Legit dissidents are in an intractable situation. Changing culture on a large scale requires money and power therefore we should pursue money and power. However obtaining money and power requires submitting to the cultural norms of those who already have money and power. It follows from this that actively changing the state of affairs is impossible and all dissidents can do besides posting memes and owning people on twitter is wait/prepare for a power vacuum to appear due to the current elite mismanaging the realm. In other words wait for the mad max world. Of course trying to speed up the appearance of the mad max world would be illegal and anything illegal is immoral to boot and ought to be disavowed. If you wanted a different legal/moral framework you should have made more money and networked with the right people who also have lots of money. That's the only moral way to change anything on a large scale.
If morality is fake does that mean immorality is also fake? If immorality is fake does that mean the cult ritual stuff involving homosexuality, sex with kids etc doesn't have any real effect in the aether/unseen world? I think most of us would agree that this jewish/dark side approach to orthopractice does have some tangible effect out there. Is the vile morality pushed on us by those who have money power chosen because it gets the results they want for esoteric/occult reasons or is it fully utilitarian? Its probably a bit of both and whats practical for them also has the benefit of feeding the demons they worship.
IMO its not that morality is outright fake its that morality only makes sense when its linked to some kind of mystical practice. Very broadly speaking morality is not feeding archons and immorality is feeding archons.
Like you i have thought that the popularity of Gramsci on the right is wrong-headed : Gramsci is the author that devised the idea that politics is downstream of culture. To pursue the American example, the right-wing did win some victories when Newt Gingrich and his team were in power : the New York Times described his victory as a successful peasants revolt within the Republican party; he was largely hated. But being in power brought cultural and political victories. Unfortunately Bush Jr, or rather his team, terminated Newt Gingrich.
In Western countries, the current state of the culture is ultimately caused by the capitulation of the Catholic church at the Vatican II council : they willingly dismantled the social networks (schools, universities, hospitals, unions, banks, companies with crossed shareholdings, etc) that constituted their power in exchange for access to political power and a generalisation of the Catholic values and social practices, the ultimate aim being mass conversions. The latter part never happened. The Catholic bishops and the hierarchy were played, similarly to Putin. Now they are weak and cannot do much. As long as the Catholic Church aligns with the ruling class, they will have money and keep some influence ; but it withers away because the population has understood the betrayal, even if they do not say it explicitly.
Interesting essay that shows why so many of these right wing controlled op people are allowed to talk while feeling like they're rebels. If only they would know...
Lenin's "coup" could have been prevented easily by the Provisional Government had they acceded to one popular demand: Ending Russia's participation in WWI.
I didn't see any timestamps on the Buckley interview. I made it through half of the interview and had to stop for my own sanity. Although I came to respect the intelligence of Jerry Falwell far more than I had before. He was quite intelligent and precise in his statements. I kept wondering what downer Buckey was on. Anyway, were you giving us way of avoiding having to listen to the entire interview.
Regarding the substance of your essay, one might conclude the appropriate way to influence public policy is to convince the power elite. Actually, it makes sense. Putting ideas into the general culture would not actually be for the purpose of changing mass opinion but of reaching those actually in power. Higher education is a perfect example. If you can influence what's taught at Harvard and Yale you have a shot at changing actual policy. Take race for instance. If you can get Harvard and Yale to suppress any knowledge of general racial differences, you can actually drastically change public policy. By the way, accepting the fact that races are different does not mean that you intend to murder or suppress someone of a different race.
Perhaps because you did not know his platform, you left out Ross Perot.
+++++++++++++++++
A Philosophy for Modern Government by Ross Perot
It is a known fact that the members of the US Congress and the State Legislatures do not read, evaluate or debate any of the particulars of the Legislation they vote on. They cannot because the Bills approach 2000 pages each, and they vote 100 times per day. They vote the way their advisors tell them to vote.
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Ross Perot called attention to this by observing that "a general lack of accountability among elected officials and those in the bureaucracy was the one specific reason that the people in America suffered".
Mr. Perot then suggested that the best and perhaps only way to make government officials accountable was to include the citizens in the decision making process - every hour, every day.
He went on to note that this can easily be done with computers and called the proposed mechanism
THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL.
With this computer program every interested citizen can indicate whether or not they agree or disagree with every line item of every law, policy and program on the books or that was being advanced. It can be used at every level of government and in every jurisdiction.
To prevent chaos the basic law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights would be exempt from review.
Mr. Perot speculated that the Founding Fathers would probably have done the same had the technology been available. He referred to it as the Fourth Branch of government; The Citizens Branch / The Electronic Townhall.
If the government is truly of the people, by the people and for the people then what better way is there to perfect every section of the various laws and policies that do effect each and every one of us every single day?
It would not be difficult to expect at least 500 thousand qualified citizens to read four pages of law or proposed law and get their Ratify or Annual input every day the congress is in session. The results could be aggregated, made known and we would all be better off.
The program would even allow a citizen to go back and change his vote as he matured. And when a super majority is reached the law/proposed law is either ratified or annulled by immediate recognition of the enforcement mechanisms.
With tens of millions of laws and tens of thousands of taxes there is plenty of work to be done.
According to Mr. Perot, this, the harnessed experience and the combined intelligence of hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens focused like a laser light on the real issues, will, as surely as night follows the day, perfect every law in our country and eventually it will right every wrong.
Mr. Perot publicly announced his intention to give the fourth branch of government to the people in America if he was elected President.
But this attempt to empower our humanity was so far removed from the business-as-usual-two-party-system that the talking heads and trolls yelled out that Mr. Perot was trying to destroy our Constitution, our government and our way of life.
The ELECTONIC TOWNHALL was denounced as unworkable.
How would the poor participate?
How would fraud be prevented?
What about those who do not know how to use a computer?
In a final act of desperation, the control freaks claimed that letting the average citizen to pass judgment on the individual pieces of public law would lead to chaos and pandemonium.
But we all know the truth: only the concerned will bother to participate.
The media was so intensely negative towards the ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL that Mr. Perot was forced to stop talking about it, but he never withdrew it from his platform.
Its now been thirty-two years since the proposal.
No other person of national reputation or significant influence has picked up the idea. BUT the big two political parties regularly stage "townhall meetings" where they talk of "reform" and "returning power to the people" and try to link themselves to the empowering part of the idea without adding to its manifestation.
And still we suffer in the hopeless loop of: "candidates with a sense of morality and respect for the Constitution who understand true brotherhood, justice and democracy and who will do the right thing for us each and every time, trust me".
While we cannot make light of sincere individuals who get into public office, we must acknowledge the fact that regardless of who has been elected to public office the problems in our government get more complicated and our people continue to suffer.
Could we possibly admit that our national situation, now being made global, is far too complicated for the President and the 535 elected members of the legislature to manage in our best interests?
You, the person reading this know some of the things we need.
Your friends, our fellow countrymen have their solutions too.
The only way to organize the workable ideas is to create a device that will enable all of us to simultaneously contribute our best thinking and most benevolent experience towards solving our most complicated problems.
That device is THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL and the place to begin is with our existing laws.
How long should a legally arrived elderly immigrant have to wait before they start collecting social security?
According to Ross Perot, this is the only way forward.
My first reaction is that it's difficult to get the average citizen to read a news article. How would you expect to get anyone to read or comprehend a 2000-page law? You could, I guess, simply vote down any bill longer than 4 pages. Robert Barnes, a populist super-lawyer, is opposed to representative government on the grounds that the representatives are ipso facto an elite. Barnes would simply take away the vast bulk of government power and allow people to make their own choices.
It would not be difficult to expect at least 500 thousand qualified citizens to read four pages of law or proposed law and get their Ratify or Annual input every day the congress is in session. The results could be aggregated, made known and we would all be better off.
The program would even allow a citizen to go back and change his vote as he matured. And when a super majority is reached the law/proposed law is either ratified or annulled by immediate recognition of the enforcement mechanisms.
Do you have any thoughts on Revilo P. Oliver? He was a former National Review contributor before being removed by Buckley for anti-semitism. In his later life, he rejected Christianity and called it a spiritual syphilis in the mind of our race. He's worth a read.
"Lenin actually faced several mutinies among his own ideological comrades ..." Correct; one such being circa 2021 and the formulation of the NEP (New Economic Policy). Mutiny may be an overstatement by this point but the story goes those advocating for ideological purity, and against the private ownership/market NEP, were stopped dead in their tracks by Lenin's famous dictum: who whom . As in, political power (and its maintenance) is about who rules whom and nothing else. (The NEP being a desperate attempt to restore some functionality to the Russian economy and thus rescue the October revolution and the Bolsheviks (and their power)). Spookipedia helpfully translates: "kto kogo?"
Legit dissidents are in an intractable situation. Changing culture on a large scale requires money and power therefore we should pursue money and power. However obtaining money and power requires submitting to the cultural norms of those who already have money and power. It follows from this that actively changing the state of affairs is impossible and all dissidents can do besides posting memes and owning people on twitter is wait/prepare for a power vacuum to appear due to the current elite mismanaging the realm. In other words wait for the mad max world. Of course trying to speed up the appearance of the mad max world would be illegal and anything illegal is immoral to boot and ought to be disavowed. If you wanted a different legal/moral framework you should have made more money and networked with the right people who also have lots of money. That's the only moral way to change anything on a large scale.
If morality is fake does that mean immorality is also fake? If immorality is fake does that mean the cult ritual stuff involving homosexuality, sex with kids etc doesn't have any real effect in the aether/unseen world? I think most of us would agree that this jewish/dark side approach to orthopractice does have some tangible effect out there. Is the vile morality pushed on us by those who have money power chosen because it gets the results they want for esoteric/occult reasons or is it fully utilitarian? Its probably a bit of both and whats practical for them also has the benefit of feeding the demons they worship.
IMO its not that morality is outright fake its that morality only makes sense when its linked to some kind of mystical practice. Very broadly speaking morality is not feeding archons and immorality is feeding archons.
Thank you, Rurik.
Like you i have thought that the popularity of Gramsci on the right is wrong-headed : Gramsci is the author that devised the idea that politics is downstream of culture. To pursue the American example, the right-wing did win some victories when Newt Gingrich and his team were in power : the New York Times described his victory as a successful peasants revolt within the Republican party; he was largely hated. But being in power brought cultural and political victories. Unfortunately Bush Jr, or rather his team, terminated Newt Gingrich.
In Western countries, the current state of the culture is ultimately caused by the capitulation of the Catholic church at the Vatican II council : they willingly dismantled the social networks (schools, universities, hospitals, unions, banks, companies with crossed shareholdings, etc) that constituted their power in exchange for access to political power and a generalisation of the Catholic values and social practices, the ultimate aim being mass conversions. The latter part never happened. The Catholic bishops and the hierarchy were played, similarly to Putin. Now they are weak and cannot do much. As long as the Catholic Church aligns with the ruling class, they will have money and keep some influence ; but it withers away because the population has understood the betrayal, even if they do not say it explicitly.
Interesting essay that shows why so many of these right wing controlled op people are allowed to talk while feeling like they're rebels. If only they would know...
Lenin's "coup" could have been prevented easily by the Provisional Government had they acceded to one popular demand: Ending Russia's participation in WWI.
Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
I didn't see any timestamps on the Buckley interview. I made it through half of the interview and had to stop for my own sanity. Although I came to respect the intelligence of Jerry Falwell far more than I had before. He was quite intelligent and precise in his statements. I kept wondering what downer Buckey was on. Anyway, were you giving us way of avoiding having to listen to the entire interview.
Regarding the substance of your essay, one might conclude the appropriate way to influence public policy is to convince the power elite. Actually, it makes sense. Putting ideas into the general culture would not actually be for the purpose of changing mass opinion but of reaching those actually in power. Higher education is a perfect example. If you can influence what's taught at Harvard and Yale you have a shot at changing actual policy. Take race for instance. If you can get Harvard and Yale to suppress any knowledge of general racial differences, you can actually drastically change public policy. By the way, accepting the fact that races are different does not mean that you intend to murder or suppress someone of a different race.
If you click it, it should start playing at the relevant point. Fairly close to the start.
Got it now. Thanks for pointing it out.
Sir,
Perhaps because you did not know his platform, you left out Ross Perot.
+++++++++++++++++
A Philosophy for Modern Government by Ross Perot
It is a known fact that the members of the US Congress and the State Legislatures do not read, evaluate or debate any of the particulars of the Legislation they vote on. They cannot because the Bills approach 2000 pages each, and they vote 100 times per day. They vote the way their advisors tell them to vote.
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Ross Perot called attention to this by observing that "a general lack of accountability among elected officials and those in the bureaucracy was the one specific reason that the people in America suffered".
Mr. Perot then suggested that the best and perhaps only way to make government officials accountable was to include the citizens in the decision making process - every hour, every day.
He went on to note that this can easily be done with computers and called the proposed mechanism
THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL.
With this computer program every interested citizen can indicate whether or not they agree or disagree with every line item of every law, policy and program on the books or that was being advanced. It can be used at every level of government and in every jurisdiction.
To prevent chaos the basic law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights would be exempt from review.
Mr. Perot speculated that the Founding Fathers would probably have done the same had the technology been available. He referred to it as the Fourth Branch of government; The Citizens Branch / The Electronic Townhall.
If the government is truly of the people, by the people and for the people then what better way is there to perfect every section of the various laws and policies that do effect each and every one of us every single day?
It would not be difficult to expect at least 500 thousand qualified citizens to read four pages of law or proposed law and get their Ratify or Annual input every day the congress is in session. The results could be aggregated, made known and we would all be better off.
The program would even allow a citizen to go back and change his vote as he matured. And when a super majority is reached the law/proposed law is either ratified or annulled by immediate recognition of the enforcement mechanisms.
With tens of millions of laws and tens of thousands of taxes there is plenty of work to be done.
According to Mr. Perot, this, the harnessed experience and the combined intelligence of hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens focused like a laser light on the real issues, will, as surely as night follows the day, perfect every law in our country and eventually it will right every wrong.
Mr. Perot publicly announced his intention to give the fourth branch of government to the people in America if he was elected President.
But this attempt to empower our humanity was so far removed from the business-as-usual-two-party-system that the talking heads and trolls yelled out that Mr. Perot was trying to destroy our Constitution, our government and our way of life.
The ELECTONIC TOWNHALL was denounced as unworkable.
How would the poor participate?
How would fraud be prevented?
What about those who do not know how to use a computer?
In a final act of desperation, the control freaks claimed that letting the average citizen to pass judgment on the individual pieces of public law would lead to chaos and pandemonium.
But we all know the truth: only the concerned will bother to participate.
The media was so intensely negative towards the ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL that Mr. Perot was forced to stop talking about it, but he never withdrew it from his platform.
Its now been thirty-two years since the proposal.
No other person of national reputation or significant influence has picked up the idea. BUT the big two political parties regularly stage "townhall meetings" where they talk of "reform" and "returning power to the people" and try to link themselves to the empowering part of the idea without adding to its manifestation.
And still we suffer in the hopeless loop of: "candidates with a sense of morality and respect for the Constitution who understand true brotherhood, justice and democracy and who will do the right thing for us each and every time, trust me".
While we cannot make light of sincere individuals who get into public office, we must acknowledge the fact that regardless of who has been elected to public office the problems in our government get more complicated and our people continue to suffer.
Could we possibly admit that our national situation, now being made global, is far too complicated for the President and the 535 elected members of the legislature to manage in our best interests?
You, the person reading this know some of the things we need.
Your friends, our fellow countrymen have their solutions too.
The only way to organize the workable ideas is to create a device that will enable all of us to simultaneously contribute our best thinking and most benevolent experience towards solving our most complicated problems.
That device is THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL and the place to begin is with our existing laws.
How long should a legally arrived elderly immigrant have to wait before they start collecting social security?
According to Ross Perot, this is the only way forward.
My first reaction is that it's difficult to get the average citizen to read a news article. How would you expect to get anyone to read or comprehend a 2000-page law? You could, I guess, simply vote down any bill longer than 4 pages. Robert Barnes, a populist super-lawyer, is opposed to representative government on the grounds that the representatives are ipso facto an elite. Barnes would simply take away the vast bulk of government power and allow people to make their own choices.
Thank you for admitting that you did not read the overview of the Philosophy for Modern Government by Ross Perot before you scribbled your graffiti.
You know, if you had given a link then there would be some justification for your snarky comment.
It would not be difficult to expect at least 500 thousand qualified citizens to read four pages of law or proposed law and get their Ratify or Annual input every day the congress is in session. The results could be aggregated, made known and we would all be better off.
The program would even allow a citizen to go back and change his vote as he matured. And when a super majority is reached the law/proposed law is either ratified or annulled by immediate recognition of the enforcement mechanisms.
Do you have any thoughts on Revilo P. Oliver? He was a former National Review contributor before being removed by Buckley for anti-semitism. In his later life, he rejected Christianity and called it a spiritual syphilis in the mind of our race. He's worth a read.
"Lenin actually faced several mutinies among his own ideological comrades ..." Correct; one such being circa 2021 and the formulation of the NEP (New Economic Policy). Mutiny may be an overstatement by this point but the story goes those advocating for ideological purity, and against the private ownership/market NEP, were stopped dead in their tracks by Lenin's famous dictum: who whom . As in, political power (and its maintenance) is about who rules whom and nothing else. (The NEP being a desperate attempt to restore some functionality to the Russian economy and thus rescue the October revolution and the Bolsheviks (and their power)). Spookipedia helpfully translates: "kto kogo?"
Well Done Rurik!