Adam - I appreciate your responding. My comments may seem impolitic or
abrasive at times, but please understand I take these issues as having
life-and-death importance to humanity - my interest is not academic and my
words are directed at the ideas expressed, not at the respected citizen who
typed them in.
10/02/97, Adam K. Webb wrote:
> I question the optimism regarding how responsive the mechanical
>90% of the world system is. If it were purely a question of changing
>personnel at the helm, we should be optimistic about electoral mechanisms.
>What about bureaucratic resistance every step of the way...?
My main point here is that the (more or less) cognitive-10% can be analyzed
separately from the (more or less) mechanical-90%. (Encircling the castle,
for example, is a different kind of operation from laying seige.) Both may
be tough nuts, but our strategic options are greater if we consider them
separately.
Whether the strategy for the 90% is to reform or replace it, "we" certainly
have greater leverage if control of the 10% command structure is achieved
first.
I believe we have clear historical examples showing the power of a
seize-command approach. If you compare the UK under Thatcher/Major with UK
under the postwar semi-socialist governments, you see quite different
deployments of social resources. In each case there may have been
resistance from bureaucratic hold-overs, but it acted only as an annoying
retarder, not as a decisive direction-changer.
Globalist policies are alienating more and more segments of the citizenry
worldwide - I'd expect bureaucratic support rather than resistance to more
progressive command policies. Government employees are not necessarily
enamored of the policies they're currently forced to execute.
As for "electoral mechanisms"... why is this so lightly dismissed? I
envision a day when elections are no more, and my grandaughter asks me "You
mean you had the vote and you didn't try to legally organize to use it
effectively?" What will I tell her?... "You had to be there to understand
our blindness, dear."
To wait for armageddon is like the Christians waiting for heaven -
and there's no evidence for safe passage in either case. To wait for
"things to get worse" is ludicrous - they're already more than bad enough:
and the media will always succeed in making things seem "better than they
might otherwise be". To say "conditions are too difficult for electoral
revolution" is no good either: just try organizing guerilla bands under
fire and see if you don't wish for the good old days we have now -
re/possibility of peaceful transformation.
>It seems there would have to be a radical displacement of the entire
>structure AS A STRUCTURE, subsequently allowing cooperative individuals
>back into the administrative system only AS INDIVIDUALS.
This was by no means established. The bureaucratic-bit was a minor point
and was weakly argued. Stronger arguments can be made that the
mechanical-90% is in need of radical change (eg- it isn't ecologically
sustainable) but that's still a long way from proving that demolition is
the necessary first step.
Even for simple engineering systems, you build a prototype and then
user-test it. There are always unforseen problems that it's better to fix
before deploying more widely. Why do people assume big problems are easier
to fix than little problems, or that the approach should be particularly
different?
>Granted, there
>are some transitional considerations about initially using existing
>administrative chains of command for maintaining basic order, but
>presumably that would last a few expedient weeks at most until other
>temporary structures were in place.
Excuse me, but what naivety! I invite you to reorganize your university in
a few expedient weeks, and then re-evaluate the above estimate.
>Furthermore, destabilising the system
>and creating chaos very well could be in the interests of revolution,
>insofar as people would welcome the return of order.
Sounds more like a formula for fascism - or at best a spin of a very
crooked wheel. It's the military that is best prepared to survive chaos
with command intact.
---Where does this all-to-common fixation on armageddon come from? Is it a psychological symptom of unacknowledged resignment to hopelessness? Does anyone try to imagine what system breakdown would actually be like? Where does the notion come from that this could lead to anything other than some kind of warlord rule? Primitive man with modern weapons, what a combination. See Mad Max.
My recommendation: take on the social-economic-political challenge of programming a non-disruptive evolutionary morph of system 1 to system 2. That's exactly the strategy being followed for the implementation of the globalist regime, by the way. And if those guys understand anything, it's organization and change thereof.
rkm