Solving Fascism: Introducing Heterarchy

Solutions from the Multiverse: Heterarchy, the Cure for FascismSummaryAdam Braus proposes a new word for what most people mean when they say "democracy," Heterarchy: heterarchy, a society where many different powers compete, cooperate and keep each other in check. Adam argues that fascism, oligarchy, dictatorship and a pure-referendum democracy are all failures to preserve that balance. He says the left and the right both want heterarchy, and a fresh term could build common ground. Scot Maupin pushes back and asks the practical questions along the way.Timestamps0:07 Intro and today's solution1:58 Introducing "heterarchy"4:17 Why people who say "democracy" mean heterarchy6:41 Why "democracy" is a confusing term10:03 New ways to wield power, such as tech14:15 Oligarchy and the wealthy aligning18:48 Building and balancing a heterarchy21:43 What happens when heterarchy is lost23:27 Why tyranny hurts even those in power26:38 Elite overproduction31:04 The elevator pitch for heterarchy32:41 Neo-monarchism and Curtis Yarvin36:44 Machiavelli and il tumulto38:01 The Constitution as heterarchy40:13 Heterarchist heroes, flags and merch43:03 Sign-off43:51 Bonus Clip

Solutions from the Multiverse: A Better Way to Police RiotsEpisode summaryAdam Braus and Scot Maupin take on the French protests and ask why France keeps seeing violent riots. Adam argues the cause isn't French culture. He says it's how France polices them. He makes the case for the "gold standard" of riot policing: the consent-based model the UK invented and Sweden refined. The episode isn't about brand-new ideas, but Adam says this solution isn't getting any media coverage.What we coverPolicing by consent vs. statist force: The UK sees police as "citizens in uniform." France treats disorder as a challenge to the state.How French riot police work: They find agitators, rush the crowd, arrest them, and move crowds out by force.Dialogue police: The UK's police liaison teams and Sweden's "Dialogue Police" wear visible vests, talk with crowd leaders before, during and after protests, and explain what police are doing and why.After the riot: Debriefs with protest leaders help prevent the next riot. Adam says the seeds of the next riot are planted at the end of the last one.Case studies: Sweden's reforms after the 2001 Gothenburg riots, and Vancouver's 2010 Winter Olympics, where police mingled with crowds and the games saw virtually no major public order incidents.Why France hasn't changed: The state refuses to negotiate with rioters, there's little trusted local policing, and police unions resist.Not just a French problem: Adam compares it to US polarization and first-past-the-post voting. Scot ties it back to the "us vs. them" dynamic.America's patchwork: The US has no national police force, so protest policing varies by place.Mentioned in the episodeThe Dialogue Police, a 2025 documentary directed by Susanna Edwards. It follows a Swedish police unit in Stockholm. Adam says it rents on Amazon Prime for about $4.Timestamps0:07 Intro and today's solution3:32 Policing by consent vs. statist force6:51 How French riot police operate11:27 Dialogue and communication strategies15:01 UK liaison teams and Sweden's Dialogue Police20:40 Why the police, not the culture, are the issue26:14 Post-riot debriefs29:19 Why France hasn't adopted this36:58 Sweden's reform after 200137:58 Vancouver Olympics case study41:03 The Dialogue Police documentary42:15 Culture vs. systems, and voting45:21 Wrap-up

Stay-at-home parent childcare subsidies could change family economicsAdam Braus and Scot Maupin discuss a proposed child care subsidy that would pay stay-at-home parents directly, rather than limiting support to outside caregivers. The conversation starts with California’s family, friend, and neighbor care model, then explores how a federal version could help working families, support more flexible parenting arrangements, and ease household pressures.They also consider what influences birth rates—from housing and neighborhood safety to multigenerational living and the role of grandparents. Along the way, they debate whether the proposal counts as “MAGA communism,” whether it should be called a “tradwife provision,” and why child care support may matter more than simple cash incentives.Timestamps00:00 — Introducing Solutions from the Multiverse00:26 — The hook: a Trump proposal Adam supports01:47 — California’s family, friend, and neighbor child care subsidy02:45 — How the existing program works and who may qualify03:40 — Why Adam thinks parents should be eligible too04:16 — The proposed federal subsidy for stay-at-home parents07:05 — The proposal’s political roots and traditional family roles08:02 — How direct payments could empower the caregiving parent09:59 — What Adam means by “MAGA communism”11:55 — The case for including families with part-time work arrangements12:25 — The proposed benefit: nearly $9,000 per child per year13:54 — Why birth rates may be difficult to change through subsidies alone14:23 — Comparing family policy approaches in Hungary and Scandinavia15:48 — The role of social conditions in family decisions16:16 — Child-safe neighborhoods and car-free streets17:16 — Grandparents, multigenerational living, and housing costs18:29 — Scot on optimism, economics, and family planning19:40 — Women’s education and fertility rates20:10 — Artificial wombs, with a “goo tube” detour21:07 — Why Adam sees traffic safety as a family issue22:33 — Expanding child care support to parents and informal caregivers23:02 — A possible bipartisan pitch for the policy24:21 — Comparing family care with professional child care systems25:06 — A joke about extending the idea to health care26:16 — Revisiting California’s existing program27:27 — Housing affordability and family formation28:48 — The politics of keeping housing expensive30:31 — A detour into deflation and price stability31:32 — Closing thoughts on child care and family support32:16 — The dinner roller coaster restaurant idea

Psychopaths, Gender, and Why a Female Test Might MatterAdam Braus and Scot Maupin explore the idea of a gender-specific psychopathy test. Adam argues that because the classic Hare-based test was developed from male prison populations, it may not capture how psychopathic traits could present differently in women. They also discuss the challenges of distinguishing those traits from other conditions, and whether some traits may be rewarded in high-pressure roles.Timestamps00:00 - Show intro and the episode’s premise04:04 - Why the current psychopathy test may be male-centered05:02 - ADHD and autism as examples of differences in presentation07:41 - The possibility that some forms of psychopathy go underrecognized09:09 - Traits a future test might examine10:37 - Psychopathic traits and high-pressure professions12:09 - Utilitarian thinking and emotional distance13:01 - Psychopathy as a spectrum14:10 - The proposed test as a public-awareness tool15:52 - Where research could begin17:11 - Possible changes to the test’s criteria18:59 - Social awareness and masking20:04 - Debating whether separate tests are needed21:20 - The challenge of distinguishing psychopathy from borderline personality disorder24:44 - What identification might be used for25:04 - How narcissism entered everyday conversation27:11 - Questions about women in business and leadership29:57 - Nonviolent expressions of extreme traits31:55 - Reviewing examples of psychopathy criteria34:17 - Psychopathy versus narcissism35:35 - Public figures as debated examples37:53 - Beauty pageants and other possible research questions39:28 - Prevalence estimates and the challenge of setting a cutoff40:42 - Treatment, coping, and awareness43:48 - Recognizing traits and choosing environments45:43 - Recapping the episode’s main idea47:11 - Possible book titles and a debate about a provocative clip50:09 - Closing remarks

Connect with our Guest:https://mishabonaventura.com/https://www.soulplay.co/This episode is a lively, idea-driven conversation about how consent-focused sex parties could function as more than entertainment and instead become a tool for education, connection, and cultural change. Adam Braus and Scot Maupin are joined by sex and relationship coach and consent culture pioneer Misha Bonaventura, who argues that these spaces can help people practice consent, reduce loneliness, and unlearn shame around pleasure.We discuss what a consent-forward sex party actually looks like, why Misha sees it as a response to toxic sex culture, and how smaller entry points like cuddle parties and PG-13 events can help more people participate safely. The conversation also touches on jealousy, non-monogamy, community norms, and why learning how to say yes and no clearly matters far beyond sex.Misha Bonaventura (mishabonaventura.com) is a sex & relationship coach (bonaventura-coaching.shinepages.com), consent culture pioneer and producer of transformational play spaces. She's been a leader in the sex positive scene of the Bay Area for over a decade.Now leading SoulPlay Festival (soulplay.co) as Executive Producer, she is deeply passionate about helping people and communities build a pleasure based life through deeper understandings of consent, trusting that conflict is a path to intimacy, and leading the way to pleasure based living.She brings years of experience producing sexy parties, Somatica Coaching, Co-Active Coaching, Light Dark Institute, and Nonviolent Communication to helping you love, connect and repair with more courage and less armor.Timestamps00:00 — Misha’s big idea: sex parties could save the world01:10 — What a consent-forward space looks like02:27 — Why toxic sex culture makes this conversation necessary04:59 — Consent as explicit, collaborative communication06:08 — Curation, boundaries, and who attends08:30 — Bodies, beauty, and why anonymity isn’t the point09:26 — Community-based relating at Bonobo Network11:01 — Festivals and colleges as spaces with unspoken sexual dynamics12:31 — Relationship styles and who attends14:27 — From small gatherings to 200-person parties15:03 — PG-13 parties as a more accessible entry point20:04 — Cuddle parties, Soul Play Festival, and consent education22:18 — Consent, choice, and resisting authoritarian habits23:48 — How safer spaces can support sexual expression24:46 — Why “don’t be creepy” needs clearer guidance26:18 — A consent scene from The Night of the Iguana27:55 — The Invite and the ethics of group sexual dynamics29:40 — What happens at a PG-13 party31:37 — Foucault, sexual repression, and cultural norms33:29 — Jealousy, admiration, and connection36:48 — De-escalation and staying in community after breakups38:47 — A compatibility framework: fantasy, chemistry, availability, and core expression40:35 — Designing accessible entry points—and acknowledging potential downsides43:45 — Balancing security, freedom, and novelty in relationships46:49 — Where to find MishaThanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.

This week Adam Braus is away, so we are sharing 'Gradient Puzzle Summer,' a cross-publication of Scot's solo podcast - The Perfect Show.We will return on 10/8 with the next regular episode of Solutions From the Multiverse.-----Webpage with Transcript, Pictures, Videos, and more: https://perfectshowpodcast.com/23-gradient-puzzle-summer/-----TPS023 Gradient Puzzle Summer NOTESIs there a type of jigsaw puzzle you’ve never heard of but might be really into?This episode Scot talks all about his love for and fascination with gradient jigsaw puzzles, a thing new to many people. He goes into his love of puzzling, and where it probably originated, as well as connecting with other puzzlers through Assemble Puzzlery and their events.Scot searches for another puzzler who will have the same experience with gradient puzzles that he had, and manages to stir up a little drama with inadvertently picking the worst gradient puzzles there are at a crucial point.So grab a puzzle, pour yourself a drink, and sit back for a story told, piece by piece.Assemble Puzzlery: AssemblePuzzlery.comThank you to Jen Thompson, Erica Elms, Vicki Davis, Brian Earle, Sarah Busing, Norah Molina, Vera, Stephanie, Ben Reburn, Peggy Lervold, Lois Lervold, and Amelia Maupin for helping me with this quest. ----Chapter Timestamps:(00:00) Solutions From the Multiverse Intro(02:00) Pre-Introduction(02:27) Introduction(02:58) History with Puzzles(04:54) First Gradient Puzzle(08:35) My Wrong Prediction(13:15) The Episode Quest(14:55) Jen and Erica(20:19) Assemble Puzzlery Event(21:57) Sarah(24:02) Brian(26:57) Who is Karen Puzzles?(32:35) My Big Mistake(37:24) Brian - Blue Kazoo(39:52) Vicki - Ravensburger Krypt(42:48) Vicki - MasterPieces(48:36) Puzzling All Summer Long(56:38) Lois and Peggy - Kansas(1:04:26) Sandra Maupin Tribute(1:05:25) Perfectorium Entry(1:06:08) Pictures(1:07:20) Thank Yous(1:08:20) Solutions From the Multiverse(1:09:40) Ending

You can reach Owen Raisch on X (nee Twitter) here:https://twitter.com/owenraischRight to Park: Reclaiming unused curb cuts for public parkingAdam Braus and guest Owen Raisch discuss a San Francisco specific urbanist proposal that would charge homeowners to reserve driveway curb cuts for car access, while returning unused driveway frontage to the public as street parking. The idea is framed as a practical way to add parking, reduce congestion, and reset how cities think about public right of way.They also dig into the broader implications for density, transit funding, bike infrastructure, and how self-driving cars may change the parking equation over time.Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])Adam: @ajbraus (https://twitter.com/ajbraus) - [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])Scot: @scotmaupin (https://www.twitter.com/@scotmaupin)adambraus.com (https://www.adambraus.com) (Link to Adam's projects and books)The Perfect Show (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-perfect-show/id1579838291) (Scot's solo podcast)The Numey (https://www.paywithnumey.com) (inflation-free currency)Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.Key topicsIn this episode, Adam Braus presents a “right to park” proposal for San Francisco: if a homeowner wants their driveway curb cut protected for car access, they pay an annual fee.Owen Raisch helps test the idea from an urbanist angle, emphasizing how the built environment shapes quality of life and transportation choices.Adam argues the policy would convert unused curb cuts into public street parking, potentially adding about 90,000 spaces in San Francisco.The discussion centers on the idea that the default should be public access to the curb unless someone pays for the private exemption.Adam says the proposal is less about raising revenue and more about efficiency, since many curb cuts are unused much of the time.Timestamps00:00 - Intro and Owen’s return as guest03:05 - The core idea: pay to protect a driveway curb cut04:23 - How much parking this could add05:09 - The parking problem this solves06:18 - Why curb cuts are effectively private use of public space07:11 - What homeowners already pay versus what the curb cut would cost11:17 - Comparing the fee to existing street and commercial parking costs12:39 - Why this creates car-on-car incentives, not just anti-car politics13:31 - The stat about cars circulating while looking for parking15:22 - The real yearly cost of car ownership17:01 - What else that money could be used for instead18:10 - Why this is not anti-car, but pro-efficiency19:38 - Where the revenue could go20:20 - Why San Francisco already considered a similar idea22:08 - Existing red curb protections and how this could scale them24:13 - Self-driving cars and whether they change the parking calculus26:11 - How car ownership changes how people think about transportation28:00 - This is a driveway tax, not a car tax29:08 - Why the proposal matches the city that actually exists today31:24 - Why San Francisco is different from other cities34:52 - How more parking could unlock more housing density39:24 - The bike highway idea and removing some parking for protected corridors41:33 - Why car drivers may benefit from fewer cars overall44:41 - Bikes, danger, and the asymmetry with cars46:23 - Naming the proposal “Right to Park”48:52 - Why the reform is a paradigm shift, not a total fix51:34 - Wrap-up and closing

Video of episode:https://youtu.be/nDhTnWu7RGoBegs the Question: Bring Back the Real MeaningAdam Braus and Scot Maupin unpack one of the most misused phrases in modern argument, explaining what “begs the question” actually means and why getting it right matters. This episode is a lively defense of logic, careful language, and evidence-based thinking, with plenty of examples from politics, culture, parenting, and current tech hype.In this episode, Adam and Scot focus on restoring “begs the question” to its original meaning: circular reasoning. They also trace how the phrase gets misused as “invites the question,” and why that confusion weakens everyday arguments.Key topicsAdam defines “begs the question” as circular reasoning, not “raises a question”Examples of the fallacy from stealing, religion, politics, and everyday speechWhy logical fallacies are ways of sounding reasonable while actually being irrationalThe difference between saying something is “circular” versus simply “invites the question”How people misuse the phrase constantly, often without realizing itWhy clearer logic terms can help identify weak arguments and bad beliefs fasterHow circular reasoning shows up in anti-vaccine claims, flat-earth reasoning, and nationalismTimestamps(00:00) - Opening banter and the setup for today’s solution(00:49) - Adam introduces the case for restoring “begs the question”(02:12) - The actual definition: a logical fallacy and circular reasoning(03:58) - Ad hominem as an example of a logical fallacy(04:36) - Straw man arguments and why distortion replaces real rebuttal(05:06) - Slippery slope reasoning and exaggerated consequences(05:22) - “Begs the question” explained as circular proof(06:18) - Familiar examples: stealing, the Bible, and self-justifying beliefs(06:55) - More circular examples, including free speech and trustworthiness(07:40) - Defining a word with itself and why that fails as reasoning(08:00) - Why people keep using the phrase wrong(09:29) - The modern misuse: “invites the question”(10:35) - How to correctly use the phrase in conversation(11:25) - Flat-earth reasoning as a circular argument(12:19) - “America is the greatest” and other self-referential claims(13:11) - Why calling out a fallacy can instantly lower trust in a claim(14:03) - “Invites the question” versus “begs the question”(15:35) - Alternative facts and why Adam sees circular reasoning underneath them(16:33) - Real facts versus claims that collapse into self-reference(17:17) - Scot’s point about evidence-based thinking versus vibes(18:01) - Feelings are valid, but false objectivity is the problem(19:17) - Why people should be more honest about discomfort and bias(19:40) - Crypto, Bitcoin, and other bubble logic(22:21) - AI hype, apocalyptic claims, and circular reasoning around innovation(25:26) - The “if we don’t do it, China will” argument(28:29) - Parenting, sleep deprivation, and a brief equipment detour(31:02) - How to insert the phrase into pop culture and social media(33:50) - Teaching logic in school and saving people time and frustration(35:06) - Bringing “begs the question” back as a cultural correction(36:15) - Technically correct people and the idea of an “International Begs the Question Day”(37:12) - White supremacy as a circular argument(39:20) - Left-wing examples: rent, housing scarcity, and vague explanations(40:33) - Final tech check and wrap-up

Send us Fan MailVideo of our full episode:https://youtu.be/lXcLIrSqddYIn this episode, Adam Braus and Scot Maupin explore the concept of market socialism, its misconceptions, and how it can be a practical and appealing alternative to traditional socialism and capitalism. They discuss how branding, policy, and public perception can shape the future of socialist ideas.keywordsmarket socialism, socialism, capitalism, public policy, branding, economic reform, social safety nets, free markets, Scandinavian countries, political strategykey topics* The difference between socialism and market socialism* Why branding matters in political ideology* How Scandinavian countries implement market socialism* The role of regulation in a socialist economy* The misconception of central planning in socialism* The impact of poverty and homelessness on society* The importance of safety nets and social programs* The potential for market socialism to enhance freedom and innovationChapters(00:00) Introduction to the episode(00:22) The need to rebrand socialism as market socialism(01:09) Differences between democratic socialism and market socialism(02:43) The misconception of central planning in socialism(04:17) Modern socialists and their beliefs in free markets(06:29) Branding and political strategy in socialism(08:34) The role of regulation and competition in market socialism(12:07) The impact of inheritance and billionaires in capitalism(15:23) The importance of safety nets and social safety programs(19:17) Examples from Scandinavian countries(23:23) Barriers to starting businesses in Scandinavian countries(28:32) The concept of sewer socialism and its benefits(33:23) The Peter tax and taxing the wealthy fairly(36:36) The evolution of socialist ideas post-Cold War(40:33) The moral and fiscal benefits of eliminating poverty(44:09) The rise of market socialism and its acceptance(49:29) How to promote market socialism effectively(50:54) Closing remarks and call to action Support the showHelp these new solutions spread by ...Subscribing wherever you listen to podcastsLeaving a 5-star review Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference)Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.Email: [email protected]: @ajbraus - [email protected]: @scotmaupinadambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.

Send us Fan MailVideo Version of the Episode: https://youtu.be/JBoJCCl8W18In this episode, Adam Braus, Scot Maupin, and guest Mo Hafez explore the provocative idea of adding lithium to the water supply. They discuss potential health benefits, risks, public opinion, and the societal implications of such a bold public health measure. In this episode, Scot Maupin, Mo Hafez, and Adam Braus explore the potential of lithium in water to improve mental health, the implications of social media lawsuits, and the future of AI and societal safety measures. They discuss innovative ideas, dystopian scenarios, and the importance of democratizing technology.Keywordslithium, water supply, public health, mental health, dementia, Alzheimer's, AI psychosis, societal impact, neuroprotection, mental health treatment Lithium water, social media lawsuit, AI future, mental health, dystopian society, public safety, technology ethicsKey TopicsPotential health benefits of lithium in water, including reduction in dementia, Alzheimer's, suicidality, and violent crimeRisks and public opinion challenges of adding lithium to the water supplyThe science behind lithium's neuroprotective effects and safety at microdose levelsSocietal implications, conspiracy theories, and ethical considerations of water fluoridation and lithiumThe logistics of sourcing, distributing, and regulating lithium for public health use. Potential of lithium in water to improve mental healthLegal and societal implications of social media lawsuitsFuture scenarios of AI development and regulationDystopian vs utopian visions of technologyThe importance of democratizing AI and technologyGuest Name:Mo Hafez:Mo's Socials:YouTube - BeyondtheBytePodcastInstagram - beyond.the.byteX - bytewisepodcastLinkedIn - bytewise-aiSound Bites"Small amounts of lithium can protect against dementia.""Lithium in water could lower suicide rates by 58 percent.""Lithium in water reduces depression, suicidality, and violent crime."Chapters(00:00)Introduction to the Lithium Water Idea(03:01)Historical Context of Art and Madness(03:59)Scientific Evidence Linking Lithium to Reduced Dementia and Crime(06:00)Public Opinion and Ethical Concerns of Water Additives(06:59)The Role of Technology in Van Gogh's Life(08:03)AI Psychosis and the Role of Lithium in Society(09:56)Risks, Dosing, and Safety of Lithium in Water(11:53)Feasibility, Sourcing, and Public Acceptance(12:11)Social Media Lawsuit and Its Implications(14:05)Potential Societal and Conspiracy Theories(15:59)Practical Steps and Future Research(17:02)Potential Benefits of Lithium Water for Public Health(18:05)Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Water Additives(20:00)Conclusion: Balancing Benefits and Risks(21:59)Dystopian Scenarios: Equilibrium and Control(27:00)Future Regulations on Social Media Usage(31:59)The Ethics of Water Additives and Public Safety(37:00)The Future of AI: Risks and Opportunities(41:59)Power Dynamics in AI Development(47:03)Innovative Ideas and Closing RemarksSupport the showHelp these new solutions spread by ...Subscribing wherever you listen to podcastsLeaving a 5-star review Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference)Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.Email: [email protected]: @ajbraus - [email protected]: @scotmaupinadambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.