Thank you for your well phrased tribute. The Wikileaks reveal of DNC and Podesta emails started my journey towards truth, and I appreciate JA very much for his sacrifice.
I remember a challenge on the chans to find one email among the lot that actually addressed public interest. Not a single one could be found. The administrative state is solely about mongering power and money.
So, basically you are a believer in old-style feudalism (i.e., it's a matter of 'meet the new boss -- same as the old boss')? I ask because you write,
"With respect to #3, perhaps transparency at all costs will lead to a better future for all down the road, but a non-productive elite using guile and military might to secure the excess production of farmers has existed universally since the neolithic agricultural revolution. It is simply human nature. There isn’t going to be a kumbaya moment where the masses are smart and dedicated enough to prevent this kind of elite grifting from occurring; rather, the important thing to me seems to be supporting an elite that have noblesse oblige to the masses instead of noblesse malice, that promotes values of greatness, honor, nobility, and strength of purpose instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, and ties responsibility to power, which is only possible with a king or dictator versus an oligarchy. An oligarchy will stick figureheads in power while they operate behind the scenes to crush the population in order to suck it dry; but a king or dictator knows that ultimately they will be held responsible to the public, and therefore they will try to deliver better results to the masses than an oligarchy. By Assange pushing for transparency at all costs, I think he may have gone up against too fundamental of a drive of human nature. "
There are a whole lot of assumptions are expressed in that statement above, assumptions evidently not held by people like Assange. For some recent reports on the positive influence of transparency, see https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/the-state-of-the-contest?. Kumbaya one step at a time -- same as it ever was.
I will check out the link, thanks for sharing. It's not that I'm a believer in old-style feudalism per se as I think it is inevitable, although we have some say in how it manifests... Generally "democracy" throughout history just meant control via oligarchy. The freedom afforded in America for a couple hundred years was, in my opinion, due to a vast and mostly uninhabited continent with great natural resources ready for expansion and exploitation, something we aren't going to see again - on this planet, at least.
Rather than see this all as a foregone conclusion, given an unchangeable human nature, I see this particular period of time as an opportunity to make a shift from former habits and conditions -- and in no way agree, in any case, that human nature is immutable. You may have not noticed, but the 'oligarchy' is really losing it on account of influences like those promoted by Assange, extreme self-delusion, and the various difficulties engendered by changing resource availability. 'They' have encountered a bottleneck in implementing their business as usual procedures. It's a "Live by the sword, die by the sword" situation for 'them'.
I see an oligarchy which historically ruled by soft power transitioning to an oligarchy ruling by hard power, i.e. boots on our faces. I don't see a bottleneck in this regard. Trump is facing 90 charges and 1,000+ of his most dedicated allies are now in prison, central bank digital currencies are on the verge of being rolled out, major metropolitan areas are rapidly pushing forward with the 2030 agenda to have everyone live in high density urban pods, free speech has been squelched, we have woke AI roaming the internet, upcoming 2024 rigged elections, etc...I'm curious re: your contention why you believe human nature is not immutable and where you are seeing a bottleneck in their implementing their agenda, though.
The Cliff Notes answer to why I believe human nature is not immutable: even at the worst of times and under the worst of conditions, humans can learn (and remember) remarkably well and relatively rapidly adjust themselves accordingly. The main operand in the bottleneck function I posit is very recently mentioned elsewhere (https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/decolonisation-and-how-the-elites): "This modern strain of decolonisation draws substantially from postmodern and poststructuralist thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Edward Said. Building on Marxist concepts, it rejects Enlightenment notions of objective truth, universal science, and an external reality beyond human perception. Instead, postmodernism contends all knowledge and morality are socially constructed, contingent on one's culture or position in society. No immutable facts exist beyond competing power dynamics." These named contentions are over the long run entirely empty and absolutely impotent bullshit, no matter the temporary state of "competing power dynamics". An example of how this bottleneck already applies? Despite Trump facing 90 'word attacks' and 1000+ of his most dedicated allies now being in prison, and despite the rest of the happy-happy rigamarole of those vaingloriously wielding "competing power" right now, where is the hard power you speak of in America when those who might want to wield such power are themselves doing their damndest to destroy such power? Surely, you know that the basic nature of all branches of the US military has abruptly changed since 2020 because of its infection with 'postmodernism' policies. Surely you have heard that the traditional conservative state dominant sources of new military recruits have all but dried up? Surely you realize that people like Trump's most dedicated allies won't continue to make the same sort of over-trusting mistakes as they did in 'J6'? The 'oligarchy' makes a very lousy boxer, so blatantly and carelessly does it telegraph its intent -- and then it punches itself in its own face.
Hi Larry, thank you for your response. I don't think the U.S. military has fundamentally changed in 2020. The skinsuiting of the military has been a very long-term project dating back to at least before the Second World War. I encourage you to look at the treatment of General George Van Horn Moseley or General Patton by globohomo to get an inkling for it (the former permanently squelched, the latter assassinated). What has happened over the past 50+ years is globohomo-backed generals have taken over the military -- all generals today are pro-globohomo -- while the mid-ranks are a mix and the low ranks are generally right-leaning. What happened during COVID is the most dissident, independent thinkers were weeded out by refusing the heart attack jab, a purge that has also taken place in police departments. Yes, recruitment into the military has declined substantially, but it doen't seem like something globohomo is really worried about despite the military branches expressing concern.
I would also encourage you to look at American opinion polls prior to entering WW1 and WW2 -- the public was overwhelmingly against entering both wars, 90% of the population, until globohomo essentially conjured the unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in WW1 and for Pearl Harbor in WW2. They can conjure up another such narrative if they want; there is no limit to what the public will believe in my opinion. This is what I mean by human nature being immutable; most people simply listen to authority figures, period...
I have upcoming posts delving into some of this stuff. Regarding "Trump's most dedicated allies", 2024 will be rigged against Trump if he isn't in prison before then just like 2022 and 2020 were, so I wouldn't put much hope in that approach...
Re: fundamental change in military; i.e., whether or not things have changed markedly there since 2020. Do you also think that the Bud Light snafu was in the making for some 50+ years, too? It's entirely possible, but then I think there's a concept in analystical chemistry that you might be familiar with that applies here in support of what I've said -- titration endpoint. In chemical reactions, events move slowly with no marked system change for the longest time as some new 'opposing' reactant is added to a system because the reactants already present in the system combine and then neutralize or balance the effect of the new entrant, but when things reach the endpoint where no further balancing interaction between reactants is possible because of complete exhaustion of the original reactants -- wham, things change in the system extremely quickly with even the smallest addition of more of the new reactant. I believe exactly this sort of thing also happens politically and culturally. After cultural or political endpoints have been reached, I suggest that this is when most people no longer simply listen to authority figures, abruptly quit buying Bud Light and enlisting in the military, or quit meekly taking their COVID19 boosters...
After political or cultural endpoints have been reached, formerly apparently immutable human nature becomes mutable. New learning takes place even under these most uncomfortable and difficult conditions.
Hi Larry, re: Bud Light, I would encourage you to check out the ticker for Anheuser-Busch: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BUD . It is smack dab in the middle of its 52 week trading range, at the midpoint of where it's been for the past three years -- long before the controversy over Bud Light. Bud Light is just one of dozens of brands that Anheuser-Busch sells, none of the other of which have been subject to boycott. Looking at the chart, one would not believe that any boycott was taking place at all. What kind of boycott is this? It's a media driven one without meaningful results, in my opinion...It's the same reason why no one focuses on the wide open southern border with 3-5 million illegals streaming across yearly now, or more -- because the media chooses what to cover, what to highlight or downplay, and what they focus on becomes reality for most people, without any equivocation or caveats....re: 2024, as long as we have permanent institutionalized vote by mail, mass voter harvesting, electronic Dominion machines, and good old fashioned paper ballot fraud in Democrat counties in swing states, I don't think any of these so-called polls matter, but that's just me. I would prefer you to be right!
Time and further cultural titration will tell who is right, of course. As to Bud Light -- the event was very real and indicative, notwithstanding the finanical weight of the rest of AB's brands. I also note Texas has effectively managed to bypass media influence and get past their studied lack of objective reporting by shipping 'immigrants' to the hitherto insular northeasterners.
Thank you for your well phrased tribute. The Wikileaks reveal of DNC and Podesta emails started my journey towards truth, and I appreciate JA very much for his sacrifice.
I remember a challenge on the chans to find one email among the lot that actually addressed public interest. Not a single one could be found. The administrative state is solely about mongering power and money.
Awesome, inspiring, beautiful and well-researched tribute. Thank you.
Awesome work, As usual!
So, basically you are a believer in old-style feudalism (i.e., it's a matter of 'meet the new boss -- same as the old boss')? I ask because you write,
"With respect to #3, perhaps transparency at all costs will lead to a better future for all down the road, but a non-productive elite using guile and military might to secure the excess production of farmers has existed universally since the neolithic agricultural revolution. It is simply human nature. There isn’t going to be a kumbaya moment where the masses are smart and dedicated enough to prevent this kind of elite grifting from occurring; rather, the important thing to me seems to be supporting an elite that have noblesse oblige to the masses instead of noblesse malice, that promotes values of greatness, honor, nobility, and strength of purpose instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, and ties responsibility to power, which is only possible with a king or dictator versus an oligarchy. An oligarchy will stick figureheads in power while they operate behind the scenes to crush the population in order to suck it dry; but a king or dictator knows that ultimately they will be held responsible to the public, and therefore they will try to deliver better results to the masses than an oligarchy. By Assange pushing for transparency at all costs, I think he may have gone up against too fundamental of a drive of human nature. "
There are a whole lot of assumptions are expressed in that statement above, assumptions evidently not held by people like Assange. For some recent reports on the positive influence of transparency, see https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/the-state-of-the-contest?. Kumbaya one step at a time -- same as it ever was.
I will check out the link, thanks for sharing. It's not that I'm a believer in old-style feudalism per se as I think it is inevitable, although we have some say in how it manifests... Generally "democracy" throughout history just meant control via oligarchy. The freedom afforded in America for a couple hundred years was, in my opinion, due to a vast and mostly uninhabited continent with great natural resources ready for expansion and exploitation, something we aren't going to see again - on this planet, at least.
Rather than see this all as a foregone conclusion, given an unchangeable human nature, I see this particular period of time as an opportunity to make a shift from former habits and conditions -- and in no way agree, in any case, that human nature is immutable. You may have not noticed, but the 'oligarchy' is really losing it on account of influences like those promoted by Assange, extreme self-delusion, and the various difficulties engendered by changing resource availability. 'They' have encountered a bottleneck in implementing their business as usual procedures. It's a "Live by the sword, die by the sword" situation for 'them'.
I see an oligarchy which historically ruled by soft power transitioning to an oligarchy ruling by hard power, i.e. boots on our faces. I don't see a bottleneck in this regard. Trump is facing 90 charges and 1,000+ of his most dedicated allies are now in prison, central bank digital currencies are on the verge of being rolled out, major metropolitan areas are rapidly pushing forward with the 2030 agenda to have everyone live in high density urban pods, free speech has been squelched, we have woke AI roaming the internet, upcoming 2024 rigged elections, etc...I'm curious re: your contention why you believe human nature is not immutable and where you are seeing a bottleneck in their implementing their agenda, though.
The Cliff Notes answer to why I believe human nature is not immutable: even at the worst of times and under the worst of conditions, humans can learn (and remember) remarkably well and relatively rapidly adjust themselves accordingly. The main operand in the bottleneck function I posit is very recently mentioned elsewhere (https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/decolonisation-and-how-the-elites): "This modern strain of decolonisation draws substantially from postmodern and poststructuralist thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Edward Said. Building on Marxist concepts, it rejects Enlightenment notions of objective truth, universal science, and an external reality beyond human perception. Instead, postmodernism contends all knowledge and morality are socially constructed, contingent on one's culture or position in society. No immutable facts exist beyond competing power dynamics." These named contentions are over the long run entirely empty and absolutely impotent bullshit, no matter the temporary state of "competing power dynamics". An example of how this bottleneck already applies? Despite Trump facing 90 'word attacks' and 1000+ of his most dedicated allies now being in prison, and despite the rest of the happy-happy rigamarole of those vaingloriously wielding "competing power" right now, where is the hard power you speak of in America when those who might want to wield such power are themselves doing their damndest to destroy such power? Surely, you know that the basic nature of all branches of the US military has abruptly changed since 2020 because of its infection with 'postmodernism' policies. Surely you have heard that the traditional conservative state dominant sources of new military recruits have all but dried up? Surely you realize that people like Trump's most dedicated allies won't continue to make the same sort of over-trusting mistakes as they did in 'J6'? The 'oligarchy' makes a very lousy boxer, so blatantly and carelessly does it telegraph its intent -- and then it punches itself in its own face.
Hi Larry, thank you for your response. I don't think the U.S. military has fundamentally changed in 2020. The skinsuiting of the military has been a very long-term project dating back to at least before the Second World War. I encourage you to look at the treatment of General George Van Horn Moseley or General Patton by globohomo to get an inkling for it (the former permanently squelched, the latter assassinated). What has happened over the past 50+ years is globohomo-backed generals have taken over the military -- all generals today are pro-globohomo -- while the mid-ranks are a mix and the low ranks are generally right-leaning. What happened during COVID is the most dissident, independent thinkers were weeded out by refusing the heart attack jab, a purge that has also taken place in police departments. Yes, recruitment into the military has declined substantially, but it doen't seem like something globohomo is really worried about despite the military branches expressing concern.
I would also encourage you to look at American opinion polls prior to entering WW1 and WW2 -- the public was overwhelmingly against entering both wars, 90% of the population, until globohomo essentially conjured the unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in WW1 and for Pearl Harbor in WW2. They can conjure up another such narrative if they want; there is no limit to what the public will believe in my opinion. This is what I mean by human nature being immutable; most people simply listen to authority figures, period...
I have upcoming posts delving into some of this stuff. Regarding "Trump's most dedicated allies", 2024 will be rigged against Trump if he isn't in prison before then just like 2022 and 2020 were, so I wouldn't put much hope in that approach...
Re: fundamental change in military; i.e., whether or not things have changed markedly there since 2020. Do you also think that the Bud Light snafu was in the making for some 50+ years, too? It's entirely possible, but then I think there's a concept in analystical chemistry that you might be familiar with that applies here in support of what I've said -- titration endpoint. In chemical reactions, events move slowly with no marked system change for the longest time as some new 'opposing' reactant is added to a system because the reactants already present in the system combine and then neutralize or balance the effect of the new entrant, but when things reach the endpoint where no further balancing interaction between reactants is possible because of complete exhaustion of the original reactants -- wham, things change in the system extremely quickly with even the smallest addition of more of the new reactant. I believe exactly this sort of thing also happens politically and culturally. After cultural or political endpoints have been reached, I suggest that this is when most people no longer simply listen to authority figures, abruptly quit buying Bud Light and enlisting in the military, or quit meekly taking their COVID19 boosters...
After political or cultural endpoints have been reached, formerly apparently immutable human nature becomes mutable. New learning takes place even under these most uncomfortable and difficult conditions.
Re: Trump. I think the map shown here is more evidence that the worm is turning, that a definite endpoint has been reached -- see https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1702789158320705569/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1702789158320705569%7Ctwgr%5E34d4118efa2e51bd6d0d36a6474825fe9e57b3ab%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F606027%2F and
Don't count your chickens dead before they have had time to hatch (yet another endpoint).
Hi Larry, re: Bud Light, I would encourage you to check out the ticker for Anheuser-Busch: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BUD . It is smack dab in the middle of its 52 week trading range, at the midpoint of where it's been for the past three years -- long before the controversy over Bud Light. Bud Light is just one of dozens of brands that Anheuser-Busch sells, none of the other of which have been subject to boycott. Looking at the chart, one would not believe that any boycott was taking place at all. What kind of boycott is this? It's a media driven one without meaningful results, in my opinion...It's the same reason why no one focuses on the wide open southern border with 3-5 million illegals streaming across yearly now, or more -- because the media chooses what to cover, what to highlight or downplay, and what they focus on becomes reality for most people, without any equivocation or caveats....re: 2024, as long as we have permanent institutionalized vote by mail, mass voter harvesting, electronic Dominion machines, and good old fashioned paper ballot fraud in Democrat counties in swing states, I don't think any of these so-called polls matter, but that's just me. I would prefer you to be right!
Time and further cultural titration will tell who is right, of course. As to Bud Light -- the event was very real and indicative, notwithstanding the finanical weight of the rest of AB's brands. I also note Texas has effectively managed to bypass media influence and get past their studied lack of objective reporting by shipping 'immigrants' to the hitherto insular northeasterners.