility.’

Cameron Stewart, The Australian, August 10, 2024

The CDO’s Predictions

‘Unless the source-problem (there’s only 1) is addressed,

our symptomatic troubles will continue exponentiating

before a societal fracturing (or collapse),

which will conjure incivility outside many Western imaginations.’

The CDO’s global-trend predictive success is evidenced by its letters as posted on its website (from 2019).

It’s summed-up by the observations:

  1. We are subject to a ‘culminating self-created perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro[international/natural] (SEE-in) catastrophes’
  2. These SEE-in catastrophes are symptoms of an underlying source-problem
  3. Regarding the culmination timeline, 2025 is given prominence.

In 2018, The CDO began due to trepidation at what lay ahead unless we optimised our systems – at that time, this idea and the CDO was regarded as infinitely more ridiculous than it is now.

However, we don’t claim a Nostradamus-type ability – i.e. whereas most commentators base their predictions on:

  1. Events – for example, more fires and floods indicating climate change
  2. Personalities – for example, what will Trump, Xi etc. do?

and is usually restricted by their imagination’s capacity to accept it (such as outright rejection of Musk’s prediction), which means they’re perpetually surprised – the CDO bases its predictions on systems.

That is, the CDO believes:

  1. Systems drive events – i.e. they drive the exponentiating SEE-in symptoms
  2. Personalities are distractive neon – i.e. systems drive the types who come to power and moulds how they wield power.

Accordingly, we seek to understand:

  1. Our current systems
  2. Nature’s systems
  3. Where the former are miscorrelated with the latter then its historical and likely future effects.

Thus, South Korea’s problem is not North Korea, Europe’s problem is not Putin, The United States’ problem is not Biden/Trump/Harris, Taiwan’s problem is not China, Israel’s problem is not the whole rest of the world (though, admittedly, that’s a significant foe) and Australia’s problem is not being too lucky – i.e. the problem for each is their Model needs optimising yet their overlooking that.

Regarding Australia’s short-term future, via the CDO’s method, it predicts, barring U.S. implosion prior to Australia’s 2025 election, that election will occur; however, the next one may be of a manner currently unrecognisable, if it occurs at all.

Other observations, first, with the SEE-in symptoms exponentiating (including because its 4 sets of problems feed into one another), this means what has happened in the last 3 years is a fraction of what will happen in the next 3.

Second, while some will find a niche (including as perpetrators), no one can escape this including those with wealth, power and social-status who may also find it particularly difficult to imagine becoming a victim, let alone what it may entail.

Third, as yet, we’re not destiny doomed to this disaster; however, to avoid it, we urgently need the circuit-breaker of implementing the source-solution.

[Aside: Regarding China & Taiwan, having lived in northeast China for over a decade, if I were its Authoritarian President wanting to take Taiwan, tactically, I would first want to take Japan (plus, strategically, both internally & externally, I would want it even more) and, via continuous history-based propaganda, psychologically, the Chinese population is super-primed to welcome that.]

The West’s Misdiagnosis

The West is confusing symptoms for source-problems.

Thus, it attempts to solve symptoms; however, these can only be solved via addressing the source-problem.

Internally, attempts to directly solve symptoms include: more jobs, more food-giveaways, more domestic violence education, more laws for employee-exploitation, more public-housing for the able, more appealing for donations, more mental-health professionals and more incarceration.

Meanwhile, there’s only a single source-problem – i.e.:

Universal Subsistence Income (USI) absence.

[Can’t ‘absence’ be insidious – for example, of food, sleep, a childhood without loving parents, safety etc.?]

Regarding The USI, via the potential subsistence-transcending event known as, ‘The Industrial Revolution,’ it should be an inheritance, which means the source-problem has been fermenting its symptoms for 260 years, which fully explains our perfect storm of SEE-in symptoms.

In turn, The USI-absence results in Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), which, among other things, causes poverty & employee-exploitation.

Accordingly, in 1894, attempting to ameliorate, not SIS, but its symptoms of poverty & employee-exploitation, New Zealand became the first country to implement Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW); however, UMHoW creates unemployment.

So, we have one source-problem – The USI-absence – which creates Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS); yet, outside the CDO, have you ever heard it mentioned?

Thus, we’re on a permanent alternation between trekking down rabbit-holes or, when surfacing, engaging in wild-goose chases until we fall-down another rabbit-hole – i.e. we exclusively pour our focus and resources into seeking to address The USI-absence’s symptoms of: poverty, employee-exploitation, unemployment, homelessness, mental-illness, crime …

Meanwhile, this error’s ‘butterfly effect’ has gifted us a 260-year ‘Mega War’ of cascading challenges including our World Wars, Communism (what else but poverty & employee-exploitation motivated Marx?) and our various current difficulties including ‘extremism.’

Nevertheless, these are easily (and blissfully) solved via the self-capitalising incentivising SIS-&-unemployment-eradicating ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.

‘The Reform’ is self-capitalising because it:

  1. Unleashes business, which, for a given tax-rate, increases tax revenue
  2. Massacres government expenditures – i.e. poverty, crime, mental-illness, escapism (such as drug and alcohol abuse), excess bureaucracy etc. all plummet.

Thus, ‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio,’ which, in Australia, is currently just 5 will skyrocket to around 50 – i.e. a multiplicity akin to that between the Developed & Underdeveloped World, again.

Meanwhile, the ‘net-taxpayer-USI,’ which is:

the amount paid by income/profit-taxpayers for The USI that’s not returned to their pocket as The USI,

is less than current income-Welfare, even though, by definition, income-Welfare is targeted.

Thus, implementing ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ will all-but-give-us, ‘The Optimised Western Model’ (OWM).

October 31, 2024

Hello

On extremism, as Lydia Khalil alludes, “we’re all at sea.”

The background to this is:

  1. Our current Western Model is flawed & failing
  2. Despite our Model’s failure, it’s being artificially buttressed  
  3. This buttressing has led to ‘reactive-extremism’ – i.e. the idea our Model is fine as is and, therefore, any suggestion there be systemic-change must be rejected
  4. Extremism is a symptom; yet, as is our habit, we’re treating it as a source-problem
  5. External-extremism – i.e. Authoritarianism – is also solved via ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
1. Our Western Model is Failing

While our current Western Model possesses positives, evidentially, it’s catalysing a ‘culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro[international/natural] (SEE-in) catastrophes’ – i.e.:

  1. Socio-: rather than optimally-interactive, there’s growing disunity
  2. Econo-: rather than maximally-efficient, there’s growing inefficiency [at least 90%]
  3. International-Enviro-: rather than fully-sovereign, there’s growing external threats
  4. Natural-Enviro-: rather than perpetually-sustainable, there’s growing unsustainability.

Regarding the Socio- aspiration of optimal-interaction (i.e. of being optimally civilised), our institutions – from our social-services to our ‘think’-tanks to our press to our social-sciences’ academia – are horror stories of waste, snobbery, ivory-tower out-of-touch syndrome, waffle, mediocrity, mind-atrophy and, of course, wild goose chasing and rabbit-hole burrowing.

Oversized and underperforming, these organisations are a dime-a-dozen as they’re busy achieving sweet fudge all.

That whole establishment contingent needs culling and rebuilding, which The Optimised Western Model will do automatically and invigoratingly – i.e. rather than wasteful jobs, all can obtain purposeful and, because waste is all but eliminated, vastly higher-salaried jobs.

In sum, our current Model is nature-misaligned so nature (including via human-nature) is rebelling, across-the-board, against it, including via extremism, which manifests in both:

  1. The Socio- as internal-extremism
  2. The international-Enviro- as external-extremism – i.e. Authoritarianism.

However, while nature is insisting on systemic-change, unfortunately, our Model is being artificially buttressed.

2. Our Current Model’s Buttressing

Our current Model’s failings are being buttressed by:

  1. Being superior to its Authoritarianism alternative
  2. Science & Technology Innovation.

Regarding the former, just because our Model is better than the various Authoritarian versions, it still has Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), which means it’s not good enough.

Moreover, SIS is so insidious that, because of it, Democracy’s superiority is being challenged – i.e. the young are the canaries in the coal-mine and, apparently, they’re starting to think Authoritarianism may be better than Democracy.

On the contrary, Democracy is wonderful; however, it’s only one of 5 optimal – i.e. Coopetive (Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second) – cornerstones:

  1. Universal Rule of Coopetive Law
  2. Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
  3. Universal Liberal Democracy
  4. Universal Education
  5. Universal Healthcare.

Regarding our problem with Democracy, it has been semi-hijacked by the elite – for example, the thousands of social-services’ executives (including in the trade-unions and the religious sphere).

One may expect, after 6 years of exposure, those who are supposed to be the champions of the Disempowered would have an opinion on the ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’ which for, against or with nuance (such as, “It depends on The USI’s dollar amount”), they would willingly make public; however, to the CDO’s knowledge, not one has publicly mentioned it.

In sum, they refuse to publicly say ‘boo’ about it.  [And, where’s the press’ questioning?]

Meanwhile, though our Science & Technology innovation continues increasing, we have the ‘Cost-of-Living Crisis.’

Have you heard any social-services executive or organisation take partial responsibility for their contribution to this abject failure or humbly admit mistakes as to their strategy or, apart from meaningless platitudes of ‘listening,’ demonstrate they are open to an idea such as ‘The Reform’?

The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’ without any fiddling, immediately and forever, solves the CLC.

Do they give 2 hoots about the Disempowered?

Yes; however, apparently, not if it may threaten their personal political, social and/or lifestyle situation.

Self-ashamedness: when shame is ubiquitous, it’s forgiven.

Regarding Science & Technology innovation, it acts as camouflage – i.e. it’s doubling our potential productivity perhaps every 5 to 7 years.

While most of this potential is lost as increased inefficiency (including natural-Enviro– damage), 1-4% is added to GDP growth – i.e. if there was no innovation, we would be in, dramatic, permanent recession.

Nevertheless, this camouflaging means many don’t grasp that our current Western Model is unfit-for-purpose, which has led to ‘reactive-extremism.’

3. Reactive-Extremism vis-à-vis Proactive-Extremism

While most recognise ‘proactive-extremism’ (such as the idea, ‘cooking babies’ is an acceptable means to a ‘greater’ end), typically, ‘reactive-extremism’ isn’t conceptualised.

The quintessential example of reactive-extremism is the idea ‘our current Western Model is fine.’

[Note: proactive-extremism is manifesting as ‘rebellious-extremism’ and reactive-extremism as ‘status-quo-extremism.’]

While rebellious-extremists are often Disempowered and/or traumatised including by exposure to extreme bias, status-quo-extremists feel favoured by the current system.

Regarding the rebellion and status-quo extremists, akin to the Left & the Right – at their purest, the Left are champions of Cooperation & the Right are champions of Competition – both have a point yet both are also wrong; what they share is a perceptiveness of the other’s error yet a lack of perceptiveness of their own error.

Comparing proactive-extremism with reactive-extremism, at least the former has a nature-driving reason – i.e. the system is nature-misaligned and, therefore, needs changing, which proactive-extremism serves to indicate – yet, reactive-extremism serves to maintain that same system.

Paradoxically, it does this via making our defective Model the default yardstick for determining ‘extremism’ – i.e. to status-quo-extremists, anything contradicting our current Model is ‘extremism.’

This overlooking of nuance, leads them to quasi-conflate reformists with proactive-extremists.

Accordingly, because ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ ‘deviates’ from our current Western Model, they regard it as extreme such that the CDO is often denounced by status-quo-extremists who are:

  1. Socialist, as capitalist
  2. Capitalist, as socialist.

Of course, the CDO is neither socialist or capitalist – i.e. it’s Coopetist (Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second).

After all, who ever heard of a socialist, which refers to public– (i.e. non-private) ownership of business (factors of production), calling for the eradication of Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) and less tax?

Similarly, does advocating for The USI sound like ‘fight to the death’ capitalism?  

To The Australian’s editors:

First, you may be interested to know, many of your readers don’t understand the definition of socialism.

Second, while, overall, the CDO greatly respects your newspaper and journalists, currently, your publication is awash with ‘status-quo-extremism’ – i.e. there’s a stream of articles bemoaning the disrespect for the current Western Model as it sings its virtues yet, apart from limited tax, labour-market and bureaucracy changes, not one arguing it needs Big Picture improvement, let alone discussing implementing ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform.’ 

This denial of our current Western Model’s failure may partly be due to your journalists’ ‘well-off’ bias – i.e. they’re not Disempowered, in poverty, homeless etc. – however, regarding ‘The Reform,’ given its many attributes (including being self-funding), that your analysts are ‘at bay,’ is mysterious.

Challenge: in the interest of the ‘mention & battle of ideas,’ publish one article on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ – if you believe it’s incorrect then post about its weaknesses – Judith Sloan (whose email we don’t possess) could do it justice.  

Whether Ms Sloan’s critique is supportive of the CDO’s hypothesis or disparaging of it (including if it disproves it), the CDO will on-publish it then, should a worldwide debate begin, The Australian will have a place in that history. 

[Aside: Somehow, issuing this challenge feels like a cross between pulling teeth & Mission Impossible, why?  Is fearfulness somehow a factor?  Is one of Australia’s great champions of free-speech institutionally scared of mentioning ‘The Reform’?  Such pervasive Socio– malaise is another indication of our failing Model – i.e. to get to this point (on this altruistic endeavour), a publisher has had to be created.]

This invitation is similarly extended to any news and/or current affairs publication – certainly, quasi-mainstream magazines such as The Economist or The Atlantic have the expertise to appropriately analyse it.

Meanwhile, in sum, we have a disaster pincer – i.e.:

  1. Nature insatiably continues rebelling against our Model including via the human-nature tool of ‘proactive-extremism;’ yet,
  2. ‘Reactive-extremism’ is preventing the system changing, which means there’s increasing ‘proactive-extremism’ – both internal & external.
4. Treating Extremism, which is a Symptom, as if it is a Source-Problem

‘If the source-problem isn’t addressed, extremism breeds extremism.’

Oblivious to reactive-extremism, while extremism per se is a symptom, we’re treating proactive-extremism as a source-problem via seeking to solve it directly.

For example, in addition to bemoaning ‘disrespect’ for our current Western Model, we’re also battling proactive-extremists via:

  1. Vilifying them
  2. Shouting them down
  3. Banning them
  4. Outlawing their symbols
  5. Blaming social-media
  6. In general, policing them.

While policing is necessary whenever there is crime or to pre-empt crime, if all we do is police proactive-extremism then, paradoxically, the better we police it, the worse it will become – i.e. they gain media exposure, they make a mockery of the dictates (such as signage resembling that which is banned), it catalyses antagonism (and division), which catalyses more extremism, and it drives it underground, which may lead to insurgencies.

Evidence for all this is Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the police are needing to devote increasing resources to it.

Meanwhile, with the source-problem left unresolved, it wastes both our focus and, most damagingly, our time as we hurtle toward the ‘culmination.’

Accordingly, with proactive-extremism’s source-problem being ‘The Optimal Western Model’ (OWM) absence, implementing OWM is its only solution, which will also make reactive-extremism obsolete.

5. How Will ‘The Optimal Western Model’ Solve External-Extremism?

‘Work smarter (via optimising our systems); not harder’

From the West’s point of view, in contrast to its internal-extremism, which consists of proactive- and reactive-extremists, its external-extremism consists only of the former in the form of Authoritarians (and the authoritarian-inspired) who, not satisfied with subjugating and terrorising their own citizens, also wish to do this to other countries’ citizens.

However, if ‘The Optimal Western Model’ (OWM) – i.e. ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ – is implemented, no Authoritarian regime (secular or religious) will ever be able to directly compete against it – i.e. in the case of a middle nation such as Australia, with its economy currently, at least, 90% waste, it’s still 8% of China’s, which means, with The OWM, it would be 80% as strong as China’s.

Regarding the wastage, while it’s been detailed in Coopetism 5.2 & 5.5, with The OWM, there’s no longer a need for such as (conservatively):

  1. Tens of thousands of economists studying, teaching, researching, measuring and obsessing over unemployment when unemployment no longer exists
  2. Hundreds of thousands of social-services employees, tens of thousands of bureaucrats and thousands of lawyers in structures attempting to ameliorate Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), poverty, employee-exploitation and unemployment when they’re eradicated
  3. Millions of excess administration, accounting, HR and management staff
  4. Those making, distributing, cleaning-up and regulating all the waste
  5. Etc
  6. Etc etc
  7. Etc etc etc.

Instead, such talented and industrious citizens (plus those they are currently attempting to assist) could be ‘exclusively efficiently producing and distributing the goods and services we need/desire, which we cannot or don’t wish to produce ourselves’ such as food, energy, housing, entertainment (including the arts, sport, restaurants & tourism), electronics, cars etc.

[What’s a person’s production worth if they’re assisting another person who only needs assisting because the system is suboptimal?  It’s negative, right?  Yet, as opposed to ‘leaners,’ they’re commonly regarded as ‘lifters’?]

And, via eliminating the 90% waste, tax rates can be 90% reduced – i.e. there shouldn’t be any tax on income/profit; only a land tax, a consumption tax (GST) and taxes on ‘bads’ such as smokes. 

In 12 to 24 months, we can have this USI-inclusive system such that, not only will there be no Cost-of-Living Crisis, we will be manifoldly both richer and our society more civilised, productive and fun – i.e. a veritable Fun-Fair of Opportunity – which will, indirectly, also white-ant Authoritarians.

That is, with Authoritarians’ citizens no longer distracted by nationalism (as the Western economies surge) or cries of, “Look at the West and all their problems,” which will become ludicrous, Authoritarians’ focus will be on their finger-tips as they cling to power.

And, in the face of such demonstrated extreme civilised sustainable-stability-prosperity, which is minus the current decadent uncaring divisive snobbery, even Islamic extremists such as the late Sinwar would respect that let alone an average Gazan.

Just one country with ‘The Optimal Western Model’ will show the rest of the world the way.

Conclusion

‘It starts with mentioning the ideas then a battle of ideas.’

The West, circularly due to its suboptimal Model, is trying to directly solve symptoms instead of doing the only thing that will work – i.e. optimise its systems.

While our current Western Model’s suboptimality is exponentiating our catastrophic symptoms, the ‘The Optimised Western Model’ (OWM) solution – i.e. implementing the self-capitalising incentivising SIS-&-unemployment-eradicating ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ – is simple, definitive and blissful.

‘The Reform’ is also the extremism antidote.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)