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.
To be fair, when I called it “the modern system of debt-based capitalism” and “capitalism(usury)” I was trying to differentiate what I was referring to (the reality of the situation) from any theoretical renditions of the meaning of “capitalism” (either explicitly Marxist or not).
Frankly I do believe some people sat down and said “let’s create a financial system which operates as an inescapable black whole from which lendees will never escape, while the lender’s event horizon grows ever wider. There was the rothschild banking cartel from the 16th century onwards, from which time old world economics became ever more centered not on labor or production but debt. Part of the reason for America’s rampant success early on was the casting off of this system, though it eventually returned and metastasized in 1913 with the creation of the fed and shortly after that with the abolition of the gold standard with Breton Woods
I know Sowell is quite smart, but I can’t think of much I’ve heard him say on the topic of debt slavery, inherent with fiat currency
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.
To be fair, when I called it “the modern system of debt-based capitalism” and “capitalism(usury)” I was trying to differentiate what I was referring to (the reality of the situation) from any theoretical renditions of the meaning of “capitalism” (either explicitly Marxist or not).
Frankly I do believe some people sat down and said “let’s create a financial system which operates as an inescapable black whole from which lendees will never escape, while the lender’s event horizon grows ever wider. There was the rothschild banking cartel from the 16th century onwards, from which time old world economics became ever more centered not on labor or production but debt. Part of the reason for America’s rampant success early on was the casting off of this system, though it eventually returned and metastasized in 1913 with the creation of the fed and shortly after that with the abolition of the gold standard with Breton Woods
I know Sowell is quite smart, but I can’t think of much I’ve heard him say on the topic of debt slavery, inherent with fiat currency
Can you elaborate by what you mean by debt slavery?