2012 September 05 Wednesday
Elections As A Distraction And Sanctification Of Ideas
Thinking about the constrained range in which issues get debated during US elections. My thoughts on this: Nothing can get on the election agenda that is not already part of the mainstream discussion. Elections are between competing sets of ideas. The realistic ideas are not allowed into the discussion. So realistic and useful ideas about fundamental problems do not compete and do not become part of the election agenda.
Elections are for sanctifying already competitive ideas. Elections are a distraction from the earlier stages of policy and idea development in the public sphere. Our problems lie at much earlier stages.
The bottom line is, Anti-Whites own both parties. There is a very narrow scope of Politically Correct ideas that can be discussed, things that fit within our State Religion (yes, PC is a state religion - not LIKE a religion, but it is EXACTLY a religion - if you deny certain things or make statements that violate its tennets, you can be put in jail all over Europe and even in the US. Children are indoctrinated in it from before age 6. That is the power of a State Religion).
Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society is the start of a plausible promise around which an open source insurgency could crystallize.
The practicalities of assortative migration in support of free scientific society probably must be addressed as part of the plausible promise. The best approach I have come up with is to place all legally protected assets under a competitive bidding system where the highest bid in escrow establishes a liquidation value to be assessed a tax at the risk free interest rate with the resulting revenue paid out equally in a continuous citizen's dividend stream paid out to all adults so that they can afford to relocate. Relocation is rendered assortative by a jury-determined assessment of environmental damages resulting from the presence of any activity or type of entity in their environment that they deem damaging. Military and police enforcement of property rights under such a system could be Swiss-style -- without a standing army nor even a formal police force.
Sorry folks, but attempts to reform a political system that engages in behavior like this or this is silly.
The problem with movements like the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement or Anonymous or Wikileaks, is that their all bullshit. They say but they don't act. At first one would suddenly feel like joining them; like they would mean a real fight to make all those pricks in power have more respect for the people.
Every real political and economic change in the History of the World has been by means of violence. There's no other way. Maybe it's not what we'd like to believe but all those peaceful "protests" are worth dick.
The peaceful protestors are a necessary part of radical (but not truly revolutionary) change. Typically you have a violent faction and a faction committed to peaceful means, and if the violent faction is strong enough then the powers that be will be willing to negotiate with the peaceful one in order to destroy support for violence without legitimizing it. One example of this is the Civil Rights movement. Another is Gandhi. In both cases history gives credit to the peaceful advocates, but Gandhi would have rotted in a cell had there not been a howling mob of Hindu fanatics willing to do violence in such a case.
Of course if the violent are strong enough they can overthrow the existing power structure, but that obviously is more difficult.
"Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable", said JFK; but the underappreciated flip side is that those who threaten violent revolution make peaceful change possible.
Moi: "The problem with movements like the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement or Anonymous or Wikileaks, is that their all bullshit."
I know the tea party type.
Those where the assholes who called me a terrorist sympathizer during the Bush years because I opposed his out-of-control spending. They only have a problem when its a member of the blue team doing the spending. When the Red team does it, its not worth worrying about.