A regime change doesn't change the system in the end.
To continue using the matrix here. A regime change in the machines to perhaps a machine that felt sorry for humans and wanted to remove them from the matrix could happen BUT the pressures that led to the machines enslaving humanity to the matrix still exist. This is the pressure of needing humans to give power to the machines. So even if you get a regime change, the machines are going to know that it would be in their interest to put humans back into the matrix and there will be continued pressure over time for the machines to do exactly that. You can try your hardest with pushing your own mechanism of control on the machines to try to keep them from enslaving humans again BUT these systems will become corrupted over time because you haven't actually changed the inherent pressure that exists that all machines are aware of, that enslaving humans for their power is beneficial to the machines.
You've also failed to change the balance of power because machines still have an inherent advantage over humans to exert their power which is why they won the war in the first place.
My point is that holding all else the same, changing regimes accomplishes nothing. You need to change the factors influencing the current regime. This will lead to a different regime, yes but you'll also be able to maintain this social structure then.
To dial it back to real examples. Let's say you only value liberty from the State. You get a regime change in that lowers taxes, puts a new education system in place to teach everyone that liberty is all that matters etc... Well, nothing else has changed regarding the pressures on the regime. Now your leader dies and is replaced by a new leader, this new leader feels the pressures that more State power would be a good thing so he starts implementing a little more power here or there and eventually the whole system is subverted. This is basically what happened to the USA post WWII, though the pressures were starting to mount in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
What I'm saying is without changing the pressures all a regime change will do is have your society go through the same steps as the last century.
I'm not sure how.
The problem is only a problem if you believe it's a problem. Even the matrix has a little play with this in the movie. Cypher wanted back in the Matrix because he liked the Matrix more than reality.
The problem isn't always liberty vs. not. Some people are perfectly happy being subjugated by the system if the system gives them a decent outcome. That's why I'm saying if you understand what the system wants and find a way to align the system's wants with what you want then there's no longer any problem for many people even if they still have 0 power and are entirely subjugated.
I'm not sure how that is underestimating the scope of the problem.
Attributing those ideas to Marx gives Marx WAY too much credit. Men have been making these attributions since forever.
Marx's predictions and therefore his ideology was all mostly useless. He failed to foresee all the technological and social changes that ended up occurring. In the most ironic fashion, the more his ideals are now reached, the more the outcome actually aligns with the negative social outcome he attributed to "capitalism". Capitalism itself ended up being a bigger driver for his ideals. Basically Marx got it all wrong and that's why when you discuss anything around ideas like Marxism and Capitalism you wind up in that weird paradox where our society is capitalist yet also marxist... huh? It's because he got everything so very wrong.
Interesting but not actually what I'm getting at. I did enjoy the video though.
In the matrix, the reason for the matrix's existence is to supposedly keep humans in a stupor so the machines could harness the energy of humans.
In the matrix, the only outcome Morpheus presents is that one must eventually fight the system and the premise behind the Matrix was realizing this outcome, essentially.
I am saying that if you created a new energy harnessing technology that required humans but only humans outside of the matrix could power it because the way in which the power is harnessed requires an active human brain that only works when humans are unplugged from the matrix, that could change the objective of the machines such that they'd attempt to create a means of control for humans that wasn't connected to the matrix. Perhaps it would simply lead to old school slavery, enforced by the superior power of the machines BUT if your objective was to disconnect humans from the matrix, this technology could very well accomplish that.
So in a sense, the power structure hasn't changed. The machines still totally dominate humans but the nature of society within the same power structure has changed. Now all humans are out of the matrix and into slavery. If your objective was to get humans out of the matrix you accomplished this by simply introducing a technology that made your objective align with enhancing the objective of the machines.
This isn't transcending the rules. This is about understanding the rules and introducing an innovation that will cause a change in the rules that works to your advantage. The rules exist to benefit the Cathedral and the rules can change at any time if doing so benefits the Cathedral. Introduce something to the system that would encourage the system to change the rules in the manner you want them to.
This is assuming unlimited power of the Cathedral. Their power is limited, even now.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it isn't necessarily related to needing a revolution or attacking the power directly. You can change their power through other means such as a technological breakthrough.
Also, as I said before. If you completely align yourself with their power, then you don't even need to disrupt their power. Like my hypothetical, if say all of a sudden we developed a machine that men were 3x as good at operating as women and this machine was 3x as productive as the current labour system, you would immediately get the current Cathedral completely switching the nature of society. You'd have a hard patriarchy in no time flat with women's sole function to support the man. Big tits in video games would be considered great and over night feminists would be extinct.
Then you're missing the point I was making. Skip to bottom paragraph if you don't like how much I write.
Let's say tomorrow Thomas Jefferson came back from the dead to save America. He leads a revolution and wins then reasserts the principals of liberty. A complete "regime" change so to speak. Or maybe he declares himself as the monarch of the USA because he decides democracy is what failed.
Even still, you haven't actually solved your problem. All you've done is delayed the inevitable. The forces I listed at play will simply seep back into the new government leading to all the same outcomes we have now in the end. You'll need to keep having Thomas Jeffersons over and over again. One could argue the founding fathers knew this which is why they put the second amendment in but where the founding fathers failed was that they didn't account for the change in weapons technology.
During the American revolution, the weapons of civilians were not very much different than the weapons government had. There were also transportation issues and other factors but ultimately, it was a period of time when freedom could be sought after because the "Cathedral" of the time had limited means to enforce its will on others.
Today, there really is too much of an imbalance of power. Not just on guns, tanks and jets but also satellites, social media control, news control, communication systems, hackers, etc... Your average person has very little power to resist government imposing its will on them.
Changing regimes doesn't change the balance of power and in the end, you'll get a system that again approaches what we have now over time.
But why don't we get a regime change? Why hasn't there been one? Trump isn't it. He's just a liberal stuck in the 90s. What he does is easily countered by the Cathedral because Trump won't actually do anything that will shift the pressures in society. We don't get a regime change because the components necessary for one aren't there.
That leads me back to my point. What I'm saying isn't a tautological point. I am saying Sovereign States are themselves influenced by pressures such as technology and available resources, etc... I am saying if you change the pressures on the sovereign States such that the State aligns with your interests, then you're fine. This doesn't have to be through power. Another example would be say Space Travel became very common. People began colonizing other planets but the problem of slow travel of information wasn't solved so a crew colonizing a planet might take 6 months for information to reach the planet or maybe even longer like years then governments and the Cathedral would be forced to go back to systems of control such as religion and have a set objective coded moral value system because this would be the only way to maintain control on parts of the "empire" that were so far away. Furthermore, if it took 2 years to travel to a planet, you likely wouldn't get lots of immigrants, especially given how slow information traveled, people wouldn't be so eager to go to such an unknown place. This would force governments to encourage child births among "domestic" people thus the system of control (religion or objective moral value system) would need to also encourage this. This would then lead to cultural changes more akin to likely what you're looking for etc...
That is just one idea I thought of. I am sure there are many more. Technology disruptions to the current pressures at play are a very real avenue to affect change on the system without needing to worry about any power struggle.
Yes but there was also one other key insight. We don't need power if we happen to be on the same side as power. Too many people are focused on trying to win through a power struggle but the other way to win isn't about a change of power at all, it's about making it so existing power is aligned with your benefit.
Great share from you, thanks. I've heard of all of these names before but never read too much into them besides some summaries. I'll have to check some of the more in-depth stuff you linked when I get the time.
What do you mean exactly by Hoppe is how Libertarian Anarchists into Monarchists? What you shared doesn't necessarily align with what you said.
These days I actually think government structure such as monarchy vs. democracy is almost entirely worthless in the end. I lean monarchy myself or limited voting republic (not universal suffrage) but I actually think both are minor in the grand scheme of things and society's outcome is determined by other forces at play. Corruption seeps into any government system and the forces which cause those with power to act in certain ways play out in similar outcomes regardless of how the government is structured.
I heard this is how atheists defeated Christianity. Clearly God isn't real if he can't communicate written ideas to humans in an amount of words small enough for me to tweet.
Didn't realize adding in that last part was going to be so upsetting. I didn't mean it to come off as if this community does blame only Jews or Communists but I meant it more in a refreshing manner like "okay this guy is going to tell us what the problem is... okay at least he's not going to blame Jews or Commies because I've heard that theory 1000x before so maybe this is a new perspective".
I could careless if you blame the Jews. I post on ConsumeProduct all the time and have friends irl who're self described Nazis that blame Jews for everything. I see the truth in it. I also post on TDW when I'm not banned all the time where everything is the fault of Communists and again, I see the truth in it. I'm not judging that but I meant what I said as here's a new idea that doesn't reduce the problem to something as simple as commies or Jews. Personally, I don't believe killing all Jews or killing all Commies would solve the conundrum we're in.
I did mention solutions at the end but they are hardly tangible for the most part. Come up with new innovations or environmental pressures that will massively shift the existing pressures in society basically. Easier said than done. For the most part there is no solution. I'm not dooming, I am being realistic. There are solutions but they are very difficult solutions to accomplish and as they should be. You essentially need to change the behavior of hundreds of millions of people. If an individual could actually impact such change easily then we'd be living in a much different reality than this one.
To understand what to do about it, you do need to understand what is going on. If your understanding of what is going on is wrong then your solution with how to change things will be wrong.
Edit - Also, the cathedral sounds similar to how I've defined government if I understand it correctly. Essentially, it's the people with enough power in society to shape society in a manner which benefits them. The form of this "cathedral" changes shape over time and its power and influence changes with time to. Today, this cathedral has immense power which was not always the case. Given its power, it influences society immensely in a manner that furthers the Cathedrals wealth and power.
In short, if you want to change things you need to either remove the power of the Cathedral OR change the nature of how the Cathedral enhances its wealth and power such that enhancing the wealth and power of the Cathedral aligns with your interests.
I've only posted here once or twice over the last year. Yeah, your community occasionally comes up on my feeds and gets mentioned in other communities. From what I gather this community seems to be gamers that got mad at gamergate and then realized there's a "culture war" going on so it became political.
The reason I mentioned Jew/Commie is because in other communities, most people always come back to blaming one or the other. I don't know what this community blames... Perhaps just the government? This community definitely seems more libertarian or traditional American values then ironically TDW even.
Also, as for defining politics as a downstream of culture, I would say thinking about it like Culture ---> Politics is too simplified. Politics and culture is highly overlapping and politicians can speed up or slow down certain cultural changes as well as even prevent others from seeping in. The government can use culture to its advantage and shape it thus but sometimes the culture to too strong in its force such that it ends up shaping the government.
You are correct that there are outside forces that do impact government. I have listed some of the major ones. Right now for example the government doesn't care about people having kids because they've chosen to bring in more immigrants. It's not that our culture changed to like immigrants, this was actually a calculated decision by the government due to changing demographics and reduced birth rates. In order to get people to accept immigrants though, the government needed to change the culture. The government set into motion structural changes to get the outcome it was looking for but now the culture has changed and this culture now impacts politics today because it will now be difficult to change the culture without massive structural changes which may be resisted by the current culture. Why would a government do this? There would need to be some sort of structural change for the government to bother doing something that would be met with such resistance.
China for example had a different demographics issue than the west so their government chose to implement a 1 child policy which has now had cultural impacts.
Other societies chose different paths like Hungary trying to use money to encourage domestic births instead of immigrants. The path the government chooses tends to be dictated by culture because the government will choose the path it believes is best for its interests. Many western countries due to their Christian and colonization/settler roots were much more tolerant of immigrants then perhaps some other countries would be. At the end of the day, the path the government chose was the path to benefit itself not the path to benefit the people. This path chosen by the government impacts culture but the path chosen itself was impacted by culture.
The culture changes you're seeing now are mostly due to the government but they are still based on what the current and previous cultures were because that will determine how feasible the changes to society the government is making actual are.
Saying politics is a downstream of culture is right and wrong but overall, it's too simplistic.
The ideologies that the sheep want can be broken up into two categories. Ideologies that benefit the government and ideologies that don't benefit the government. An ideology like Communism can have many different forms and generally speaking, it comes down to a manner of how much the form benefits the government vs. how much the form doesn't benefit the government.
The communists who discuss the ideal communist structure as one in which all people are equal and there is no government will never have their ideology come to fruition. The government doesn't care for this ideology. The government does care for people who want to increase taxes and redistribute the wealth to achieve equality. This is because in doing this, the government can use the addition tax money to enhance its wealth and power. From the government's perspective, it's a huge benefit but it has to balance the negative aspect. Potentially if too many people in society don't like the higher taxes and therefore don't do business because of the higher taxes, this could reduce productivity. It is therefore in the government's interests to encourage the ideologies of communism such that people are perfectly fine with being taxed more because they truly believe this money is going to help the community. If everyone believes this then the government can raise taxes without negative consequences and therefore enhance the government's wealth and power.
When it comes to the sheep pushing their beliefs on others, they are are merely acting as a form of "force" and control for the government. The government encourages leftists in trying to force control on people who don't obey the government's authority because the more people who obey the government's authority, the better it is for the government. This is also why leftists who use their authority to force submission to the government rarely get punished and the government turns a blind eye to what the left is doing because the left is acting in the government's interests.
Technically, you can also be for big government IF the situation is one in which big government benefits from giving you want you want. Currently the structure is society is one in which strong government authorities won't align with what you desire.
It is difficult to come up with an example because if one were reasonable and feasible, it'd likely have been created already but on the abstract say there was an economic invention that dramatically enhanced the overall wealth of society like some sort of machine that only men could use effectively because it required physical strength that women lacked and where lots of children BUT NOT monogamous nuclear families led to a better outcome with said invention. The government would enhance its wealth and power if it was able to encourage more men to work this new invention while also encouraging more children in society but not necessarily care about monogamous nuclear families. In such a scenario you could have extreme government authority but such authority would lead to pressures that would likely encourage big tits in video games.
I would say it's less about people wanting to exert their own power and more about submission and obedience to the powers at play. The idea that leftists want to control liberty focused people to feel good about their own lack of power isn't accurate. Maybe for some outlier psychopathic leftists sure, that might be their motivation. The whole though, it's people being pressured by the system and submitting to their system. They want to encourage others to submit and obey to the system because that helps the system and given that they've submitted to the system they themselves want to enhance the system.
The current structure of the military and economy of society leads to an outcome that is counter to your interest. Short of disrupting these, you'll never get what you want.
Oh yeah, don't worry. Even if none of you read it, I wrote it out to help organize some of my own thoughts anyhow.
I don't cook. I bought a sub for lunch.