(Krieger Was Just Telling It Like It Is, The Re-Feudalization of War, Kiev Was Touch and Go, I'm Going Grassroots, Sadly You Can't Harass Anyone With Power, Distributionism Isn't an "ism".)
What you and the other guy mean is 'subsidiarity' (see? that way it isn't an '-ism' any longer).
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.
'Distributionism' is an economic doctrine developed by Chesterton and Belloc based on catholic social teaching and meant to be a middle ground between capitalism and communism. It's about spreading property as widely as possible.
Both concepts are related, but they are not the same.
I was going to make a couple of distinct observations but now I realise it's basically the same thing.
1. Once one is in politics, one realizes every interaction is a transaction. It's all about what can you offer. 60,000 eyeballs, between here, theoccidentalobserver and unz.com are evidently enticing to grassroots people: everyone wants their two bits of fame, plus probably common Russians look up to the English-speaking world.
But what can you offer to a politician/public servant that advances his own status? They are chiefly interested in their own career and the money involved, so they will look with suspicion to any proposal that goes off the beaten track. You could say that you know Dugin ,and so titillate their desire for prestigious connections. Something like that.
"In a world of Collectivism, Individualism is suicide." - Jason Köhne
Individualism may have worked in societies comprised almost exclusively of (individualistic) Westmen, but it has an Achilles heel since collectivist aliens have come among us.
Once one acquires a paid position inside the (parasite?) hierarchy, all incentive to reveal truth which would advantage the host over the parasite is removed. Explains why these people fail to get back to you.
Regarding the bureaucrats not wanting to be interviewed... Could it be they are worried that deviating from the official narrative in any way risks their cushy jobs? Are they truly free to speak their minds without risking anything? Just a thought...
I want to be a bridge between Russia and the west>
You have opened up Russia to the west in ways I didn’t think possible. Thank you!
The story of your friend fighting to save the trees is so sad in so many ways. I find it hard not to give up on humanity entirely because most people are so damaged, deranged, and just evil it’s mind boggling.
One where all human needs are most easily met, a just and peaceful world, where humanity is united, harmonious, and cooperative. A world with pristine nature and regenerative and syntropic agriculture, with happy, caring, and honest people. A world where no one is left out. A world devoid of hatred, cruelty, and corruption. A world where collaboration, reciprocity, and unconditional love for all is fundamental.
We love the divine, animating spirit that dwells within all life. We abhor asocial, cruel, violent, and dishonest behavior. And from there each city and village could regenerate autonomously and collaboratively (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8). We regenerate our species to live in dignity and joy.
It ain't 'distributionism', mate.
What you and the other guy mean is 'subsidiarity' (see? that way it isn't an '-ism' any longer).
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.
'Distributionism' is an economic doctrine developed by Chesterton and Belloc based on catholic social teaching and meant to be a middle ground between capitalism and communism. It's about spreading property as widely as possible.
Both concepts are related, but they are not the same.
I was going to make a couple of distinct observations but now I realise it's basically the same thing.
1. Once one is in politics, one realizes every interaction is a transaction. It's all about what can you offer. 60,000 eyeballs, between here, theoccidentalobserver and unz.com are evidently enticing to grassroots people: everyone wants their two bits of fame, plus probably common Russians look up to the English-speaking world.
But what can you offer to a politician/public servant that advances his own status? They are chiefly interested in their own career and the money involved, so they will look with suspicion to any proposal that goes off the beaten track. You could say that you know Dugin ,and so titillate their desire for prestigious connections. Something like that.
"In a world of Collectivism, Individualism is suicide." - Jason Köhne
Individualism may have worked in societies comprised almost exclusively of (individualistic) Westmen, but it has an Achilles heel since collectivist aliens have come among us.
I presume you're familiar with the theory that the West's individualism is the result of breeding program begun 1500 years ago. If not, reference https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/
Once one acquires a paid position inside the (parasite?) hierarchy, all incentive to reveal truth which would advantage the host over the parasite is removed. Explains why these people fail to get back to you.
Regarding the bureaucrats not wanting to be interviewed... Could it be they are worried that deviating from the official narrative in any way risks their cushy jobs? Are they truly free to speak their minds without risking anything? Just a thought...
I want to be a bridge between Russia and the west>
You have opened up Russia to the west in ways I didn’t think possible. Thank you!
The story of your friend fighting to save the trees is so sad in so many ways. I find it hard not to give up on humanity entirely because most people are so damaged, deranged, and just evil it’s mind boggling.
What kind of world do we all want?
One where all human needs are most easily met, a just and peaceful world, where humanity is united, harmonious, and cooperative. A world with pristine nature and regenerative and syntropic agriculture, with happy, caring, and honest people. A world where no one is left out. A world devoid of hatred, cruelty, and corruption. A world where collaboration, reciprocity, and unconditional love for all is fundamental.
We love the divine, animating spirit that dwells within all life. We abhor asocial, cruel, violent, and dishonest behavior. And from there each city and village could regenerate autonomously and collaboratively (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8). We regenerate our species to live in dignity and joy.
Could you agree to this?