It is important to note that even anarchists are among fabians and the trade unions are in their very core corrupted, although there are many people who are uncorrupted who are anarchists and trade unionists. The same is true for the church in its institutional forms. The same is true for those who fund/lead patriot/nationalist movements. There are way more good people than inverted ones. But the inverted ones have manipulated every sings sector of society.
“New Detroit was billed as a “new urban coalition,” as it included representatives of the working class and the African American community. However the group was neverthe less dominated, and bankrolled by the city’s oligarchs.”
An idealistic statement for sure. Often, among the idealistic believers there is a fanatical pursuit that is single minded. Belief in itself is problematic as it is exclusive. Diversity is what makes life so interesting as shown by nature. Our ad attempts to control others with our belief systems leads to schemes such as the WEF agenda.
We need to stop defining intelligence as “book learning”. Intuitive and emotional intelligence need be given equal space of perception. Then we will make more compassionate decisions. Balance is the key. There will always be problems within any society. If wisdom from a balanced perspective is respected then we will have better leaders. Getting to that point will take a more mature humanity. I am not a Buddhist but do look to their psychology of humans for guidance. Nothing can be forced.
Hence the reason why the cabal expend so much effort on division and inciting factionalism - through cognitive infiltration and agents provocateurs. Subversion, in other words. It is, really, necessary for them to do this.
Likewise, they also spend an inordinate amount of time infiltrating all the specific types mentioned in the article and inciting as much corruption (and misdirected energies) as possible.
Given this is the playbook, the counter-subversive method is quite clear. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say. Revelation of the method.
This, I'd say, is what would ultimately lead to the convergence of the uncorrupted. You're right - I think it's the thing they fear the most...
Do you not see the danger in defining yourself and fellow travellers as "the uncorrupted?" How is this any different from "God's chosen people" "woke" "ubermenschen" or "New Soviet Man?"
Who gets to decide who "the uncorrupted" are? You? On what basis?
"Let’s first look at IQ, or general intelligence. In order to be able to deal with seriously complicated work or get through a real university program, an IQ of about 125 is necessary. Only about 5% of the population in the West has this IQ or higher. This means that the pool of potentially high-level competence people is very small to begin with. Even if we use a cut-off of an IQ of 115, which is sufficient for most semi-complicated work, the potential pool only goes up to 16% of the population."
Let's be generous and use 16% here. What this is saying in that fully 84% of humanity are incapable of running a modern industrial economy. That's not a measure of their education, it's the limit of their capacity to learn. I know egalitarians don't like this line of reasoning because it harkens back to the eugenicists clustered around Nazi Germany and who plague us to this day, but without recognition of the fact that we're dealing with people who need leadership in order to achieve anything above a subsistence level existence, then any project aimed at liberating the masses from the grasp of our evil overlords is bound to fail because they KNOW who that 16% (or 5%) are and have successfully co-opted most of them. Those are the same people who the 84% will eliminated out of pure revenge in a peasant's revolt or communist revolution, and then what? You still have to run the economy, but you just killed off the only people capable of doing that.
Leaving aside the point that "corruption" is an abstract noun lacking a precise definition (I know it when I see it, but do we both see the same thing?) let's not overlook the fact that a fundamental precept of the major religions is that we're ALL corrupt. This is the point where religion and natural science intersect. Nature in its most basic form is about survival. All creatures, man included, seek their own survival and will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. Survival of the species, which follows from that first principle, implies some form of social organization to defend itself, not just against other tribes or species, but against the vagaries of Nature herself. Given the uneven distribution of intelligence in our species, this implies a need for leadership, from which arises a hierarchy of relative competence. It's when leadership renounces its obligation to the tribe, society or nation, that corruption rears its ugly head, all the way down to the lowest levels. I think we've seen a pretty good example of how this works over the last 3 or 4 years.
What I see Anarchists arguing for is that leadership isn't necessary. That some sort of (as yet undefined) self-organizing principle is sufficient, but where's the historic example? Never mind history, what's the biological basis on which this ideal is premised? An even distribution of the intelligence needed to sustain such a society? No evidence for that.
My argument is that we are lacking leadership, not that there's an excess of it. There's an excess of tyrants these days, no doubt about that, but I wouldn't call them leaders. So the next question is how do you go about developing leadership? Certainly not by renouncing the basic principle, which is what I see Anarchists doing. Ironically, I see the same underlying impulse in self-declared anarchists as I do in the conservative right. "Nobody's going to tell me how to live my life."
You got upset with me when I chastised anarchists for being undisciplined. You claimed they were at the forefront of social movements, for which I asked you to present examples. Leaving aside the irony of claiming that anarchists play a leadership role in social movements, it's not what I've seen. From 1975 to 1980 I did volunteer work for a human rights organization my ex-wife was employed by, of which she's now the director. Their main goal was resettling political refugees from Latin America, mainly Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Argentina. Victims of the CIA's dirty wars for the most part. Pretty horrific stuff. We had Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, Christians and Jews on our staff, but no anarchists. I'm pretty sure of that because we all hung together and discussed our political views and the topic never came up. Not once. So where were you guys when all this was going on?
The only serious historic change brought about by anarchists that I'm aware of was ironically the murder of one of the great reformers of the 19th Century, Czar Nicholas II, a man who took responsibility for reform of Russian society against a myriad of competing interests opposed to that. A genuine leader, and your guys murdered him. How did that work out?
I love the essence of your article...
It is important to note that even anarchists are among fabians and the trade unions are in their very core corrupted, although there are many people who are uncorrupted who are anarchists and trade unionists. The same is true for the church in its institutional forms. The same is true for those who fund/lead patriot/nationalist movements. There are way more good people than inverted ones. But the inverted ones have manipulated every sings sector of society.
“New Detroit was billed as a “new urban coalition,” as it included representatives of the working class and the African American community. However the group was neverthe less dominated, and bankrolled by the city’s oligarchs.”
One Nation Under Blackmail v. 2 p 75
An idealistic statement for sure. Often, among the idealistic believers there is a fanatical pursuit that is single minded. Belief in itself is problematic as it is exclusive. Diversity is what makes life so interesting as shown by nature. Our ad attempts to control others with our belief systems leads to schemes such as the WEF agenda.
We need to stop defining intelligence as “book learning”. Intuitive and emotional intelligence need be given equal space of perception. Then we will make more compassionate decisions. Balance is the key. There will always be problems within any society. If wisdom from a balanced perspective is respected then we will have better leaders. Getting to that point will take a more mature humanity. I am not a Buddhist but do look to their psychology of humans for guidance. Nothing can be forced.
Hence the reason why the cabal expend so much effort on division and inciting factionalism - through cognitive infiltration and agents provocateurs. Subversion, in other words. It is, really, necessary for them to do this.
Likewise, they also spend an inordinate amount of time infiltrating all the specific types mentioned in the article and inciting as much corruption (and misdirected energies) as possible.
Given this is the playbook, the counter-subversive method is quite clear. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say. Revelation of the method.
This, I'd say, is what would ultimately lead to the convergence of the uncorrupted. You're right - I think it's the thing they fear the most...
Do you not see the danger in defining yourself and fellow travellers as "the uncorrupted?" How is this any different from "God's chosen people" "woke" "ubermenschen" or "New Soviet Man?"
Who gets to decide who "the uncorrupted" are? You? On what basis?
https://gaiusbaltar.substack.com/p/why-is-the-west-so-weak-and-russia
"Let’s first look at IQ, or general intelligence. In order to be able to deal with seriously complicated work or get through a real university program, an IQ of about 125 is necessary. Only about 5% of the population in the West has this IQ or higher. This means that the pool of potentially high-level competence people is very small to begin with. Even if we use a cut-off of an IQ of 115, which is sufficient for most semi-complicated work, the potential pool only goes up to 16% of the population."
Let's be generous and use 16% here. What this is saying in that fully 84% of humanity are incapable of running a modern industrial economy. That's not a measure of their education, it's the limit of their capacity to learn. I know egalitarians don't like this line of reasoning because it harkens back to the eugenicists clustered around Nazi Germany and who plague us to this day, but without recognition of the fact that we're dealing with people who need leadership in order to achieve anything above a subsistence level existence, then any project aimed at liberating the masses from the grasp of our evil overlords is bound to fail because they KNOW who that 16% (or 5%) are and have successfully co-opted most of them. Those are the same people who the 84% will eliminated out of pure revenge in a peasant's revolt or communist revolution, and then what? You still have to run the economy, but you just killed off the only people capable of doing that.
Leaving aside the point that "corruption" is an abstract noun lacking a precise definition (I know it when I see it, but do we both see the same thing?) let's not overlook the fact that a fundamental precept of the major religions is that we're ALL corrupt. This is the point where religion and natural science intersect. Nature in its most basic form is about survival. All creatures, man included, seek their own survival and will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. Survival of the species, which follows from that first principle, implies some form of social organization to defend itself, not just against other tribes or species, but against the vagaries of Nature herself. Given the uneven distribution of intelligence in our species, this implies a need for leadership, from which arises a hierarchy of relative competence. It's when leadership renounces its obligation to the tribe, society or nation, that corruption rears its ugly head, all the way down to the lowest levels. I think we've seen a pretty good example of how this works over the last 3 or 4 years.
What I see Anarchists arguing for is that leadership isn't necessary. That some sort of (as yet undefined) self-organizing principle is sufficient, but where's the historic example? Never mind history, what's the biological basis on which this ideal is premised? An even distribution of the intelligence needed to sustain such a society? No evidence for that.
My argument is that we are lacking leadership, not that there's an excess of it. There's an excess of tyrants these days, no doubt about that, but I wouldn't call them leaders. So the next question is how do you go about developing leadership? Certainly not by renouncing the basic principle, which is what I see Anarchists doing. Ironically, I see the same underlying impulse in self-declared anarchists as I do in the conservative right. "Nobody's going to tell me how to live my life."
You got upset with me when I chastised anarchists for being undisciplined. You claimed they were at the forefront of social movements, for which I asked you to present examples. Leaving aside the irony of claiming that anarchists play a leadership role in social movements, it's not what I've seen. From 1975 to 1980 I did volunteer work for a human rights organization my ex-wife was employed by, of which she's now the director. Their main goal was resettling political refugees from Latin America, mainly Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Argentina. Victims of the CIA's dirty wars for the most part. Pretty horrific stuff. We had Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, Christians and Jews on our staff, but no anarchists. I'm pretty sure of that because we all hung together and discussed our political views and the topic never came up. Not once. So where were you guys when all this was going on?
The only serious historic change brought about by anarchists that I'm aware of was ironically the murder of one of the great reformers of the 19th Century, Czar Nicholas II, a man who took responsibility for reform of Russian society against a myriad of competing interests opposed to that. A genuine leader, and your guys murdered him. How did that work out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia