that's what makes it so hard to defeat, that is the postmodernismDBTrek wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 8:47 amCults gotta have leaders tho.
Who's at the top?
Who flies into Davos every year? (It's not that secret who the leaders are.)DBTrek wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 8:47 amCults gotta have leaders tho.
Who's at the top?
Who's drawing up the new rules to reorder society, and how are they gonna keep all the followers happy?
Even major religions haven't pulled that one off.
they live in a bubble, they are not in commandMartin Hash wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 8:53 am
Who flies into Davos every year? (It's not that secret who the leaders are.)
conservatives & liberals were complacent, CRT has been coming on since the 70'sMartin Hash wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 9:11 amSomebody programs the drones. CRT didn’t spring into drone consciousness. Trump proved the programmers won’t allow a leader not under their control.
When perversity or sanctimony are the primary motivating factors, they don’t actually care if the tiger gets them too.
(Bonus: There's some good stuff in here about Bro Fischer and the Puritan establishment.)After all, any “founding mythology” is a narcissistic delusion. The flintlock farmers and mechanic mobs of the 1770s, and the Plymouth Puritans of the 1620s, have one thing in common: none of these people even remotely resembles the megachurch grill-and-minivan conservative of the 2020s. None of them even remotely resembles you.
They did live in the same places, and speak sort of the same language. Otherwise you probably have more in common with the average Indonesian housewife—at least she watches the same superhero movies.
To Narcissus, everything is a mirror; in everything and everyone, he sees himself. No field is riper for narcissism than history, since the dead past cannot even laugh at the present’s appropriations of a human reality it could not even start to comprehend.
And fighting fire with fire is one thing, but fighting the shark in the water is another. For the aristocrat, transcending reality is a core competence. The essence of leftism—always and everywhere an aristocratic trope, however vast its ignorant serf-armies—is James Spader in Pretty in Pink: “If I cared about money, would I treat my father’s house this way?” Mere peasants can never develop this kind of wild energy: that’s the point.
Yet Hanania remains right about the amount of energy that a rational, Kantian agenda for productive collective action motivated by collective self-interest, or even collective self-defense, can generate. The grill-American suburbicon is like Maistre’s Frenchman under the late Jacobins: he has defined deviancy down to rock-bottom. “He feels that he is well-governed, so long as he himself is not being killed.”
O, what to do? When you are solving an engineering problem and see the answer at last, it hits you like a thunderbolt. The conservatives, the normal people, the grill-Americans, must accept their own low energy. They must cease their futile reaching for passionate intensity, whether achieved through Kantian collective realism or Jaffaite founding mythology. They must fight the shark on land.
Conservatives don’t care—at least not enough. Yet they want to matter. Yet they live in a political system where mattering is a function of caring—not just voting. Therefore, there are two potential solutions: (a) make them care more; (b) make systems that let them matter more, without caring more.
Conservatives have low energy. They want high impact—at this point, they need high impact. After all, once you yourself are being killed, it’s kind of too late. Any engineer would tell you that there are two paths to high impact: more energy, or more efficiency.
Conservatives vote but don’t care. If we don’t have a viable way to make conservatives care more—meaning orders of magnitude more—effective strategies and structures must generate power by voting, not caring. They must maximize power per vote.
. . .
Nastiness and even violence are consequences of weakness, not strength. There was little “heavy-handed” about Caesar or Cromwell or Napoleon. It was Robespierre and Sulla and Lenin and Hitler who were heavy-handed—because their victories were conditional and incomplete, not universal and absolute.
DBTrek wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 7:44 am
It's InfoWars, but they're citing this: https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societ ... -generaux/
Unfortunately I don't speak French, so I have no idea how accurate the story is.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
