Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the sun.
The most recent, and perhaps most important, network challenge to hierarchy comes with the advent of virtual currencies and payment systems like Bitcoin. Since ancient times, states have reaped considerable benefits from monopolizing or at least regulating the money created within their borders. It remains to be seen how big a challenge Bitcoin poses to the system of national fiat currencies that has evolved since the 1970s and, in particular, how big a challenge it poses to the “exorbitant privilege” enjoyed by the United States as the issuer of the world’s dominant reserve (and transaction) currency. But it would be unwise to assume, as some do, that it poses no challenge at all.
Clashes between hierarchies and networks are not new in history; on the contrary, there is a sense in which they are history. Indeed, the course of history can be thought of as the net result of human interactions along four axes.
The first of these is time. The arrow of time can move in only one direction, even if we have become increasingly sophisticated in our conceptualization and measurement of its flight. The second is nature: Nature means in this context the material or environmental constraints over which we still have little control, notably the laws of physics, the geography and geology of the planet, its climate and weather, the incidence of disease, our own evolution as a species, our fertility, and the bell curves of our abilities as individuals in a series of normal distributions. The third is networks. Networks are the spontaneously self-organizing, horizontal structures we form, beginning with knowledge and the various “memes” and representations we use to communicate it. These include the patterns of migration and miscegenation that have distributed our species and its DNA across the world’s surface; the markets through which we exchange goods and services; the clubs we form, as well as the myriad cults, movements, and crazes we periodically produce with minimal premeditation and leadership. And the fourth is hierarchies, vertical organizations characterized by centralized and top-down command, control, and communication. These begin with family-based clans and tribes, out of which or against which more complex hierarchical institutions evolved. They include, too, tightly regulated urban polities reliant on commerce or bigger, mostly monarchical, states based on agriculture; the centrally run cults often referred to as churches; the armies and bureaucracies within states; the autonomous corporations that, from the early modern period, sought to exploit economies of scope and scale by internalizing certain market transactions; academic corporations like universities; political parties; and the supersized transnational states that used to be called empires…
Our own time is profoundly different from the mid-20th century. The near-autarkic, commanding and controlling states that emerged from the Depression, World War II, and the early Cold War exist only as pale shadows of their former selves. Today, the combination of technological innovation and international economic integration has created entirely new forms of organization—vast, privately owned networks—that were scarcely dreamt of by Keynes and Kennan. We must ask ourselves: Are these new networks really emancipating us from the tyranny of the hierarchical empire-states? Or will the hierarchies ultimately take over the networks as they did a century ago, in 1914, successfully subordinating them to the priorities of the national security state?
– From the 2014 post, Networks vs. Hierarchies: Which Will Win?
Two hundred and fifty years ago, it was 1767, and the seeds of the American revolution were being spread across the 13 colonies. The Stamp Act became law two years prior, and many of King George’s subjects across the Atlantic had become enraged by this “taxation without representation.” A few years later came the Boston Massacre, followed by the Boston Tea Party. The rest is history.
Two hundred and fifty years prior to that, on October 31, 1517 (exactly 500 years ago today), Martin Luther sent his Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences to the Archbishop of Mainz, thus kicking off the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church’s extraordinary influence over the religious and political life of Europe up to that point would never be the same again.
Both these eras were earth-shattering revolutionary time periods which massively transformed the Western world over the subsequent centuries. Taking on the Catholic Church in the early 16th century and Great Britain in the late 18th would’ve seemed like total suicide to people living at that time. Nevertheless, and against all odds, both Great Britain and the Catholic Church were successfully confronted and exposed as more vulnerable than anyone had imagined.
Although I don’t write on it much, I’m a big believer in cycles. In my opinion, it seems Western civilization finds itself in a similar state to where it was both 250 and 500 years ago. In other words, it appears we’re once again on the cusp of momentous paradigm level change regarding how the world functions.
Naturally, this stuff doesn’t emerge out of a vacuum. Whenever a system or way of organizing human affairs reaches a certain level of corruption and also refuses to reform (think crooked government responses to the financial crisis), you invariably get a reaction from the public. If this demand for change is not appropriately addressed and things continue to decay, some sort of revolution becomes inevitable. That’s where I think we stand today.
The revolution is already happening in many respects, but because we’re so busy living in the chaos of it all, it’s hard for many of us to recognize. Specifically, I think this time period will be remembered as an era during which a rapid decline in the forces of centralization and concentrated power occurred. Many of you will read this and think I’ve lost my mind. After all, aren’t multi-national corporations, oligarchs and political crooks in Washington D.C. and Brussels more in control than ever? In meaningful ways this is true, but I’d argue we are at or close to a historical peak in such centralized power. Looking back 25 years from now it should all make sense, it’s just tough to see the big picture while in the thick of it.
There are two things driving this revolution. First, there’s what’s going on under the surface at the grassroots level. To use the USA as an example, the vast majority of Americans can’t agree on much, but we agree that something is very, very wrong. While we can’t find consensus on solutions, we agree that there’s a big problem. Faith has been lost, deservedly, in the media, the financial system, political institutions, intelligence agencies, etc. These entrenched power interests have therefore resorted to unprecedented levels of propaganda, censorship and threats to hold on to their power. Thus far, they’ve maintained it, but it’s come at an enormous cost. Credibility is gone.
With the veil of credibility shattered, a power structure must resort more aggressively to coercion and even violence to maintain control. This can work in the short-term, but it’s ultimately a losing strategy. Here’s where the second driver of the revolution comes into play: technology. Specifically, technology has provided the public with tools to rebel against the status quo in a peaceful and effective manner.
For instance, media narratives used to be highly centralized within a few well-funded and powerful organizations, but thanks to the internet and social media we now have the citizen journalist who can influence tens of millions with a short video clip and a click of a button. Likewise, money has long been the domain of highly centralized nation-states and their shady central bankers, but we now live in a world with Bitcoin and various other crypto-assets. Just as a handful of media barons no longer control the human narrative, clusters of central bankers no longer have a monopoly on money. This is an incredible development and not one I believe can be reversed. The cat of decentralization is way too far out of the bag.
The one area that’s been lagging significantly when it comes to this decentralizing trend relates to politics and governance. Most of us continue to live in high-population, dangerously centralized nation-states that are extremely corrupt and refuse to reform. Burgeoning frustration with centralized, unaccountable, bureaucratic forces has manifested most clearly within Europe, first with Brexit and now within Catalonia. Politicians in Madrid and EU mandarins think they can just stuff this thing back in the bag and carry on, but they don’t see the bigger picture. This is much larger than the U.K. or Catalonia. Both these movements are just early manifestations of the overall spirit of our times. They’re mere symptoms of the revolutionary era we’re living in.
Going forward, I think people are going to want more autonomy for the regions in which they reside. As an example, people who live in Houston, Texas will, generally speaking, exist within a culture/worldview that feels quite distinct from the one experienced by those who live in let’s say Seattle, Washington. This isn’t to pass judgement, but to acknowledge reality. You can go ahead and apply this logic to any other nation-state with a large, diverse population. As national politics continues to degenerate and decay across the world, people will begin question whether it makes sense to centralize so much power in national capitals in the first place. Demands that power should be more distributed are likely to become far more widespread over the next decade or so.
In that regard, I recently read a fascinating article written by Paul Mason and published at The Guardian titled, Catalonia, Lombardy, Scotland … Why the Fight for Self-Determination Now? The paragraphs below specifically connected with me:
As calls for autonomy and independence proliferate, mainstream left parties are failing to understand the basic principle: in some circumstances, the national question is not a distraction from the fight for social justice – it is the frontline of it. And it is not going away.
Above the problems of economic failure and racial polarisation, the positive factor driving progressive nationalisms, from Scotland to Catalonia, is technological change. Information-rich societies reward the development of human capital; so the ability to study in your first language, to participate in a rich national culture, to create unique local selling points for incoming foreign investment is more important than ever. If the regions, peoples and nations currently demanding more freedom seem to be driven by “cultural nationalism”, that in turn is driven by technological change plus global competition.
The second impact of these forces is the emergence of successful big cities and devastated small towns. In large cities with dense networks of information and culture, you can survive globalisation. In small towns it is harder. So the logical economic strategy is to create a “region” or small nation focused on one big city, and develop the suburban and rural economy in synergy with that city, not the bigger unitary state. If Barcelona were not a massive global success story, the impetus behind Catalan nationalism would be smaller.
If you were to ask me what I think our current massive nation-states are likely to morph into over the coming decades, I think that last paragraph summarizes the situation quite well. A proliferation of numerous smaller, largely autonomous regions with one or perhaps two urban hubs seems quite plausible several decades from now. Just as we’ve seen an explosion in local food scenes focused on farm-to-table, I expect there will be an increased emphasis on local governance and decision-making going forward. One size fits all solutions crafted in far away national capitals will become regarded as not just inappropriate and ineffective, but as a downright insane way to organize human affairs.
I also think political decision-making will move increasingly in the direction of public referendums and direct democracy, as opposed to technocratic bureaucracy and representative democracy (voting for someone to vote for us). In this regard, I found a recent pledge by someone running for city council in my adopted home of Boulder, Colorado kind of fascinating. Here’s what he pledged to do according to Motherboard:
If Camilo Casas is elected to city council in Boulder, Colorado, this November, he doesn’t plan to make any decisions himself. If he wins, Casas will instead give up his vote to Parti.Vote, a “liquid democracy” app he built to change how government functions.
This is how it will work: If more than 50 percent of people in his community vote “yes” on an issue through the app, Casas will vote the same way they do. Only in the event of a tie would he be forced to make a decision based on his own beliefs.
Parti.Vote could be used to help create a “liquid” or direct democracy, where technology is leveraged to place power among citizens rather than representatives. Before the advent of the internet, it was too cumbersome for every citizen to vote on every single government issue.
Now, advocates of liquid democracies argue tech can be used to make democratic systems actually represent the will of the people. The idea has gained traction in Europe, South America, and elsewhere.
Casas nevertheless says Parti.Vote is designed to make the US’s representative government system more equitable. The idea is that if politicians commit to voting the same way the people do, they’ll be less susceptible to the desires of big business, interest groups, or deep-pocketed donors.
“I personally am convinced that when you have to lobby a constituency rather than an elected office you will on average get more democratic and consensual outcomes,” Casas told me on a phone call.
For Casas, creating a liquid democracy using his app is more important than the race in Colorado. In fact, he doesn’t even expect to win. “It’s rather unlikely,” he told me.
The real goal is to hopefully convince other politicians to adopt Parti.Vote, which is open-source and free. Later down the line, Casas wants to create a political party that will support any candidate, as long as they commit to making decisions based on what their citizens want.
Parti.Vote will come with several novel features that allow citizens to participate even if they don’t have time to learn about every issue. For example, there will be an auto-vote mode, which aligns your vote with a particular council member’s every time. You can also assign your vote to another member who serves as a delegate. They then have the ability to put it toward an issue for you.
I don’t highlight the above to imply that we’re going to move toward such a governance system tomorrow or the next year, but to provide an example of the general direction I see things heading in. People around the world feel justifiably unempowered, and at the mercy of corrupt forces making decisions thousands of miles away from where they live. Human beings will increasingly look for ways to escape this suffocating trap and empower themselves as well as their local communities.
This desire will serve to reinforce an already occurring and powerful trend toward decentralization which has been thus far primarily driven by technology and mainly affected information flow (the internet, social media), and more recently money (Bitcoin and crypto assets in general). The next big wave of decentralization I foresee relates to politics/government, with Brexit and Catalonia representing mere tremors ahead of the big event.
When people hear the word “revolution” negative feelings often come to mind. Images of pitchforks and torches; of violence and chaos. Although I’m not going to tell you the next ten years will be a cakewalk, I want people to understand that the revolution is already in progress and it isn’t the stuff of nightmares. This revolution is not about simply tearing down what already exists, but about creating something better in its place.
We can all agree that both big business and big government are out of control, corrupt and dangerous. That much is obvious. What we need are both the will to say no, and the consciousness and creativity to build and embrace something better. Don’t stand on the sidelines, don’t embrace the lesser of two evils, and don’t imitate the unethical practices and tactics of your enemies. Stand tall, choose awareness and do your part to help humanity move forward. The future will be shaped by what we do in the coming years.
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
Hello Michael, thank you for an excellent post. I am also a great believer in cycles, and, in particular, that the astrological system of cycle analysis contains the accumulated wisdom of civilizations that were considerably more sophisticated in their understanding of human psychology than we are. You probably already know that in a few years Pluto will be returning to its natal position in the US national chart, which is bound to set off a few fireworks. Let’s hope they are figurative rather than literal.
Anna, in the much more immediate future we have Saturn entering Capricorn on the 29th of December until late March of 2020. That is no walk in the park, either.
Saturn was in Capricorn during these time frames when there was intensity in the US on a grand scale:
December 1929 to November 1932 – the Great Depression began.
January 1959 to January 1962 – Vietnam War began for the US.
February 1988 to February 1991 the Gulf War. (Where we got to see how blowing up people was just like a video game).
So for the next 2-1/2 years both Saturn and Pluto will be doing their thing. That isn’t going to be pretty.
Hello Genaro, thank you for the additional information, it’s is very much welcome! Can you add anything more?
I’m not a believer in astrology, but it is interesting to note that Pluto is about to start it’s next revolution around the sun since the Revolutionary War just as we are beginning our next revolution.
Hey Anna, for some other good astrological precedent for what’s happening in the world today politically, economically and climate-wise, check out what was happening in the world the last time Uranus transited through Aries (Apr 1927 through Mar 1935): The Crash of ’29, the Great Depression, the Bonus Army, and the beginning of the American Dust Bowl. None of it is repeating exactly, but the parallels are close enough to be striking.
Hey Anna, for further insight regarding current events, I recommend looking into the Uranus cycle. The last time Uranus was in Aries (Apr 1927 through Mar 1935) as it is now, there was the Crash of ’29, the Great Depression, the Bonus Army, and the American Dustbowl. The parallels between then and now aren’t exact, but they’re quite close. And most importantly, I think the way these earlier events played out may be very similar to how parallel circumstances now will play out.
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a virtual citizenship effort yet.
Hi Michael, I really like your posts. In my opinion, this one is off the mark. I think that you should take a close look at the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were rightly concerned about democracy and the “tyranny of the majority” A pure democracy is susceptible to abuse and manipulation even more than almost any other form of government. Personally, I would never vote for someone who ignored their values or judgment in favor of the wisdom of the crowd. The crowd is not wise. They are impulsive, self interested and ignorant. In my experience, the crowd is full of prejudice and very willing to violate the rights of individuals to get what they want. A pure democracy is not the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. We need to root out corruption. We need to restore our Republic! I think our system is broken, but it is also the best system ever devised in human history. We need to take it back. Cheers.
Hi Raymond, and thanks for your comment. I think you misunderstood what I was getting at since the end part about more referendums and direct democracy was a small section of the post. As such, I will expand on it a bit more.
If you’ve been reading me for any period of time, you’ll know that I am a fierce proponent of the U.S. Constitution and specifically the incredible importance of the Bill of Rights. In a Constitutional Republic (as we are supposed to have), such values cannot simply be voted away by Congress, or eliminated by the Executive branch or intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, they have done just that, but the original Constitutional intent is something I completely agree with and continue to defend. I think the way the U.S. was set up with its checks and balances and attempts to distribute power was a very wise way of doing things. I’m not arguing against it at all.
As such, my commentary should be seen in that context. When I refer to more direct democracy, I’m talking about how the public should have more of a direct say in the sort of stuff Congress is empowered to do under our system. In other words, anything that Congress has a legitimate Constitutional right to legislate on. I’m not talking about direct voting on fundamental rights like free speech, or right to privacy, etc. I believe those things should continue to be protected from being simply voted away because people get afraid of an outside enemy, or whatever else.
As far as restoring the country to the structure of checks and balances that was originally intended, I would love to see that happen. Unfortunately, I do not believe this will occur. The U.S. is now a global empire that exists completely outside of the Constitution and those who could change it will never do so. As such, I think empire will simply have to crash and burn and then we will hopefully be able to build back up again based on core principles and ethics. I really would like to “restore the Republic” outside of such a bad scenario, but I just don’t see it happening. The public doesn’t care enough, and the politicians, bureaucrats and their corporate sponsors have no interest or incentive to do so.
Thank you for your clarification. I think we are pretty much on the same page.
I know you are pessimistic about the ability of Americans make the necessary changes. Me too. People tend to wake up only when there is a crisis.
Don’t lose hope though. I think we live in a bubble of propaganda. If you travel and talk to everyday people, I think most people generally agree with you and I.
I hope that bubble is going to burst soon.
I’m curious though… Will you step forward to serve your country as a representative (in whatever capacity) if nominated? Our country needs intelligent, thoughtful, humble people with personal integrity, like you, to step forward. That is what is needed most.
Will you answer the call?
Cheers.
Raymond, I believe I am currently serving the country in my best capacity. I am a writer and thinker, not a politician.
We all have different skill sets to offer; however, clearly I am willing to put myself out there in order to defend the U.S. Constitution and our civil liberties.
The only reason I do this is because I care deeply and despise injustice. There is no upside for me personally in doing any of this, only downside.
It’s obvious that you are not blogging for your personal benefit.
But, you said, “[d]on’t stand on the sidelines, don’t embrace the lesser of two evils, and don’t imitate the unethical practices and tactics of your enemies. Stand tall, choose awareness and do your part to help humanity move forward. The future will be shaped by what we do in the coming years.”
I fully support your statement.
Every decent politician enters politics reluctantly..they only do so because they recognize that they are uniquely qualified to serve the public at that particular time in history.
This revolution needs revolutionaries.
When you decide to step off the sidelines, let me know.
Cheers.
Would you like to abolish the federal government?
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― R. Buckminster Fuller (who was a businessman, a government operative, inventor and visionary)
Again, to understand inevitable ‘regional devolution’ in the US, knowing how deep the roots of the very distinctive cultures in American are, I suggest again ‘The American Nations’ by Woodard.
I think you’re doing what is probably most important at this time, Michael…. education, and communicating … i.e., piercing the various bubbles we live in.
Also, see ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’ by James Surowiecki (2005) for some factual basis supporting real democracy. And re: the ‘genius’ of our Constitution, note that no subsequent democracy chose our representative system, opting for parliamentary systems in all but .. 2?.. cases (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Anna, here is some more detailed info that also addresses Pluto and Saturn in Capricorn:
The Global Power Shift
https://ddecoverley.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-global-power-shift/
Hello Genaro, thanks so much for the link – that’s a really interesting site. If you know of any similar ones, I’d be grateful to hear of them.
I’ve noticed that the UK has a progressed Moon return around the same time as Brexit is due to occur, and although March 2019 has a Saturn-Moon opposition which looks slightly concerning, it doesn’t last long. That makes me think that any chaos will be short-lived and that there should be something like a national renewal. It probably will be very difficult in the short term, of course – the UK government are, as usual, woefully unprepared for the logistical challenges involved. I expect major shortages in the shops, a slump for the pound and a spike in inflation at the very least.
I voted to Leave, in the full knowledge that there would be a cost, and possibly a substantial one. Some things are worth taking a hit for.
On the other hand, the astrology is looking much, much worse for the US. It’s hard to see anything that will soften the blow. But, like Michael, I’m inclined to think that there will be plenty to salvage from the wreckage that will be positive. People are far more resourceful than they are given credit for, when their backs are against the wall.
One thing that most people do not factor in is that, in the opinion of some people far more knowledgeable than I am, there is a Grand Solar Minimum upon us that will bring a cyclical mini-ice age. We are already seeing tremendous crop losses around the world as weather patterns become more erratic, with freak rainstorm events in particular becoming more common. The wise money is on food shortages and very high food prices in the coming few years, which will add to the general deprivation and social pressures. We are already seeing the beginning of this now – check out trends in futures for major crops in the last months. Those of you who have access to land should start thinking of getting into permaculture and similar methods. If you are interested in learning more, check out Adapt 2030 on YouTube, or Piers Corbyn’s site WeatherAction.com.
Raymond:
“Every decent politician enters politics reluctantly..they only do so because they recognize that they are uniquely qualified to serve the public at that particular time in history.”
That used to be true when they were called “Statesmen”, not “politicians”, and serving their constituents actually cost them materially, instead of enriching them materially.
The Baby Boomers and the Generation X’ers didn’t produce Statesmen, they produced career politicians whose primary purpose was to enrich themselves at the expense of others. But as the Millennial generation matures they will start producing Statesmen.
“This revolution needs revolutionaries.
When you decide to step off the sidelines, let me know.”
Michael is definitely a revolutionary and he’s been off of the sidelines and out on the field (Liberty Blitzkrieg) for quite some time.
Awareness on an individual level (1st attention) is the primary driver that leads to awareness on a group level (2nd attention). Once collective awareness reaches a certain level the result is revolutionary change on a collective level which will then lead to Representatives who reflect that paradigm shift.
That always takes time. So the single most important thing anyone can do is to spread their awareness to others. Whether that be on an individual basis or a collective basis, doesn’t matter.
Mr. Krieger,
I enjoy your posts, and I generally enjoy your socio-economic come-from. But I believe a reality-check is called for, here.
Revolutions require the widespread willingness to sacrifice. Using the examples given at the beginning of the post, 500 years ago Martin Luther became willing to give up his high status, his livelihood, and even his freedom when it became clear the catholic church would not address the injustices he brought to their attention. His example inspired many others to do the same, and it was exactly that widespread willingness to sacrifice which impelled The Reformation. 250 years ago, a majority of the American colonists put it all on the line—their financial security, their identity as subjects of the British Empire, and in many cases their physical safety—for the opportunity to embrace “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as free individuals. This daring birthed the United States of America, and the individual rights enshrined in its Constitution.
The point is that in order to break their chains, people have to risk what they love. This is true whether it’s an individual struggling to give up a favorite vice, or a society struggling to reform a tyrannical system. Only by rejecting both what they love and hate about their oppressors, can people be truly free to build something better.
Today, there is no widespread willingness to sacrifice, at least not in the US. And that is why there is no revolution happening here right now. This general unwillingness to sacrifice is why both the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party have completely failed to produce meaningful change in the US, and why crypto-currencies and “liquid democracy” are not going to disrupt the overall status quo either. No politician is going to enact real policy change when they know doing so is political suicide. How do US politicians know real change equals political suicide? By looking at the choices people make. Taking down the big banks would mean putting the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid system at serious risk, and taking down every major credit card, and eliminating the possibility of “cheap” mortgages. Precious few anti-bank agitators in the US, from any part of the political spectrum, are willing to even contemplate sacrificing their access to any of these things for any reason. Any politician who suggested any of these sacrifices would be out of office quicker than you could say “viva la revolucion!” no matter what cause these sacrifices would support. The Federal Reserve, the Patriot Act, Obamacare…the entire rotten system is sustained by the American public’s universally risk-averse and entitlement-seeking behavior. When the American public embraces risk and eschews entitlements, then we will start seeing real change.
When airlines shut down because people stop flying due to intrusive security…when large numbers of people are willing to give up their own Social Security, credit cards, and easy mortgages if it means closing down the banks…when the best and brightest make careers working with the young outside the system, rather than working within the system to provide life-support to the old…then we will be on the cusp of revolution, whatever software we do (or don’t) have. All of these are sacrifices I have made myself, so I know it can be done. I believe that revolutionary times will come. But the sad fact is that it’s not today.
I’m sure this is not what you or most people on this site want to hear. But part of being an iconoclast with integrity means speaking the truth. And the truth is, telling people “they’ve arrived” at Destination Revolution when the journey is just beginning is more likely to delay or dilute the revolution’s arrival rather than reinforcing it.
Hi Jim, thanks for the comment. I actually agree with the general thrust of what you wrote. It’s also why I don’t think the really big changes will happen until the U.S. empire collapses upon itself more severely. I suspect this will happen at some point over the next 10 years. Then the truly massive changes will become apparent.
Martin Luther was a valuable pawn in the German princes’ effort to throw off the yoke of Rome… and therefore given complete protection …. there is always more to the story. And again, I repeat that the typical non-choir member (not us true believers) has to see a ‘picture’ of what is possible… and we’d better have it ready when the crash bites.