So I read managerial class on trial, and I wanted to return here to say that populism combined with a rhetorical attack on the idea of popular sovereignty might be a recipe for success. The entire notion of sovereignty is artificial no? In the U.S. our declaration of independence seems to be a fierce repudiation of the idea of any kind of sovereignty, personal or popular. In the U.S. we also have a constitution that explicitly forbids a lot of the stuff that the managerial class needs to maintain its foothold. A playbook is needed...
>For purposes here, it doesn’t matter which side you believe is the aggressor.
Lol
>Though of course the obvious objection to this line of strategy would be to say non-violence, passive-resistance, is all fine and good, but look at what finally happened to the truckers.
Yarvin's take is that an overwhelming force is non-violent, its dominance is so undisputed that there is no room for "trial by violence". It is above violence, so to speak. One of the main problems with the truckers was that there was no sufficient force in their protest. In that sense it was non-violent because it was below violence.
The managerial class faction you're talking about stepping up and taking over has already identified itself, within government and private sector: it's the unvaccinated. They're the group who has demonstrated the ability to thinking critically and not fall into groupthink (not all obviously) about COVID and the lies and manipulation from the current crop of elites. They're already in the system and have taken a big step in pushing back against that system. Those are the very people you're talking about, and they have already identified themselves by using the processes and procedures against the elites in order to stand up for themselves, colleagues without a voice, and more balanced ideals. I suspect that is why the deep state is fighting back so hard against the unvaccinated in courts (such as the Feds of Med Freedom and Liberty Counsel cases). I believe the elites just see this as a threat to their authority, but their actions in fighting the unvaccinated has made it more. And because Office of Personnel Management is creating a database of the unvaccinated who work for the government, they've identified those people for purging. Seen in another light, that database is the list of people you would want in change of the administrative state.
When Obama was in power, he fired somewhere around 300-400 Admirals and Generals from the military; some fired outright, others forced into retirement, many other retired because they saw the writing on the wall and just quit. This power vacuum enabled the rise of the woke military you see now. Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds blog ( https://oftwominds.com/blog.html) has a very good post titled "Can a Nation Prosper as its Institutions Fail?" published February 1, 2022 wherein he talks about the "Lifecycle of Bureaucracy" and it makes an excellent point about the competent leaving or retiring as an institution fails. I would also highly suggest you check out his newest book, "Global Crisis, National Renewal," because you and he are kindred spirits in this effort. Back to my point, Obama's purges caused the good ones to go, and allowed the bad ones to move up and into power. Trump's failure was that he didn't purge when he had the chance, and now the cancer has metastasized which will necessitate an even deeper cut in the future. I have long advocated for the next President to use the ability to fire any and all Senior Executive Service personnel in the federal government because they're all "at will" employees like the private sector; the GS employees are deliberately harder to fire, but the Seniors can be removed with the swipe of a pen. All of the Generals and Admirals need to go as well. I have long thought about how do you replace the top echelon of leaders and repopulate it with personnel who aren't pathological... and this post of yours crystalized it in my mind what the answer is: you double or triple promote the unvaccinated up into those leadership positions. They already know the institution, its processes, and its operations; and they're most likely those who have chaffed the most at woke ideology, authoritarianism within the government (because they've experienced it first hand from their bosses).... the very group you were searching for.
I don't think it's true that leaderless movements have a particularly high resistance to pathocratic capture. The problem is that some degree of coordination is necessary. In the absence of a formal leadership cadre, coordination tends to be provided by charismatic figures able to capture attention in online media. While these figures can't give orders, their words carry a degree of weight amongst the masses of less prominent participants. Since essentially anyone can throw their hat into the ring, it's ridiculously easy for establishment agents to become de facto leaders of the movement and then to lead it right off a cliff.
Occupy Wall Street is an excellent case study in this dynamic. Occupy prided itself on its decentralized, anarchic organizational structure. This had the advantage of making the movement very fluid and versatile in the early days - a similar dynamic was observed in the Convoy.
It did not take long, however, for Occupy to be infiltrated by activists who worked to shut down anyone who was making a constructive suggestion (usually on the grounds that they were white guys), and to redirect the movement's focus away from anger at the 1% and towards the racial, sexual, and gender issues that have divided our society ever since. Soon enough, people began to drift away, the energy was sucked out, and then the police were able to mop up what remained with no one really caring that much.
A similar analysis might - I say might because I don't know enough to say - be applicable to the Yellow Vests, another decentralized protest movement that objectively failed (although I'm that case, the coronavirus lockdowns likely played a considerable role).
So I read managerial class on trial, and I wanted to return here to say that populism combined with a rhetorical attack on the idea of popular sovereignty might be a recipe for success. The entire notion of sovereignty is artificial no? In the U.S. our declaration of independence seems to be a fierce repudiation of the idea of any kind of sovereignty, personal or popular. In the U.S. we also have a constitution that explicitly forbids a lot of the stuff that the managerial class needs to maintain its foothold. A playbook is needed...
>For purposes here, it doesn’t matter which side you believe is the aggressor.
Lol
>Though of course the obvious objection to this line of strategy would be to say non-violence, passive-resistance, is all fine and good, but look at what finally happened to the truckers.
Yarvin's take is that an overwhelming force is non-violent, its dominance is so undisputed that there is no room for "trial by violence". It is above violence, so to speak. One of the main problems with the truckers was that there was no sufficient force in their protest. In that sense it was non-violent because it was below violence.
The managerial class faction you're talking about stepping up and taking over has already identified itself, within government and private sector: it's the unvaccinated. They're the group who has demonstrated the ability to thinking critically and not fall into groupthink (not all obviously) about COVID and the lies and manipulation from the current crop of elites. They're already in the system and have taken a big step in pushing back against that system. Those are the very people you're talking about, and they have already identified themselves by using the processes and procedures against the elites in order to stand up for themselves, colleagues without a voice, and more balanced ideals. I suspect that is why the deep state is fighting back so hard against the unvaccinated in courts (such as the Feds of Med Freedom and Liberty Counsel cases). I believe the elites just see this as a threat to their authority, but their actions in fighting the unvaccinated has made it more. And because Office of Personnel Management is creating a database of the unvaccinated who work for the government, they've identified those people for purging. Seen in another light, that database is the list of people you would want in change of the administrative state.
When Obama was in power, he fired somewhere around 300-400 Admirals and Generals from the military; some fired outright, others forced into retirement, many other retired because they saw the writing on the wall and just quit. This power vacuum enabled the rise of the woke military you see now. Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds blog ( https://oftwominds.com/blog.html) has a very good post titled "Can a Nation Prosper as its Institutions Fail?" published February 1, 2022 wherein he talks about the "Lifecycle of Bureaucracy" and it makes an excellent point about the competent leaving or retiring as an institution fails. I would also highly suggest you check out his newest book, "Global Crisis, National Renewal," because you and he are kindred spirits in this effort. Back to my point, Obama's purges caused the good ones to go, and allowed the bad ones to move up and into power. Trump's failure was that he didn't purge when he had the chance, and now the cancer has metastasized which will necessitate an even deeper cut in the future. I have long advocated for the next President to use the ability to fire any and all Senior Executive Service personnel in the federal government because they're all "at will" employees like the private sector; the GS employees are deliberately harder to fire, but the Seniors can be removed with the swipe of a pen. All of the Generals and Admirals need to go as well. I have long thought about how do you replace the top echelon of leaders and repopulate it with personnel who aren't pathological... and this post of yours crystalized it in my mind what the answer is: you double or triple promote the unvaccinated up into those leadership positions. They already know the institution, its processes, and its operations; and they're most likely those who have chaffed the most at woke ideology, authoritarianism within the government (because they've experienced it first hand from their bosses).... the very group you were searching for.
I don't think it's true that leaderless movements have a particularly high resistance to pathocratic capture. The problem is that some degree of coordination is necessary. In the absence of a formal leadership cadre, coordination tends to be provided by charismatic figures able to capture attention in online media. While these figures can't give orders, their words carry a degree of weight amongst the masses of less prominent participants. Since essentially anyone can throw their hat into the ring, it's ridiculously easy for establishment agents to become de facto leaders of the movement and then to lead it right off a cliff.
Occupy Wall Street is an excellent case study in this dynamic. Occupy prided itself on its decentralized, anarchic organizational structure. This had the advantage of making the movement very fluid and versatile in the early days - a similar dynamic was observed in the Convoy.
It did not take long, however, for Occupy to be infiltrated by activists who worked to shut down anyone who was making a constructive suggestion (usually on the grounds that they were white guys), and to redirect the movement's focus away from anger at the 1% and towards the racial, sexual, and gender issues that have divided our society ever since. Soon enough, people began to drift away, the energy was sucked out, and then the police were able to mop up what remained with no one really caring that much.
A similar analysis might - I say might because I don't know enough to say - be applicable to the Yellow Vests, another decentralized protest movement that objectively failed (although I'm that case, the coronavirus lockdowns likely played a considerable role).