25 points for "A multi-tentacled exsanguination machine."
Your punditry and penmanship is eloquent and succinct, the message built on a solid foundation with a clear structure of your vision for our future. Your composition evokes a virtuous and inspirational message. Your works are always quite readable and flowing, and this post is a work of art. You have "the gift" and your book may bring about what you dream of; the forward momentum that may stir the souls of humankind to assert their sovereign agency. That, my friend, is the definition of 'patriotism'.
Thank you, Dave. I do spend a lot of time thinking through the ideas and carefully crafting the words!
Your support means a lot. If you know anyone else who might be interested, please send them this way. And new paid subs is a bonus—this is a job for me. Thanks!
I only work part time so I cannot subscribe to people, but I decided to go all in with you. If we don’t do what you say it’s going to be miserable. Hopefully I will always be able to work enough to support this endeavor. It’s very important for the future
Thank you! You are trying to take care of the world at this point. You have all sensible solutions. I think you are the one people are going to listen to and come to their senses finally. I think this can really work and it’s been the first time I’ve had hope for a while.
Definitely! I sure will! I told another sensible person who has a lot of followers that you had great ideas that don’t have to lead to violence. We will spread this information as much as possible.
I was also telling them how 30% of people are just maeliable creatures who will jump on the bandwagon of strong ideas and if they think that idea is gaining traction. We just have to get up to a certain number and we’ll have it made.
I sure did call you a shit. My apologies. I get a little frustrated with the sensational posts about social structure. I deleted my post because I did call you a name. I think it took the rest of the conversation away. But I couldn't edit. So I removed the name calling
I think I deleted your thank you for my apologie. You're welcome. I removed a couple other of my comments. Not rude but long winded and opinionated. I think that's how I deleted your thanks for apologizing. You're welcome.
I still do believe that the gap between us is so chasmic that the time-cost-benefit analysis suggests continued communication would not be worth the time invested (on either side). But I am content to leave it there and perhaps revisit at some future date.
First time I read this I mistook "gap between us" as a statement about society. I'm politely sending a fair notice that I'm going to reread and rephrase and be concise and constructive. I don't think you are wrong in your judgement based on my actions. I am determined to prove you wrong on only one point. That there is a chasam between personal ideas and ability to discuss an issue or subject. I'm not coming back to debate, meaning purposely choose an opposing view for the sake of it. I still don't believe using the word anarchy to describe progress in a society is helpful. Solely based on a search for synonyms for the word anarchy.
chaos.
confusion.
disorder.
disorganization.
lawlessness.
nihilism.
riot.
turmoil.
I'll comment on a different post if I feel I can add something constructive to a topic. Thank you again, and I do truly apologize for cussing at you and calling you a name. It was childish.
You have to understand, also, the position we (ancaps, voluntaryists, etc.) are in. We get this all the time. If the inquires are genuinely curious and calm, we take the time. But so often, we are talked to like we are idiots, and the people who scream the loudest at us are generally the ones who understand the least about the topic. Eventually, it just gets tiresome and old.
I have only ever blocked one person, and it took me 18 months before I finally did it…in spite of the fact that the person I blocked deserved it from the start. I am definitely loathe to block people.
To whatever extent I am known here on Substack, I am known for interacting (almost always politely) with just about everyone. But there is zero chance I will interact with anyone who shows up screaming and calling names from the get-go. It took one iteration of the thread for you to call me a "shit." I have been in this game long enough to know that it will only get worse from there. I already spend between 3 and 8 hours a day talking with commenters. It is not going to go well with anyone who, without any specific provocation, is as obviously enraged as you. My time is way too valuable to waste it in that way.
Given your multiple comments in a row without a reply, all frantic, and more than one mentioning blocking and deleting, I suspect your actual goal is to get blocked. That way, you can believe that you "won." "See, I said you would block me."
Here is the situation. I will ask you in civil fashion not to comment here anymore. Not because you have contrary or challenging ideas, but because your dial is permanently set to Angry Asshole, and no one needs that. The world is already too frenetic. That shit is not going to fly here. Respect that and we will go our separate ways. Otherwise, yes, I will block you without a moment's hesitation.
You got told "your not a teenager", which is a slightly less rude way of saying "don't act like"
Look. Anarachy isn't some play word for subscribers. You have #anarchy while listing your political choices next to it. Your writing about society needing changes on a platform that allows comments.
Also. You do realize you cant be a conservative libertarian Anarchist right?
Just block me and delete my messages and go back to you subscriptions and likes and fan base of lost people.
And that is not a knock on your fan base. i am lost, we all are lost. We are all looking for someone to admire. Then someone to follow. And someone to "hate" or dislike for opposing views. Few people don't feel lost and it's an authors duty to educate and direct them. You're not a sports coach, general or gang leader. You don't need to fire anyone up. conservative/libertarian is fine. Drop that "natural law anarchy" shit. You're not a teenager. You're an aspiring author.
I dislike the articles that never spell out a suggestion for a solution. Especially when they topic is other people's freedom and well being for the authors financial gain and public recognition. Book sales and a fan base.
Write short clear topics about society. Offer rational suggestions for steps towards a solution. Do not contradict yourself by adding the hashtag "Anarchy". You don't get to have a hip edgy laid-back Anarchy. And you Natural law hashtag, would get people raped and killed. I'm just not sure you've been in a situation where a dangerous person has felt safe from consequences.
Everyone is dangerous. What I mean. Is you are throwing around these edgy terms that are causing doubt and alarm. (Put whatever words you want on it. It's not making your fan base relax).
Anarchy and natural law would last how long? Before woman, men and children were raped and murdered? Possessions taken. It would eventually smooth out. Until the biggest guy in the room said "this is mine".
Then one day you will have a king. Dictator wouldn't be the word. You would be creating your "real" natural law.
Shits irritating. Especially when you are going to come back with a deflection and dismissal."read my work next time" (It's always the go to.) and a block. Then your little fan base of "lost people" will come pattting you on the back.
The founding fathers hated each other. The Bible is made out of the old and new testament, openly putting Judaism and Christianity against each other. There was genocide in the Bible and the founding fathers were slave owners.
But the "Natural law" is that good will shine through even bad situations and events and every so often greatness shines through to humans.
The Sermon on the Mount is an example. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the other. The only thing better than democracy and capitalism. Is a to implement a mandatory 3 party democracy. The only thing better than capitalism would be to make monopolies illegal. The make subsidiaries transparent and regulate the amount allowed. The Federal Reserve is abolished and a Federal Bank is installed. Presidential age limits are installed. All federal posistions tenure is adjusted. Absolutely no life terms. Absolutely one over 71 allowed to govern anything.
Isolationism. Israel has an Iron dome. Let's get two. Take all our military force and park it in both oceans.
Immigration is easy. You take two of the states on the boarders New Mexico and North Dakota. You pay all the Americans to relocate. Clear them out.
Each state is the entry point and assimilation state for immigrating. An immigrant is allowed in one of those two states as they are processed as citizens. 2 year Integration period. Could do free housing. And provide each person a paying job building a wall along Mexico and Canada. Then build a wall around north Dakota and new Mexico. Those are the two states that we allow immigrants during their integration. Assuring they are officially added to the system and are assimilated to the language and laws of the country. When we are done with all this we take another square state and build a wall around that. Pay the citizens to relocate. Furnish it and provide it as a refugee state.
Now. We aim our missiles and nukes at everyone. Park our ships on the shores and we don't talk to anyone. We don't find others wars. We don't participate except for gross misgrievences that are a human duty. We do NOT lend foreign aid to anyone. That's what the refugee state is for. Their country can fly a plane in drop them off and come back pick them up. If we get to the point we're there's no hungry uneducated child and adults. No homeless. The we'll reevaluate offering aid to less fortunate citizens..
Democracy 3 partys. Capitalism with no monopolies.
Ah wonderfully well said. Your analogies relate the current condition of man like butter on bread. The question I keep asking statists is, "Do you really want what you want?" The sexual revolution gave us license but no liberty to have genuine relationship with the opposite sex. It resulted in more insecurity and rigidity than ever. But people won't admit to these types of failures.
We don't always want what we want. Because those "revolutions" only devastate us in the end. It's our mental/emotional framework, not the society that needs to expire. Where we keep thinking making things better depends on remodeling the room, yet the whole building is falling apart.
The assumption that adults require other adults to manage them and the whole world is a childish fantasy that cannot be maintained when we choose to become mature, rational, and responsible adults. We have to build a new house. One where we trust our inner compass to direct our actions in accordance with actual cause and effect. Where we submit to natural law, not some other adults dictum.
The "elites" are otherwise known as "progressives" Amongst the beliefs of a progressive is that a "complex" physical system is a "non-complex" physical system, where a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties," each of which is a property of the whole physical system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non-complex" physical system exhibits no such properties. In the construction of a model of a :"complex" physical system,, this mistake is productive of the illusion that the "Principles of Reasoning" dictate conformity by the induced model to the precepts of mathematical statistics though in reality The Principles of Reasoning dictate conformity to that generalization if mathematical statististics that is called "entropy minimax" by its inventor, the late theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen. Entropy Minimax is the solution to the ancient, previously unsolved "Problem of Induction," where the problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the set of inferences that will be made by a model of a "Complex" ohysical system from a larger set of possibilities. The Principles of Reasoning are "Entropy Minimax" as described by Christensen in the seven volume Entropy Minimax Sourcebook" These principles reduce to Aristotle's three Laws of Thought in the limit as the missing information for a deductive conclusion to be reached by the argument made by the induced model to reduce to nil.
Questions and comments on the argument that I nuke immediately above would be most welcom to me.
Codeiallly,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Writer of the Substake entitled "Building a Model of a Physical System without Making Any Mistakes."
All cylinders firing again, Chris. I love the idea that we can't go back since the thing we want to go back to never really existed. It was and is a mind game. This explanation from Vernon Howard resonates with me: "If you give up your side of a social argument, you lose the self-identity this
position provides; for example, you can no longer call yourself a liberal or a conservative. This
abandonment of a label is too frightening for most people, for they falsely believe they consist of
their labels, so they fear for their very existence. But it is precisely the self-labeling which
causes fear. When you do not have a position which is opposed by another position, life is truly
understood, and that is mental wholeness."
We have the same trouble when we identify with a government, any type of government.
One of the things that is really difficult about that is the change in one's feeling of patriotism. That feeling used to be a given for me, for much of my adult life. Now, I am not sure what to feel in that regard. People, land, certain founding ideals, yes. Government, definitely not. What does patriotism become in such a reality?
For some people, their country is a rock upon which they stand. “My country, right or wrong.”
For some, they see that it has gone wrong, but they have a vision of a time when it was right, and they believe we can return to that vision. They are patriotic not toward what it is, but toward what they believe it was and imagine it could be again.
But I no longer fall into that latter group, and never will again. And perhaps you are there with me too.
So where does that leave us? No more lump in the throat. No more pitter-pat. It’s a weird place to be.
Oh yes, it is! Yes, I believe we are all recognizing that we will never go to those times again, but if people follow your direction, we have hope that even though things will still be different, they can be a lot better than they are now. Who knows maybe even better than it ever was!
I’m almost 80, so I grew up in the WW2 bubble. My Dad fought the Nazis in Europe. Were we wrong to think that the ideals (hard work, determination, deferred gratification, as if there was any other option for us, etc.) we assigned to “America” as kids were not available for all? We compare ourselves to the people in our town and there are incongruities, but compared to 90%+ of the world and throughout history we are “kings.” If this is not the bounty of America, then where did it come from? I look at Third World entities that have natural resources and if we are, supposedly, “equal” in brain potential I am be aghast at what they fail to be accomplish. There’s something about the Judaeo-Christian CULTURE that enhances the efforts of man. This is inexplicably rejected by even some of those who have reaped the rewards of same. Something is broken. Can it be fixed? Well, not with the woke-ism in the educational system we have today.
I think you are right to mention the teachings and principles that emanate from Judeo-Christian culture as an essential element.
The single-biggest factor were the classical-liberal principles that were at work when this new land was colonized.
Plus the risk-taking gene that was prevalent for most of our history (the people who risked stormy seas and a howling wilderness passed those genes on, and they lasted for a while).
Plus the fact that at the same moment that a new frontier was being colonized, the industrial revolution was afoot.
I could keep listing factors. But the GOVERNMENT was largely not among them. Yes, it did a better job staying out of the way than most governments have, at least at first, And that helped a lot. And that too was rooted in the classical-liberal principles that were at work at the founding. But those principles always informed the American people far more than they informed the government itself. It is the people and those principles we have to thank, not the government. The government predictably became oppressive, as they all do. Exactly as de Tocqueville predicted it would.
What Sharon and I are saying (Sharon, I hope I am speaking accurately here for you) is that we find it difficult to feel patriotism so long as the government is wrapped up in the box with all the other stuff about which we are supposed to feel patriotic as a package deal.
My Dad’s parents came (LEGALLY!!!) from Slovakia in 1900 and raised 5 kids with NO GOVERNMENT HELP of any kind. All the boys served in WW2. This was not unusual and was the value basis of how we (my age group - 1946) was raised. Now we have to listen to traitors like the Clintons and the Obamas. I’m sick of it. The principles aren’t “white;” they are sensible and actually work.
These are such important ideas, I truly would like to see them get more traction. I am glad there are people like Christopher thinking and talking about these things. Facing the truth is the foundation of a better world for everyone.
This is really a great article, Christopher. We think alike in many ways. Republics don’t work, neither do Democracies. It would be good to compare notes on alternatives.
I very much look forward to hearing from you as we move along.
In addition, while this is a labor of love and conviction, it is also a job for me—one I must keep growing in order to keep doing. So if you know anyone who could become a subscriber—and a paid subscriber especially—please send them my way!
Humans are the most social species on the planet. Forming groups is inevitable. And cooperative specialization is our superpower. So there will be groups. They question is whether membership in the group is voluntary or forced.
. . . most living things exist in groups. . .but having been a human I can say personally that not all of us actually need to be part of the herd. Many of us are isolationists. . They just aren't talked about. . . Can't go against social "norms"
I was just thinking that there seems to be a human tendency to take from and attack others. I truly never know how real the news is that flows through my feed anymore but this morning it was the Ukraine trying to take land from Russia to be a “buffer” zone…and I recall Ukraine was intended as a “buffer” zone prior to this… So many things get twisted. If a polity does well, and the people become greedy or egotistical and do as humans do…and attempt to overreach…with the types of warfare tech we have… Well, it seems the consciousness of people needs to evolve along with the new structures to support their individual sovereignty. I hope what you posit is possible, is possible, as it is so hopeful. And the capacity to protect oneself and honor boundaries seems key. Yet that same capacity can be abusive and directed outwards as overreach. There must be a solution for this. I will be contemplating it.
I have some consciousness-shifting steps in mind, but that is not my primary area of focus, so they may not be as detailed as some would want, or as are needed. Do you have any thoughts/suggestions in this regard?
So True and an excellent Exposure Christopher! Probably surprising to many here is Gaddafi's government by the people "Green Book". Forget the Western Propaganda about him!
I will look at it too because he was much better guy than they said. How Hillary made him go down was sickening. She is definitely a Satanist There’s no doubt about it. I heard that she also worships Minerva. Anyway, she’s a sicko. What Harvey Weinstein had in his computer about her caused those police officers to commit suicide.
Exactly in the Bible said that was going to happen. I try to have strong faith, especially since the things the Bible has said in revelations are really coming true, but sometimes I feel very panicky as well. We have to spread Chris’s word around. His solutions are the only sense of ones I’ve ever seen. Most people are just complaining and not saying what we should do. Once in a while, somebody will say we should do something violent, but we will get with that look at what is happening in England. So Chris has the only sensible solution. We have to spread the message far and wide!
I really liked the snowball metaphor. It makes so much sense , put that way.
And when “Similarly, the belief that any of this can be fixed by a return to some mythical “original” condition of the American constitutional republic is its own kind of fantasy.” - that fantasy is that an avalanche can roll uphill spreading snow gently over the heights ! Snowballs only roll one way.
I did not get the snowball metaphor from Hoppe, but I did start to see the snowball in my head as I was reading the first part of "Democracy: The God That Failed." After a few chapters, my brain said, "Holy crud, there really is no fixing this thing ever. It's a one-way trip!"
But Kesey’s story is rich and powerful and I would hate to spoil it. The last story in his collection hits hard in many ways, including a very hard hitting critique of big pharma, by the guy who wrote how to fly over the cuckoo’s nest, it was really impactful in my life.
Aw it’s pretty simple really. The story itself is plain enough, Maxwell’s Demon simply selected the hottest particles and opens a door letting them into a box - thus heating the box over time without any energy inputs.
I believe the bigger point is the universe would not exist without intelligence. But that’s the broad lesson I draw. Maxwell’s Demon was like Shrodinger’s cat. A thought experiment but Kesey’s story is a parable of what happened to a generation that thought drugs were going to save humanity
Take some issue with your characterization of monarchy. First, such as in England for example, kings were not hereditary. They were elected by the nobility sort of like a pope being elected by cardinals, or a US Senator being appointed by his state's legislature (as prior to 1913). Yet, even when it eventually became hereditary, who cares about being "born to rule"? Hereditary succession comes with the problem of unqualified heirs, but one problem should not be our resentment of "he gets to be king and I don't." How many really want all the negatives inherent in that role? And monarchies were never one-man shows. It still took a wider cast of people to figure out and implement things, i.e. "rule". People still had the ability to petition the court with grievances, and its questionable that was any less effective than that same avenue, which is the only one realistically open to most people today. (Most of us will never be President, or a Senator, or in the state legislature, etc., i.e. we will never "rule" anymore than the people under monarchy.
“First, such as in England for example, kings were not hereditary.”
—Prior to 1066, the Witan was involved, yes. But even then, the Witan was still selecting from among families.
But the more important question I am asking is why anyone is deemed to have the authority to rule another. It is not a question of resentment (at least not with me) at not being able to rule. Rather, it is the fact that the notion that one person gets to rule another has zero basis in actual reality. And why should it? Why should anyone be deemed to have a right to do things (tax, impose coercive force upon innocent people, etc.) that no one else has a right to do?
Christopher this is fascinating stuff. To be honest, I could kiss you. Finally, someone is saying what I am thinking. For a while now I have been listening to many good debaters pointing out all the unspoken problems that the government is not even acknowledging. Inside my head I am saying, 'yes you are pointing out all the obvious problems but not offering up any solutions.' It just seemed people were waiting for things to magically get better by themselves or just by the pure might of complaining about it all. That somehow the Government would apologise for being so shit and do a better job. That seemed ludicrous to me.
I realised long time ago Democracy is dying and with the wise words of Douglas Murry, "It is all well and good to tear something down but you better have something else to replace it with or someone else will. And, I bet you are not going to like it", I thought, 'what can replace Democracy?'
When Matt Goodwin mentioned " New Politics" and I became excited and thought, 'This is it, the replacement or something like it.' However, Matt has been very vague in his ideas of a new way forward, although he does make many accurate predictions. Supporters on his Substack told me to go find out for myself what New Politics could be and stop asking Matt to answer me on the subject.
I know this may sound mad but my idea of new politics came from the Woke. I marvelled at how they come to override the basic human right to protect children from harm and make policies that allowed minors to be medically experiment on. Just imagine the Woke movements focus on illegal immigration.
Calling , 'Stopping the boats' as British affirming care. I think we would be having a different conversation right now,. However, I looked at how the Woke are a headless force without a leader . Then maybe there is a chance a more sensible and benign force could use the same headless ability to Govern a country proactively and get things done, instead of relying on a leader.
I called my new politics and the alternative to Democracy, " Murmuration Politics, I wrote about it on my Substack
—Last time I was at FreedomFest, someone said those same words within five minutes of our first meeting. And it was a dude! I guess I just have that effect 🤣🤣🤣
In all seriousness, thank you for the kind words and thoughtful comments. Here are a couple of thoughts in return:
First, I hope that my the end of my exposition of my ideas on the distributed-nation concept, no one will be able to describe them as “vague.” I am going to do my best to be as specific as I can.
Second, on murmuration, the woke, etc….
You have accurately presaged (and concurrently developed) an aspect of my plan. I believe that a leaderless movement is the way to go. I will be expounding upon that in Part II.
That said, I think we do need to face some hard questions on this subject. I think it comes down to >incentives<.
Wokeness offers many incentives to its practitioners…
They can think of themselves as one of the BeautifulPeople™ for taking all the “correct” positions.
They can LARP as “Nazi Hunters” and “Fascist Fighters,” thus aggrandizing themselves beyond their actual bravery or worth.
They can feel like they are part of the long-standing Marxian tradition of “fighting for the little guy.”
But supporting leftist policies, they are supporting the very real possibility that money will be taken from someone else and given to them. So they have a material incentive (wicked though it may be).
What incentives are there on our side of the ledger? There are some, certainly. The desire to be free, to be left alone, to keep the fruits of one’s labors, to enjoy one’s natural rights.
Are those enough to fuel a leaderless movement? I am hoping and betting that they are. But there is only one way to find out for sure.
Don't worry this time it is not a dude who wants to kiss you, well, I am not a dude the last time I checked.🤭 You can't be too sure these days with all those unanswered questions of, "What is a Woman?" flying about.
The one thing we have and don't shutdown that the Woke refuse to do, is debate. That is our greatest strength and it is what the new politics should be built on. No freedom of speech, no debate and no new politics. Starmer is trying cut us off by the roots, but it's too late for that.
The Woke eats itself because you cannot be Woke enough and they can easily turn on each other at any moment. No honour among the Woke. We need to find away to not to end up with the same system but be headless none the less. We should not be like the Woke in any shape or form, however they have proven to us society can to be run by a leaderless power. We at least should look into how this can be done in a more prosperous and advantageous way. Especially when the leaders are falling us.
You are so right we need to discuss what the future Politics will look like. We know for sure how we don't want it to look like. I guess it is process of elimination. I don't believe in right and wrong just what works. New politics must focus on what works not what looks or feels good. Only honest conversation can achieve this and listening to people we don't agree with.
Woke has captured 3 major institutions governing the Western world. Law, education and mainstream media. We must not focus on taking it back but find an alternative way.
We have New Media, which I believe is New Politics in its infancy. We have the Free Speech Union to focus on law and order. However, they have their work cut out for them. The law is so full of Bureaucratic Woke BS it is hard to know where law and order begins and where the BS choas ends.
Education especially the higher end, like universities and colleges I believe are lost and we need a whole new way of educating the future generation.
I don't understand why we are not discussing these things right now, because it is so much needed. We need to take responsibility for the future. Democracy is only going to keep us in nappies and suckling on the malignant bosom of Woke. The Mother of all Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. It's keeping us all ill and dependent on a poisonous care and safety. Weakening us for it's own egotistical enjoyment. Sorry, I really got into that bleak description of imaginary events. I am usually a very positive person. I do not know what got into me. Anyway, I have found you and that has made me happy and a lot more positive about the situation we are in.
I looking forward to your next installment of "The Democracy Era Must Come to an End".
I just wish more great minds like yours would talk about this, as it is our only way out of this chaos.
And after reading a magnificent turn of phrase like “Democracy is only going to keep us in nappies and suckling on the malignant bosom of Woke,” I am thoroughly looking forward to our future communications!
I don’t think democracy itself is the problem, it’s the party system that has caused the issues. Nobody voted for the party system and that has led to the establishment cronyism in my humble opinion.
Contemplating a wholly new form of governance is no small thing. It’s been said that for the Information Age, a wholly new political system has to be devised. But no one knows what that should be at this point, if that is in fact the case. I can only state that at this point the federal government is not working as it ought to, and that there should be a redistribution of various responsibilities downward to states and localities. What that would do is leave the federal government with fewer responsibilities, but they would be able to carry those responsibilities with greater effectiveness.
I used to believe strongly in such a solution, and I continue to do so solely as an interim measure. But ultimately, smaller units of government suffer from the same problems as any other. They are fundamentally coercive and non-consensual, and thus morally impermissible and prone to harder tyranny eventually.
"But no one knows what that should be at this point"
—There are a lot of ideas out there. We cannot know for sure unless we try.
25 points for "A multi-tentacled exsanguination machine."
Your punditry and penmanship is eloquent and succinct, the message built on a solid foundation with a clear structure of your vision for our future. Your composition evokes a virtuous and inspirational message. Your works are always quite readable and flowing, and this post is a work of art. You have "the gift" and your book may bring about what you dream of; the forward momentum that may stir the souls of humankind to assert their sovereign agency. That, my friend, is the definition of 'patriotism'.
I stand up and applaud!
Thank you, Dave. I do spend a lot of time thinking through the ideas and carefully crafting the words!
Your support means a lot. If you know anyone else who might be interested, please send them this way. And new paid subs is a bonus—this is a job for me. Thanks!
I only work part time so I cannot subscribe to people, but I decided to go all in with you. If we don’t do what you say it’s going to be miserable. Hopefully I will always be able to work enough to support this endeavor. It’s very important for the future
I saw the notification of your support a little while ago. Thank you!
Knowing your situation makes it all the more touching. I promise I will do my best!
Thank you! You are trying to take care of the world at this point. You have all sensible solutions. I think you are the one people are going to listen to and come to their senses finally. I think this can really work and it’s been the first time I’ve had hope for a while.
Thank you. I hope my ideas, as they unfold, will help sustain that hope. And I hope you will offer your ideas too, as we go along.
Definitely! I sure will! I told another sensible person who has a lot of followers that you had great ideas that don’t have to lead to violence. We will spread this information as much as possible.
I was also telling them how 30% of people are just maeliable creatures who will jump on the bandwagon of strong ideas and if they think that idea is gaining traction. We just have to get up to a certain number and we’ll have it made.
What do you propose founding father 2.0? What is this magic plan after you dispose of democracy?
That is what I am laying out in this book.
But if you are looking for a plan, does that mean you are conceding that the current situations is untenable?
I sure did call you a shit. My apologies. I get a little frustrated with the sensational posts about social structure. I deleted my post because I did call you a name. I think it took the rest of the conversation away. But I couldn't edit. So I removed the name calling
I think I deleted your thank you for my apologie. You're welcome. I removed a couple other of my comments. Not rude but long winded and opinionated. I think that's how I deleted your thanks for apologizing. You're welcome.
No worries. We will speak again…someday. I will also follow you.
Thank you for the apology and change in tone.
I still do believe that the gap between us is so chasmic that the time-cost-benefit analysis suggests continued communication would not be worth the time invested (on either side). But I am content to leave it there and perhaps revisit at some future date.
First time I read this I mistook "gap between us" as a statement about society. I'm politely sending a fair notice that I'm going to reread and rephrase and be concise and constructive. I don't think you are wrong in your judgement based on my actions. I am determined to prove you wrong on only one point. That there is a chasam between personal ideas and ability to discuss an issue or subject. I'm not coming back to debate, meaning purposely choose an opposing view for the sake of it. I still don't believe using the word anarchy to describe progress in a society is helpful. Solely based on a search for synonyms for the word anarchy.
chaos.
confusion.
disorder.
disorganization.
lawlessness.
nihilism.
riot.
turmoil.
I'll comment on a different post if I feel I can add something constructive to a topic. Thank you again, and I do truly apologize for cussing at you and calling you a name. It was childish.
Yes, she is a colleague.
You have to understand, also, the position we (ancaps, voluntaryists, etc.) are in. We get this all the time. If the inquires are genuinely curious and calm, we take the time. But so often, we are talked to like we are idiots, and the people who scream the loudest at us are generally the ones who understand the least about the topic. Eventually, it just gets tiresome and old.
For now, this is gonna be the best I can do: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism
Maybe at some future date we can talk about this again. Let's leave it for a little bit for now, though.
I have only ever blocked one person, and it took me 18 months before I finally did it…in spite of the fact that the person I blocked deserved it from the start. I am definitely loathe to block people.
To whatever extent I am known here on Substack, I am known for interacting (almost always politely) with just about everyone. But there is zero chance I will interact with anyone who shows up screaming and calling names from the get-go. It took one iteration of the thread for you to call me a "shit." I have been in this game long enough to know that it will only get worse from there. I already spend between 3 and 8 hours a day talking with commenters. It is not going to go well with anyone who, without any specific provocation, is as obviously enraged as you. My time is way too valuable to waste it in that way.
Given your multiple comments in a row without a reply, all frantic, and more than one mentioning blocking and deleting, I suspect your actual goal is to get blocked. That way, you can believe that you "won." "See, I said you would block me."
Here is the situation. I will ask you in civil fashion not to comment here anymore. Not because you have contrary or challenging ideas, but because your dial is permanently set to Angry Asshole, and no one needs that. The world is already too frenetic. That shit is not going to fly here. Respect that and we will go our separate ways. Otherwise, yes, I will block you without a moment's hesitation.
"Drop that "natural law anarchy" shit."
You didn't get called "a shit"
You got told "your not a teenager", which is a slightly less rude way of saying "don't act like"
Look. Anarachy isn't some play word for subscribers. You have #anarchy while listing your political choices next to it. Your writing about society needing changes on a platform that allows comments.
Also. You do realize you cant be a conservative libertarian Anarchist right?
Just block me and delete my messages and go back to you subscriptions and likes and fan base of lost people.
And that is not a knock on your fan base. i am lost, we all are lost. We are all looking for someone to admire. Then someone to follow. And someone to "hate" or dislike for opposing views. Few people don't feel lost and it's an authors duty to educate and direct them. You're not a sports coach, general or gang leader. You don't need to fire anyone up. conservative/libertarian is fine. Drop that "natural law anarchy" shit. You're not a teenager. You're an aspiring author.
I dislike the articles that never spell out a suggestion for a solution. Especially when they topic is other people's freedom and well being for the authors financial gain and public recognition. Book sales and a fan base.
Write short clear topics about society. Offer rational suggestions for steps towards a solution. Do not contradict yourself by adding the hashtag "Anarchy". You don't get to have a hip edgy laid-back Anarchy. And you Natural law hashtag, would get people raped and killed. I'm just not sure you've been in a situation where a dangerous person has felt safe from consequences.
Everyone is dangerous. What I mean. Is you are throwing around these edgy terms that are causing doubt and alarm. (Put whatever words you want on it. It's not making your fan base relax).
Anarchy and natural law would last how long? Before woman, men and children were raped and murdered? Possessions taken. It would eventually smooth out. Until the biggest guy in the room said "this is mine".
Then one day you will have a king. Dictator wouldn't be the word. You would be creating your "real" natural law.
Shits irritating. Especially when you are going to come back with a deflection and dismissal."read my work next time" (It's always the go to.) and a block. Then your little fan base of "lost people" will come pattting you on the back.
The founding fathers hated each other. The Bible is made out of the old and new testament, openly putting Judaism and Christianity against each other. There was genocide in the Bible and the founding fathers were slave owners.
But the "Natural law" is that good will shine through even bad situations and events and every so often greatness shines through to humans.
The Sermon on the Mount is an example. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the other. The only thing better than democracy and capitalism. Is a to implement a mandatory 3 party democracy. The only thing better than capitalism would be to make monopolies illegal. The make subsidiaries transparent and regulate the amount allowed. The Federal Reserve is abolished and a Federal Bank is installed. Presidential age limits are installed. All federal posistions tenure is adjusted. Absolutely no life terms. Absolutely one over 71 allowed to govern anything.
Isolationism. Israel has an Iron dome. Let's get two. Take all our military force and park it in both oceans.
Immigration is easy. You take two of the states on the boarders New Mexico and North Dakota. You pay all the Americans to relocate. Clear them out.
Each state is the entry point and assimilation state for immigrating. An immigrant is allowed in one of those two states as they are processed as citizens. 2 year Integration period. Could do free housing. And provide each person a paying job building a wall along Mexico and Canada. Then build a wall around north Dakota and new Mexico. Those are the two states that we allow immigrants during their integration. Assuring they are officially added to the system and are assimilated to the language and laws of the country. When we are done with all this we take another square state and build a wall around that. Pay the citizens to relocate. Furnish it and provide it as a refugee state.
Now. We aim our missiles and nukes at everyone. Park our ships on the shores and we don't talk to anyone. We don't find others wars. We don't participate except for gross misgrievences that are a human duty. We do NOT lend foreign aid to anyone. That's what the refugee state is for. Their country can fly a plane in drop them off and come back pick them up. If we get to the point we're there's no hungry uneducated child and adults. No homeless. The we'll reevaluate offering aid to less fortunate citizens..
Democracy 3 partys. Capitalism with no monopolies.
Ah wonderfully well said. Your analogies relate the current condition of man like butter on bread. The question I keep asking statists is, "Do you really want what you want?" The sexual revolution gave us license but no liberty to have genuine relationship with the opposite sex. It resulted in more insecurity and rigidity than ever. But people won't admit to these types of failures.
We don't always want what we want. Because those "revolutions" only devastate us in the end. It's our mental/emotional framework, not the society that needs to expire. Where we keep thinking making things better depends on remodeling the room, yet the whole building is falling apart.
The assumption that adults require other adults to manage them and the whole world is a childish fantasy that cannot be maintained when we choose to become mature, rational, and responsible adults. We have to build a new house. One where we trust our inner compass to direct our actions in accordance with actual cause and effect. Where we submit to natural law, not some other adults dictum.
Well said—sharing!
Thank you for you 🙏
You too!
🫂
Yes! Our mental/emotional framework must change in order for society to continue!
The "elites" are otherwise known as "progressives" Amongst the beliefs of a progressive is that a "complex" physical system is a "non-complex" physical system, where a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties," each of which is a property of the whole physical system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non-complex" physical system exhibits no such properties. In the construction of a model of a :"complex" physical system,, this mistake is productive of the illusion that the "Principles of Reasoning" dictate conformity by the induced model to the precepts of mathematical statistics though in reality The Principles of Reasoning dictate conformity to that generalization if mathematical statististics that is called "entropy minimax" by its inventor, the late theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen. Entropy Minimax is the solution to the ancient, previously unsolved "Problem of Induction," where the problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the set of inferences that will be made by a model of a "Complex" ohysical system from a larger set of possibilities. The Principles of Reasoning are "Entropy Minimax" as described by Christensen in the seven volume Entropy Minimax Sourcebook" These principles reduce to Aristotle's three Laws of Thought in the limit as the missing information for a deductive conclusion to be reached by the argument made by the induced model to reduce to nil.
Questions and comments on the argument that I nuke immediately above would be most welcom to me.
Codeiallly,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Writer of the Substake entitled "Building a Model of a Physical System without Making Any Mistakes."
Los Altos Hills, California
650-519-6636 ( mobile )
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com ( email )
All cylinders firing again, Chris. I love the idea that we can't go back since the thing we want to go back to never really existed. It was and is a mind game. This explanation from Vernon Howard resonates with me: "If you give up your side of a social argument, you lose the self-identity this
position provides; for example, you can no longer call yourself a liberal or a conservative. This
abandonment of a label is too frightening for most people, for they falsely believe they consist of
their labels, so they fear for their very existence. But it is precisely the self-labeling which
causes fear. When you do not have a position which is opposed by another position, life is truly
understood, and that is mental wholeness."
We have the same trouble when we identify with a government, any type of government.
Yeah.
One of the things that is really difficult about that is the change in one's feeling of patriotism. That feeling used to be a given for me, for much of my adult life. Now, I am not sure what to feel in that regard. People, land, certain founding ideals, yes. Government, definitely not. What does patriotism become in such a reality?
I used to cry at the national anthem and patriotic songs now I just feel anger
Yeah, that is similar to where I am.
For some people, their country is a rock upon which they stand. “My country, right or wrong.”
For some, they see that it has gone wrong, but they have a vision of a time when it was right, and they believe we can return to that vision. They are patriotic not toward what it is, but toward what they believe it was and imagine it could be again.
But I no longer fall into that latter group, and never will again. And perhaps you are there with me too.
So where does that leave us? No more lump in the throat. No more pitter-pat. It’s a weird place to be.
Oh yes, it is! Yes, I believe we are all recognizing that we will never go to those times again, but if people follow your direction, we have hope that even though things will still be different, they can be a lot better than they are now. Who knows maybe even better than it ever was!
That is what I believe!
I’m almost 80, so I grew up in the WW2 bubble. My Dad fought the Nazis in Europe. Were we wrong to think that the ideals (hard work, determination, deferred gratification, as if there was any other option for us, etc.) we assigned to “America” as kids were not available for all? We compare ourselves to the people in our town and there are incongruities, but compared to 90%+ of the world and throughout history we are “kings.” If this is not the bounty of America, then where did it come from? I look at Third World entities that have natural resources and if we are, supposedly, “equal” in brain potential I am be aghast at what they fail to be accomplish. There’s something about the Judaeo-Christian CULTURE that enhances the efforts of man. This is inexplicably rejected by even some of those who have reaped the rewards of same. Something is broken. Can it be fixed? Well, not with the woke-ism in the educational system we have today.
I think you are right to mention the teachings and principles that emanate from Judeo-Christian culture as an essential element.
The single-biggest factor were the classical-liberal principles that were at work when this new land was colonized.
Plus the risk-taking gene that was prevalent for most of our history (the people who risked stormy seas and a howling wilderness passed those genes on, and they lasted for a while).
Plus the fact that at the same moment that a new frontier was being colonized, the industrial revolution was afoot.
I could keep listing factors. But the GOVERNMENT was largely not among them. Yes, it did a better job staying out of the way than most governments have, at least at first, And that helped a lot. And that too was rooted in the classical-liberal principles that were at work at the founding. But those principles always informed the American people far more than they informed the government itself. It is the people and those principles we have to thank, not the government. The government predictably became oppressive, as they all do. Exactly as de Tocqueville predicted it would.
What Sharon and I are saying (Sharon, I hope I am speaking accurately here for you) is that we find it difficult to feel patriotism so long as the government is wrapped up in the box with all the other stuff about which we are supposed to feel patriotic as a package deal.
My Dad’s parents came (LEGALLY!!!) from Slovakia in 1900 and raised 5 kids with NO GOVERNMENT HELP of any kind. All the boys served in WW2. This was not unusual and was the value basis of how we (my age group - 1946) was raised. Now we have to listen to traitors like the Clintons and the Obamas. I’m sick of it. The principles aren’t “white;” they are sensible and actually work.
I understand how you feel.
These are such important ideas, I truly would like to see them get more traction. I am glad there are people like Christopher thinking and talking about these things. Facing the truth is the foundation of a better world for everyone.
Thank you for sending folks my way!
This is really a great article, Christopher. We think alike in many ways. Republics don’t work, neither do Democracies. It would be good to compare notes on alternatives.
Thanks, Michael.
I am trying to get all my notes together into coherent fashion in this book, as fast as I can. Want to check in with me on comparisons on the fly?
It would be awesome to help you in any way
I very much look forward to hearing from you as we move along.
In addition, while this is a labor of love and conviction, it is also a job for me—one I must keep growing in order to keep doing. So if you know anyone who could become a subscriber—and a paid subscriber especially—please send them my way!
I will absolutely recommend you.
Thank you.
Totally brilliant essay. You're arguments are always iron clad and hard to refute. Thank you
Thank you. I spend a lot of time thinking and writing!
Personally I don't need to be "governed" by any human.
💯
You should be free to choose that option!!
From my experience you're only free to choose that option when you're not part of a community
Would that sentence be more accurate, perhaps, if we replace "community" with "collective"?
Collective, community, minority, majority. . .as long as your part of any kind of grouping. . . you must live up to the expectations of that group
Humans are the most social species on the planet. Forming groups is inevitable. And cooperative specialization is our superpower. So there will be groups. They question is whether membership in the group is voluntary or forced.
. . . most living things exist in groups. . .but having been a human I can say personally that not all of us actually need to be part of the herd. Many of us are isolationists. . They just aren't talked about. . . Can't go against social "norms"
I was just thinking that there seems to be a human tendency to take from and attack others. I truly never know how real the news is that flows through my feed anymore but this morning it was the Ukraine trying to take land from Russia to be a “buffer” zone…and I recall Ukraine was intended as a “buffer” zone prior to this… So many things get twisted. If a polity does well, and the people become greedy or egotistical and do as humans do…and attempt to overreach…with the types of warfare tech we have… Well, it seems the consciousness of people needs to evolve along with the new structures to support their individual sovereignty. I hope what you posit is possible, is possible, as it is so hopeful. And the capacity to protect oneself and honor boundaries seems key. Yet that same capacity can be abusive and directed outwards as overreach. There must be a solution for this. I will be contemplating it.
I will be too.
I have some consciousness-shifting steps in mind, but that is not my primary area of focus, so they may not be as detailed as some would want, or as are needed. Do you have any thoughts/suggestions in this regard?
So True and an excellent Exposure Christopher! Probably surprising to many here is Gaddafi's government by the people "Green Book". Forget the Western Propaganda about him!
Yes, I have heard that we were misled, but I do not know the details.
You may want to give the Green Book a read. On Amazon.
Available on LibGen free in both pdf and epub formats.
https://libgen.rs/search.php?req=green+book+gaddafi&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
I will look at it too because he was much better guy than they said. How Hillary made him go down was sickening. She is definitely a Satanist There’s no doubt about it. I heard that she also worships Minerva. Anyway, she’s a sicko. What Harvey Weinstein had in his computer about her caused those police officers to commit suicide.
Disgusting! The Monsters are paraded as Heroes and the Heroes are paraded as monsters in this sick world!
Exactly in the Bible said that was going to happen. I try to have strong faith, especially since the things the Bible has said in revelations are really coming true, but sometimes I feel very panicky as well. We have to spread Chris’s word around. His solutions are the only sense of ones I’ve ever seen. Most people are just complaining and not saying what we should do. Once in a while, somebody will say we should do something violent, but we will get with that look at what is happening in England. So Chris has the only sensible solution. We have to spread the message far and wide!
Sorry, I said we won’t get very far with those violent messages. They may even be enticing us to do that. We don’t want to follow anything violent.
Thank you, and agree.
You may want to check out Third Paradigm's recent post, 'Debunking Democracy'.
So many lies...
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/debunking-democracy
Thank you; I will.
Oh god this is phenomenal work
Thanks!
I really liked the snowball metaphor. It makes so much sense , put that way.
And when “Similarly, the belief that any of this can be fixed by a return to some mythical “original” condition of the American constitutional republic is its own kind of fantasy.” - that fantasy is that an avalanche can roll uphill spreading snow gently over the heights ! Snowballs only roll one way.
Very good.
Thank you.
I did not get the snowball metaphor from Hoppe, but I did start to see the snowball in my head as I was reading the first part of "Democracy: The God That Failed." After a few chapters, my brain said, "Holy crud, there really is no fixing this thing ever. It's a one-way trip!"
Entropy is a bitch. Fortunately we do not live in a closed universe (Kesey-Demon Box-paraphrased)
I do not know the stories in Demon Box. What was the closed universe idea?
A thought experiment of James Clerk Maxwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon?wprov=sfti1
But Kesey’s story is rich and powerful and I would hate to spoil it. The last story in his collection hits hard in many ways, including a very hard hitting critique of big pharma, by the guy who wrote how to fly over the cuckoo’s nest, it was really impactful in my life.
I could probably understand that demon box thing if I read it over twice very carefully. Or maybe three times. 🤣🤣🤣
Aw it’s pretty simple really. The story itself is plain enough, Maxwell’s Demon simply selected the hottest particles and opens a door letting them into a box - thus heating the box over time without any energy inputs.
I believe the bigger point is the universe would not exist without intelligence. But that’s the broad lesson I draw. Maxwell’s Demon was like Shrodinger’s cat. A thought experiment but Kesey’s story is a parable of what happened to a generation that thought drugs were going to save humanity
Take some issue with your characterization of monarchy. First, such as in England for example, kings were not hereditary. They were elected by the nobility sort of like a pope being elected by cardinals, or a US Senator being appointed by his state's legislature (as prior to 1913). Yet, even when it eventually became hereditary, who cares about being "born to rule"? Hereditary succession comes with the problem of unqualified heirs, but one problem should not be our resentment of "he gets to be king and I don't." How many really want all the negatives inherent in that role? And monarchies were never one-man shows. It still took a wider cast of people to figure out and implement things, i.e. "rule". People still had the ability to petition the court with grievances, and its questionable that was any less effective than that same avenue, which is the only one realistically open to most people today. (Most of us will never be President, or a Senator, or in the state legislature, etc., i.e. we will never "rule" anymore than the people under monarchy.
“First, such as in England for example, kings were not hereditary.”
—Prior to 1066, the Witan was involved, yes. But even then, the Witan was still selecting from among families.
But the more important question I am asking is why anyone is deemed to have the authority to rule another. It is not a question of resentment (at least not with me) at not being able to rule. Rather, it is the fact that the notion that one person gets to rule another has zero basis in actual reality. And why should it? Why should anyone be deemed to have a right to do things (tax, impose coercive force upon innocent people, etc.) that no one else has a right to do?
Christopher this is fascinating stuff. To be honest, I could kiss you. Finally, someone is saying what I am thinking. For a while now I have been listening to many good debaters pointing out all the unspoken problems that the government is not even acknowledging. Inside my head I am saying, 'yes you are pointing out all the obvious problems but not offering up any solutions.' It just seemed people were waiting for things to magically get better by themselves or just by the pure might of complaining about it all. That somehow the Government would apologise for being so shit and do a better job. That seemed ludicrous to me.
I realised long time ago Democracy is dying and with the wise words of Douglas Murry, "It is all well and good to tear something down but you better have something else to replace it with or someone else will. And, I bet you are not going to like it", I thought, 'what can replace Democracy?'
When Matt Goodwin mentioned " New Politics" and I became excited and thought, 'This is it, the replacement or something like it.' However, Matt has been very vague in his ideas of a new way forward, although he does make many accurate predictions. Supporters on his Substack told me to go find out for myself what New Politics could be and stop asking Matt to answer me on the subject.
I know this may sound mad but my idea of new politics came from the Woke. I marvelled at how they come to override the basic human right to protect children from harm and make policies that allowed minors to be medically experiment on. Just imagine the Woke movements focus on illegal immigration.
Calling , 'Stopping the boats' as British affirming care. I think we would be having a different conversation right now,. However, I looked at how the Woke are a headless force without a leader . Then maybe there is a chance a more sensible and benign force could use the same headless ability to Govern a country proactively and get things done, instead of relying on a leader.
I called my new politics and the alternative to Democracy, " Murmuration Politics, I wrote about it on my Substack
"https://open.substack.com/pub/claudiavonayres81/p/murmuration-politics?r=27axdd&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I also wrote on my Substack something similar to what you wrote about the Monarch in this country ,https://substack.com/home/post/p-143476819?r=27axdd&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I would love to get you criticism on it, good or bad.
I am so glad to find someone else talking about this and I hope I find more like-minded people in this sham of a Democracy.
“To be honest, I could kiss you.”
—Last time I was at FreedomFest, someone said those same words within five minutes of our first meeting. And it was a dude! I guess I just have that effect 🤣🤣🤣
In all seriousness, thank you for the kind words and thoughtful comments. Here are a couple of thoughts in return:
First, I hope that my the end of my exposition of my ideas on the distributed-nation concept, no one will be able to describe them as “vague.” I am going to do my best to be as specific as I can.
Second, on murmuration, the woke, etc….
You have accurately presaged (and concurrently developed) an aspect of my plan. I believe that a leaderless movement is the way to go. I will be expounding upon that in Part II.
That said, I think we do need to face some hard questions on this subject. I think it comes down to >incentives<.
Wokeness offers many incentives to its practitioners…
They can think of themselves as one of the BeautifulPeople™ for taking all the “correct” positions.
They can LARP as “Nazi Hunters” and “Fascist Fighters,” thus aggrandizing themselves beyond their actual bravery or worth.
They can feel like they are part of the long-standing Marxian tradition of “fighting for the little guy.”
But supporting leftist policies, they are supporting the very real possibility that money will be taken from someone else and given to them. So they have a material incentive (wicked though it may be).
What incentives are there on our side of the ledger? There are some, certainly. The desire to be free, to be left alone, to keep the fruits of one’s labors, to enjoy one’s natural rights.
Are those enough to fuel a leaderless movement? I am hoping and betting that they are. But there is only one way to find out for sure.
Don't worry this time it is not a dude who wants to kiss you, well, I am not a dude the last time I checked.🤭 You can't be too sure these days with all those unanswered questions of, "What is a Woman?" flying about.
The one thing we have and don't shutdown that the Woke refuse to do, is debate. That is our greatest strength and it is what the new politics should be built on. No freedom of speech, no debate and no new politics. Starmer is trying cut us off by the roots, but it's too late for that.
The Woke eats itself because you cannot be Woke enough and they can easily turn on each other at any moment. No honour among the Woke. We need to find away to not to end up with the same system but be headless none the less. We should not be like the Woke in any shape or form, however they have proven to us society can to be run by a leaderless power. We at least should look into how this can be done in a more prosperous and advantageous way. Especially when the leaders are falling us.
You are so right we need to discuss what the future Politics will look like. We know for sure how we don't want it to look like. I guess it is process of elimination. I don't believe in right and wrong just what works. New politics must focus on what works not what looks or feels good. Only honest conversation can achieve this and listening to people we don't agree with.
Woke has captured 3 major institutions governing the Western world. Law, education and mainstream media. We must not focus on taking it back but find an alternative way.
We have New Media, which I believe is New Politics in its infancy. We have the Free Speech Union to focus on law and order. However, they have their work cut out for them. The law is so full of Bureaucratic Woke BS it is hard to know where law and order begins and where the BS choas ends.
Education especially the higher end, like universities and colleges I believe are lost and we need a whole new way of educating the future generation.
I don't understand why we are not discussing these things right now, because it is so much needed. We need to take responsibility for the future. Democracy is only going to keep us in nappies and suckling on the malignant bosom of Woke. The Mother of all Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. It's keeping us all ill and dependent on a poisonous care and safety. Weakening us for it's own egotistical enjoyment. Sorry, I really got into that bleak description of imaginary events. I am usually a very positive person. I do not know what got into me. Anyway, I have found you and that has made me happy and a lot more positive about the situation we are in.
I looking forward to your next installment of "The Democracy Era Must Come to an End".
I just wish more great minds like yours would talk about this, as it is our only way out of this chaos.
With all that said, you got yourself a fan.
Kudos my friend 🤗
Thank you!
And after reading a magnificent turn of phrase like “Democracy is only going to keep us in nappies and suckling on the malignant bosom of Woke,” I am thoroughly looking forward to our future communications!
I don’t think democracy itself is the problem, it’s the party system that has caused the issues. Nobody voted for the party system and that has led to the establishment cronyism in my humble opinion.
I understand. But let me ask you…
Did you consent to the system? Did anyone?
If you vote, or do not vote, or your guy wins, or does not win, will things be done to you to which you did not consent?
The answers, of course, are no, no, and yes.
And that is a BIG problem.
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment. :-)
I’m intrigued, before the lockdown hysteria I voted for the party, since then I voted for the individual who supported the LOCAL people.
I await your next instalment with interest. Thank for for responding.
I will keep ‘em coming!
Contemplating a wholly new form of governance is no small thing. It’s been said that for the Information Age, a wholly new political system has to be devised. But no one knows what that should be at this point, if that is in fact the case. I can only state that at this point the federal government is not working as it ought to, and that there should be a redistribution of various responsibilities downward to states and localities. What that would do is leave the federal government with fewer responsibilities, but they would be able to carry those responsibilities with greater effectiveness.
I used to believe strongly in such a solution, and I continue to do so solely as an interim measure. But ultimately, smaller units of government suffer from the same problems as any other. They are fundamentally coercive and non-consensual, and thus morally impermissible and prone to harder tyranny eventually.
"But no one knows what that should be at this point"
—There are a lot of ideas out there. We cannot know for sure unless we try.