Hahah cuckold. Get in the fucking game. Start letting people die by the metaphorical sword they use on you, stop crying and arguing in defense for JK Rowling, Bill Maher or even fucking Chapo Trap House when they will NEVER do it for you.
Literally all this does is give woke leftists an excuse to become as woke as possible, you dumbasses and boomer right wingers with goldfish memory will be there to say “UMMM WAIT A SECOND I THINK THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY PRECISELY ACCURATE! I hate this communist terrorist that wants me dead, but he technically didn’t RAPE that chick, dude!”
Seriously, it makes me realize I should just become a massive woke asshole, what’s the worst that will happen? They’ll always have the retard boomer squad to defend them :)
If anyone here were to counter me I hoped it would be you because I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :)
I was just talking about the (lack of) debate tactics the OP is annoyed by, people who don't understand we're in an infowar and the enemy is in control. You don't need to lie - speak truth, but speak uncomfortable truth that makes them question their world model, not facts that reinforce their biases. It's just playing your part in the war.
I wasn't talking about systems of control, though I still think culture war tactics could be necessary at the regional level. Decentralization makes infiltration harder but not impossible. We don't want to be the state/city they take over. It's all part of "undermining a Leftist narrative to pull people away from their systems".
Your "by his deeds you shall know him" definition of Leftism is interesting. Not everyone will agree, but it's something to think about. Sounds like the libertarian concept that "All authoritarianism is leftist." Would you describe historically famous "right-wing" authoritarians as leftists? (let's say Pinochet; Hitler is too easy since he was a socialist)
What is the line between balkanization and decentralization? I think a lot of nationalist authoritarians "balk" at decentralization because they want to avoid balkanization in favor of a strong nation state. I thought one was just a pejorative that assumes the units will be in conflict.
I'd start a Video site, but I'd be fired at some point. I need to make my gold first.
It's my favorite tactic!
This is fine for now. Any one of these could probably start a fight.
Speaking of great lines.
"The Hunter-Seeker Algorithm"
It is true that the pinnacle of military deployment approaches formlessness. This is why terrorism is such an incredible threat, and why militias will see renewed introduction in the coming century in one form or another.
Decentralization denies the Left of it's key resource: central power, and forces it to do something it finds horribly difficult: build power structures from scratch.
Decentralization means that the Left is unable to seize any keystone positions of power from which to thrive. They must actually achieve their own impossible narrative: a general uprising in all places, simultaneously, with popular support. Otherwise, they must perpetually seize and hold taken territory, without ever attracting attacks and aggression from anyone seeing a rising threat. This is rarely possible without absolutely expert command and control, along with highly competent foot-soldiers. Due to the Lefts own internal problems, they can never achieve the highest level of either, and are likely to fail at both, guaranteeing their perpetual failure. Whatever conquests they achieve, will consistently be short lived, promote diminishing returns, or attract the attention of their enemies.
While no one wants to be the people who get trapped with the Leftist, it is good that someone always experiences the Leftist failures, so that people are inoculated to Leftism in the future. Someone will be infected, but the survivors are cured.
I utterly disavow this argument, but I know why the economic libertarians read it as such. Leftism is a very specific concept that comes from the west as a kind of bizzaro world, evil twin, Liberalism. The difference between "Liberty, Egality, Fraternity" as Jefferson wrote, is nothing like what Robespierre exclaimed. However, it is ridiculous to call Julius Ceaser a Leftist, despite how his actions and policies look very similar. It can't be that Monarchism, Militarism, and Theocracy are Leftism. These are highly dissimilar ideological strains. There IS overlap in actions, and even overlap in the Catholic concept of Social Justice.
But this is because Leftism is a Philosophy of War, and is deeply concerned about power. As such, anywhere where you see power-mongers, you will see Leftist tactics. But not because they are Leftists, only because they are power-mongers. A monarchist would never try to end hereditary rule in order to maintain his power as People's Emperor. A Theocrat would never abandon religion to create a progressive secular cult. A militarist would never disarm the military, to form a "more democratic society". The reason monarchism, militarism, and theocracy are in such opposition to Leftism is because Leftism is that Philosophy of War: perpetually seeking power. Monarchism, Militarism, and Theocracy seek to HOLD power once acquired. Leftism is so relentless that it actually doesn't. This is why Troskyists see Stalinists as Leftists who moved right, away from perpetual international revolution until the full socialization of the world was complete. There are no other principles within Leftism beyond this perpetual acquisition of power, and as such, there are never reasons to hold to any principles. A monarch may die for the principle of divine right. A theocratic may die rather than convert. A militarist would die rather than embrace pacifism. A Leftist would do all of them the moment it became tactically advantageous to do so.
The Leftist is only looking for a tactical advantage, sometimes regardless of strategic objectives (which is why both Lenin and Stalin succeeded where Trotsky and Bolshevism either failed or were shut down). This is massive flaw that must be exploited, and is why I point out that: War isn't a Philosophy.
Leftism is a Philosophy of War, but War isn't a Philosophy.
So, specifically Pinochet? The Chicago School (who helped Pinochet govern) are effectively competent Syndicalists. As such, the Leftists have an argument when they call them Fascist, but only because they're jealous that non-Leftists can make it work. Pinochet was not a State Syndicalist like the Fascists, nor an Anachro-Syndicalist like the Spanish Anarchists, but a generic Syndicalist that used the power of the public corporations to control society, but kept out of low level economics enough to ensure economic growth. You'll never challenge the government's favorite cartel, but you can absolutely run a small business to your heart's content. Not really any different than Muslim Conquerors who kept taxes low in order to economically grow cities after conquest, even when the Quran demanded they be hit with a Jizya. Authoritarians... that know what they are doing.
I wouldn't necessarily call him a Leftist, and I wouldn't necessarily call him a Socialist, but Socialist influences still exist within the economic theory. Just like how Rome's Grain Dole isn't a socialist policy, but the resemblances are uncanny.
What is the difference between Bolshevism and Anachro-Capitalism?
Bolshevism balkanizes literally everything into "Soviets". Every aspect of your life is governed by a ruling committee, vying for power against both you and other committees. This perpetual state of war destroys society. Bolshevism was genuinely something to be feared because it wouldn't stop starving everyone to death. The Bolsheviks could only get something that they wanted by stealing it from someone else, or undermining someone else until they capitulated.
The Anachro-Capitalists privatize everything. They individualize everything. You can't get anything, until you get to the one person accountable who has that thing, and very likely, you can't take it form him, because you can't collectivize enough force to do so. Instead, because the cost of stealing it from him is to high, you have to engage in some sort of agreement with him, to get what you want.
Anachro-Capitalism expects an individuated and anonymous balance of terror in order to incentivize you to voluntarily agree to something, lest you face the prospect of a futile death, that you didn't prepare for. Bolshevism incentivizes you to seek maximum terror so you can't be denied. You are locked into your tribe, gang, or sect for survival. Prison rules.
So, what's the difference between Bolshevism and Anachro-Capitalism? Coercion is undermined by Voluntarism, because the anonymoized and individuated balance of terror can't be overcome.
So what's the difference between Balkanization and Decentralization? Same thing. Balkanizaiton centralizes terror into many fighting units seeking to dominate. That promotes coercion. Decentralization individuates and anonimizes the balance of terror. Why?
Remember: the pinnacle of military deployment approaches formlessness. By individuating and anonymizing your deployment, it becomes formless... and the deepest spy can not discern it, nor the wise make plans against it. As such, a voluntary exchange must be arranged.
Decentralization requires formlessness, while Balkanization requires hard, discernible, forms.