I like Auron MacIntyre. He's definitely in the first camp in the below scenarios.
To summarise as best I can there are two "sides" to the America question, and the west in general.
Acceleration and rebuild post collapse OR take over via cheating or illiberal means.
Take the higher moral ground and rely on institutions to work by enforcing rules as they are written.
Unfortunately both of these are losing strategies because in the first instance any hostility towards the state, either through just cheating to win locally, or anything up to full blown revolution is not going to work. The idea that American's would win a civil war because there's hundreds of millions of firearms owned by beefy Men with beards and tacticool gear is a fantasy best left to the pages of the Turner Diaries.
The second instance is in my opinion, even sillier. If you're playing a game of soccer and in the first half the other team plays with 20 players and relentlessly cheats. Committing to having better fundamentals in the halftime huddle and planning to win because you're going to play harder is laughable when the other team is spending that time building a brick wall over their goal.
I'd be happy to go into more detail to disabuse people of their fantasies, if required. I suspect the first one will be more provocative.
I do think there is a way out of it and forward, but it requires sticking to the rules and playing a different game instead. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible as it requires people to act out of accordance with their natures.
I’d like to hear your ideal way through, always good to have more options.
Does it involve basically renouncing material society and founding a parallel, self-sustaining one with your locals? That’s the one option I’ve found so far which a)would keep one relatively free b)wouldn’t require blood to fill the streets
Edit: and ideally it would be somewhat neo-primitivist, as in, we make use of what good knowledge has been produced since the industrial revolution/“enlightenment” but almost entirely as augmentations to traditional ways of life. I’m thinking things like sanitation, building techniques, basic chemistry principles, and so on, perhaps even digital technology, to a limited extent (it would need to be replaceable and fixable on a small scale which isn’t really feasible with regards to most modern consumer tech)
Essentially yes. But not all organs of society can be rebuilt in parallel. Some have to be taken over with our own long march.
And marxism and globalism have to be clearly identified as an enemy ideology, and have discipline around using it. "No that's marxist" needs to be used over and over again untill it shuts down a discussion like calling something racist is.
There's no point rebuilding a house in the same spot that's been collapsed by termites. Structures of society are the same way.
If some retard brings up DEI in a boardroom and suggests it. It can be shut down by simply calling it marxist and ending the discussion.
marxism and globalism need that stigma attached to it.
Sadly that would require a level of message and discipline in optics that "the right" has no chance of attaining.
But primarily conservatism has to be abandoned as it doesn't offer a competing moral vision. I like the idea of rejecting the label of "the right" and taking on the mantle of balanced morals, using moral foundation theory as the basis (Johnathon Haidt wrote a book about it) because it defines us as the moral, balanced centre, and our enemies as on the fringe morally. It's a trap that they can't help fall into.
It also allows for going on the offence in the culture wars, conservatism is a losing strategy but you don't win wars by being on defense all the time. The enemy only has to win once.
Glad to see this article provoking such quality discussion
Do you see capitalism (note, not bartering or exchanging stores of value, but the modern debt based system) as part of the system of control foisted upon us? Often I see “Capitalism” (i.e. usury) propped up as an “answer” to “Communism, but I’ve become more and more convinced that like “left wing” and “right wing” are both attached to the same diseased bird, I see much overlap with that and the “capitalism/communism” debate
No I don't see it as a problem. (Note I don't use the word capitalism as it's a marxist framing technique of identifying their target, what you are describing is government backed free enterprise. No-one sat down and said "lets create a system and call it capitalism. It's just an example of the superior linguistic discipline the left has)
There are many individual issues with financial problems but they are individual not as a result of some mythical "system" to say that is to buy into the marxist frame.
I think most of those individual issues could be solved or avoided by greater economic literacy in individuals. Seriously Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is required reading.
I like Auron MacIntyre. He's definitely in the first camp in the below scenarios.
To summarise as best I can there are two "sides" to the America question, and the west in general.
Acceleration and rebuild post collapse OR take over via cheating or illiberal means.
Take the higher moral ground and rely on institutions to work by enforcing rules as they are written.
Unfortunately both of these are losing strategies because in the first instance any hostility towards the state, either through just cheating to win locally, or anything up to full blown revolution is not going to work. The idea that American's would win a civil war because there's hundreds of millions of firearms owned by beefy Men with beards and tacticool gear is a fantasy best left to the pages of the Turner Diaries.
The second instance is in my opinion, even sillier. If you're playing a game of soccer and in the first half the other team plays with 20 players and relentlessly cheats. Committing to having better fundamentals in the halftime huddle and planning to win because you're going to play harder is laughable when the other team is spending that time building a brick wall over their goal.
I'd be happy to go into more detail to disabuse people of their fantasies, if required. I suspect the first one will be more provocative.
I do think there is a way out of it and forward, but it requires sticking to the rules and playing a different game instead. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible as it requires people to act out of accordance with their natures.
I’d like to hear your ideal way through, always good to have more options.
Does it involve basically renouncing material society and founding a parallel, self-sustaining one with your locals? That’s the one option I’ve found so far which a)would keep one relatively free b)wouldn’t require blood to fill the streets
Edit: and ideally it would be somewhat neo-primitivist, as in, we make use of what good knowledge has been produced since the industrial revolution/“enlightenment” but almost entirely as augmentations to traditional ways of life. I’m thinking things like sanitation, building techniques, basic chemistry principles, and so on, perhaps even digital technology, to a limited extent (it would need to be replaceable and fixable on a small scale which isn’t really feasible with regards to most modern consumer tech)
Essentially yes. But not all organs of society can be rebuilt in parallel. Some have to be taken over with our own long march.
And marxism and globalism have to be clearly identified as an enemy ideology, and have discipline around using it. "No that's marxist" needs to be used over and over again untill it shuts down a discussion like calling something racist is. There's no point rebuilding a house in the same spot that's been collapsed by termites. Structures of society are the same way. If some retard brings up DEI in a boardroom and suggests it. It can be shut down by simply calling it marxist and ending the discussion.
marxism and globalism need that stigma attached to it. Sadly that would require a level of message and discipline in optics that "the right" has no chance of attaining.
But primarily conservatism has to be abandoned as it doesn't offer a competing moral vision. I like the idea of rejecting the label of "the right" and taking on the mantle of balanced morals, using moral foundation theory as the basis (Johnathon Haidt wrote a book about it) because it defines us as the moral, balanced centre, and our enemies as on the fringe morally. It's a trap that they can't help fall into. It also allows for going on the offence in the culture wars, conservatism is a losing strategy but you don't win wars by being on defense all the time. The enemy only has to win once.
Glad to see this article provoking such quality discussion
Do you see capitalism (note, not bartering or exchanging stores of value, but the modern debt based system) as part of the system of control foisted upon us? Often I see “Capitalism” (i.e. usury) propped up as an “answer” to “Communism, but I’ve become more and more convinced that like “left wing” and “right wing” are both attached to the same diseased bird, I see much overlap with that and the “capitalism/communism” debate
No I don't see it as a problem. (Note I don't use the word capitalism as it's a marxist framing technique of identifying their target, what you are describing is government backed free enterprise. No-one sat down and said "lets create a system and call it capitalism. It's just an example of the superior linguistic discipline the left has)
There are many individual issues with financial problems but they are individual not as a result of some mythical "system" to say that is to buy into the marxist frame.
I think most of those individual issues could be solved or avoided by greater economic literacy in individuals. Seriously Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is required reading.