- ∙d.1 – Issue: the 2020 US elections – it is not a question of “drain the swamp” (written in July 2020)
- ∙I.d.2 – Why the development of authoritarianism represents an opportunity it is not just a drama
- d.3 – The need to develop a dimension of effective participation in the government of citizens (bottom-up governance modality)
- d.4 – The need to initiate an effective phase of contrasting leftist strategies
- ∙I.d.5 – Beyond top-down “Democracy”: crowdization of GOVERNANCE
- d.6 – What to do now for the Covid “health dictatorship”?
It is important to understand how and why the current state of authoritarianism on the part of the rulers arrived: only in this way is it possible to define effective strategies to replace the current regime with a real democracy.
● today it is not considered that there are actually two levels of government: that of “Regimes”, or Empires (which are constantly developing in various phases of evolution / involution), and that of local human communities (which has instead remained unchanged for millennia)
● those who have studied the question carefully have noticed how the decline (and subsequent fall) of the “Empires” is due to the fact that at a certain point
– the Rulers distance themselves from real life, and end up exaggerating in the application of their authority (delusion of omnipotence)
– the populations are brought to a physically unsustainable standard of living, and therefore they rebel (in Democracy the Citizens withdraw the consent of the Rulers)
● we are currently in a phase of fall of the authoritarian regime (the current Social Democracy): acting with knowledge of the facts it is possible to facilitate its defeat.
● The novelty of modern Empires is Ideology: the psychological dictatorship, based on a form of mass hypnosis (and on a rewriting of traditional culture).
● How can we get out of this new form of dictatorship? The use of force is counterproductive, it is therefore necessary to define a new constructive way to change
● The two factors of Social Democracy to be exploited to put an end to it:
– its inherent self-destructiveness
– incompetence (and stupidity) of the Establishment
● It is important to understand how and why this authoritarian transformation of Government took place: to be respected today, the regime must continuously increase the level of authoritarianism: it has now passed from the bread and circuses regime to a real dictatorship (the emergency government)
∙The evolution of the methods of government of “empires” (of the State)
In the history of the human being, there is a repetition of various phases of evolution/involution (collapse) of specific civilizations (these are cycles in a certain sense similar to those of the human biorhythms).
However, it is important to understand that in the history of human civilization there are two levels of evolution: the one that follows cycles of expansion and involution is only the “macro” level (which essentially concerns, at least until the development of the modern State, a small part of the population global). These are the two levels:
● the level of “Empires”: the upper level in which a class of “rulers” govern local realities in a top-down (authoritarian) way.
● the bottom level, the small local community (once it was the “village”), which is managed directly by the inhabitants (the methods of government here are a bit like those of a condominium: a form of government which can be considered a Direct Democracy).
In the evolution of history, in fact, while the “regimes” follow a path of evolution/involution cycles (classes of rulers alternate),
the small local human community (the “village”), from the point of view of government, always remains the same:
it is always the people who “govern” themselves.
In other words, while “out there” forms of authoritarian power alternate that force the inhabitants of small communities to satisfy their interests, the forms of government with which citizens govern themselves in local communities do not change. substantially.
In fact, therefore,
the essence of life in local communities has always remained the same, regardless of the regime to which they were subjected.
As we see in the next chapter, this happened up to the warning of the Ideologies (Enlightenment; and the creation of the modern State). Since then there has been a substantial innovation in the Regimes which must be taken into account:
the Governors have pretext that, in addition to paying taxes, the local populations also adapted to their way of thinking.
The substantial difference between the “Empires” preceding the creation of the modern State and the subsequent ones is that
the State today demand that citizens adopt their culture as a vision of life, and as moral precepts.
It should be noted that even a strongly authoritarian Empire like the Roman one left the local communities the freedom to maintain their own customs and traditions (the morality of the place, but also the laws of the place).
The Cycles of History and the recurring phases of decline of “regimes”
History shows us how
the decline (and subsequent fall) of the “Empires” is due to the fact that at a certain point
the Rulers distance themselves from real life, and
end up exaggerating in the application of their authority
In other words, it happens that “the Rulers” at a certain point in the evolution of their regime, so taken as they are by their ideas, stray too far from reality. And in their authoritarian rule they force the People into a physically unbearable condition.
And when the People are in this condition (“they have hit rock bottom”) we have reached that breaking point where the fall of the authoritarian regimes begins: Indeed
at that point people begin to regain an awareness of reality,
and in the case of ideological regimes
it begins to see how
the promise of the governed was a bluff.
The People also understand that the Rulers are unable to solve the problems that afflict the Society as they are not even able to understand the damage they are creating. <see my text “The promise of solving the bad“>
The cycles of history, and the fall of the Regimes
As shown by the lucid analysis of PR Sarkar (Philosopher and Sociologist, he wrote “Laws of Social Cycles” – theory that is expounded in Ravi Batra’s text “The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism”), the Regimes evolve through several phases of which the the latter is characterized by a dimension of “mental alienation” of the Rulers, who, without realizing, act in contrast with the actual reality.
In this way, Empires are inexorably destined to fail: in the evolution of regimes (“Empires”), generation after generation, the rulers inevitably end up losing their sense of reality (delusion of omnipotence): they grow their heads due to successes obtained (see below “The two factors of social democracy to exploit”) and bring the Society to collapse.
So they bring about their own undoing without ever really realizing what they are doing.
The phase that follows is therefore that of the rebellion of the People placed in a difficult condition of survival (in the conditions of Democracy the Rulers lose their electoral consent).
This is something that happens punctually in history.
Thus authoritarian regimes inevitably arrive
at a stage of self-destruction.
This phase of self-destruction is the one currently underway in Western Democracy (Democracy based on the ideology of the “welfare state”, of Socialism), in which the Rulers continue undeterred to develop policies that put citizens in ever greater difficulty of survival .
For this reason, the stage of advanced development of the “democratic” authoritarianism of the current Western Democracy must be seized for an opportunity for change. That is, the suffering that the authoritarian regime is creating does nothing but facilitate its own decline, and its replacement with a dimension of real Democracy.
Obviously it is difficult to predict whether the change process will last a year or twenty years. But
by acting with knowledge of the facts, it is possible to accelerate the process of change.
∙The novelty of modern empires: the psychological dictatorship (Ideology)
To understand how we can get out of the current state of authoritarianism, it is first of all necessary to understand the essence of the current Western Democracy, which has passed from the traditional authoritarianism based on force, to a new form of authoritarianism based on a form of hypnosis of mass with which the Rulers become able to convince the People to follow their impositions.
ç_brain washing ç_psyco politics
In fact, in this repetition of cycles in which the individual civilizations (regimes) evolve and then implode,
Modern civilization is characterized by a peculiarity that makes it substantially different from all the regimes that preceded it: THE ADOPTION OF IDEOLOGY.
That is, while previously the “Rulers” were interested in obtaining physical power over populations (for example by using people as slaves, or by imposing heavy taxation on them), in the modern era the Rulers claim to change the way people think (the subjugation of people in ideological regimes derives precisely from their ability to change the way people think).
This mode of government was theorized by A. Gramsci – it is also called “single thought” or cultural Marxism. It is a form of dictatorship that George Orwell wanted to warn us against in 1984.
The spread of this mode of government is the work of Stalin, who, having read the texts of Gramsci, decided that his plan for the expansion of Communism to the whole world should no longer be based on force (an attempt that had failed in Spain with the Civil War of the 1930s), but through a more subtle “cultural revolution” that would lead citizens of various nations to spontaneously join Communism (this process began in Italy with the phase of “good-faced Communism”).
It should be borne in mind, to understand the effectiveness of this method, that Scientology was founded by one of the scientists who in the 1950s studied the methods used in the cultural re-education centers of the Soviet Union.
The ideological regime basically defines
A DICTATURE BASED ON CULTURE.
That is, it is a “political” regime that is established on a psychological level (in people’s minds: people accept the imposition of rules that go against their interests, without the need to force them).
See the concept of “voluntary servitude” (initially mentioned in the 1500s by the philosopher de la Boetie, and then taken up again in the 1900s by libertarian authors:
“… the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why in the world do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude,” for our consent is required. And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn. »Rockwell, Lew (11 February 2011),“ Étienne de la Boetie and Egypt ”.
On de la Boetie’s theory of peaceful “non-cooperation” [with the State, with Power], some movements of “civil disobedience” were born [see [ see nex Chapter ]
The success of the ideological regime that characterizes the current Western Democracy is possible through the induction of fear: it leads people to perceive a condition of danger (substantially non-existent), and then poses itself as a solution: in this way people accept strongly authoritarian measures. <see my text “Manipulating people through fear“>
The result of these ideological strategies typical of our Era is that
people tend to believe what they are told
by “authoritative” sources
Whereas previously the human being believed only in what he saw, what he could experience.
(Macchiavelli asserted: “if there are scammers, it is because there are people who want to be scammed”).
∙The condition of hypnosis typical of sects
From an operational point of view, the peculiarity of modern regimes – such as Social Democracy (Western Democracy) – therefore consists in the fact that they no longer need force to maintain power (force is occasionally exercised to lead by example , i.e. to keep citizens in a state of fear).
<see my Document: “The turning point in totalitarian ideologies: psychological strategies for consent”>
Violence is used here only as an “example”: someone is hit so that others understand what power in the hands of the institutions consists of. In this way, by inducing fear in people, they can be convinced that it is good to adopt new ways of life (the post-Covid “New normal” induced today by Governments).
In essence, today modern Democracies are a form of “Psychological Dictatorship” in which people voluntarily accept a condition of submission (since people are convinced that the one imposed on them is the best possible condition for them).
This psychological condition is similar to those of the sects in which the followers undergoing the so-called “brainwashing” lose all possibility of discernment, and accept any imposition (as has been said, the creator of Scientology based himself on such methodologies).
∙How is it possible to get out of this new form of dictatorship?
So how is it possible to get out of this extremely harmful condition for human beings?
∙Today it is counterproductive to use the traditional method: rebellion
The peculiarity of modern regimes to develop the subjugation of the masses on a psychological level means that it is not possible to react to these regimes using the methods used in previous millennia.
That is, to recover freedom from the current Western Democracies transformed into hypno-dictatorship it is not possible to use force (the traditional rebellions): in this case, force is not only totally useless, but it is even counterproductive.
In fact, we must take into account another peculiarity of Western regimes:
in Social Democracy the majority of the People are on the side of the Power, and act in defense of the status quo, ie the rules imposed by the Government.
Citizens are convinced of the absolute need for anti-Covid measures that attack other citizens who do not wear the mask outdoors; or the large number of threats implemented on social networks against people who left the house when the lockdown was in effect.
This means that any form of contrast to the impositions of the institutions is “punished” by the “majority” of fellow citizens (as well as by the institutions). The result of an action to contrast the institutions is therefore, at the very least, a strengthening of the political position of the Government which allows it to implement a further tightening of the repressive laws.
The need to define a new constructive way to change
For this reason, as will be seen,
it is necessary not to act against the system,
BUT TO DEVELOP CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIONS
As we will see, it is possible in the context of the institutional rules of current Social Democracy to act in small groups to improve things independently of the institutions. This type of action becomes particularly important due to the fact that this improvement operated as an alternative to institutional services can become, for those who today “believe” blindly in the system, an example of what it is possible to do (that is, it becomes a demonstration that the institutions are wrong ).
Also with regard to communication through the media, it is necessary to take into account that conflicts with the Mainstream media should not be created, since most people still blindly believe in the dominant thought conveyed by social-democratic institutions: any expression of “free thought” it can now be passed by the institutions as dangerous.
Instead, it is necessary to communicate the actual reality that is opposed to the false reality narrated by the mainstream media with extreme moderation; always supporting it with solid factual, scientific foundations. Only in this way is it possible to lead most people to understand how the information provided by the institutions is substantially false and therefore the rules imposed by them are an abuse, and destined to create big problems for everyone).
In fact, the problem of getting out of the Hypno-dictatorship is not easy to solve (this is the problem of the so-called “de-programming” issue of people who have been “brainwashed”).
It should be borne in mind that the question is faced here from the libertarian point of view, essentially democratic, and that therefore an overlapping of the “best” mental programming to that implemented by the institutions is excluded. The consideration is that in this way it would create another situation of people’s inability to choose the best for themselves, and that therefore another condition of “psychological subjection” would be created.
The analysis of the Cycles of History mentioned above, despite the current position of the Regimes appears to be rather solid, allows us to identify interesting opportunities: today we are living in a phase of those described by the authors cited above as the critical phase for the regime.
That is, today we are in a phase in which the Regime has gone so far as the citizens are in a condition of physical unbearability in which they begin to touch the problems produced by it. The king is naked: people are beginning to see the possibility that the Government has bluffed in promising advantages for those who have followed its rules.
The government of hypno-totalitarianisms has paradoxically created the conditions for its fall:
NOW IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE
TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY.
The preconditions for change
In summary, for there to be a change – an overcoming of the current Social Democracy – the following conditions must be met:
1) the achievement of the situation in which people are “sitting on the ground”: a condition that is no longer physically bearable for citizens.
In this condition people, no matter how many they may try to convince themselves of the goodness of government management, they just “can’t take it anymore”. In this condition, that is, the mask of government falls: the bluff of the promises of Security in exchange for Freedom is revealed.
With these promises, the citizens had been induced to give up a fundamental element of their life: the freedom to live according to their customs.
That is, the citizens, accepting the idea of the institutions that their lives were threatened by serious danger, in exchange for protection accepted the imposition of extremely restrictive measures (as was the case with the Lordships in the Middle Ages).
2) the reference to a functioning dimension that guarantees a better quality of life (only when people see that other people are able to live better than them outside the context of the rules imposed by the Government, is it possible for them to begin to take awareness of the mistake they made in accepting the Government’s impositions)
The first condition today is involuntarily provided by the Governed themselves, in their blind will to apply the ideology in which they believe to an ever greater extent [see next chapter]
The second condition is that which, in fact, must be created by the citizens so that an effective change can be implemented.
ç_delirium of omnipotence
There are two qualities of Social Democracy that can be exploited to facilitate change (the return to a real Democracy):
1) the self-destructiveness of ideological regimes
2) incompetence (and stupidity) of the Establishment
1) The need to exploit the self-destructiveness of ideological regimes (delusion of omnipotence)
One factor that should be taken into account is precisely that the problem with authoritarian regimes is that they contain within themselves the seeds of self-destruction.
In particular, in the case of modern (ideological) regimes it happens that in the dimension of “alienation” (the typical condition of Ideologies) that allows the people to be easily subjected, the same Rulers are confined.
The problem is, for the Rulers, that in this condition they too end up being completely detached from reality. That is, it happens that
in phases like the current one,
THE RULERS ENTER A PHASE OF DELIRIUM OF OMNIPOTENCE.
In this phase, the Rulers excited by their successes in fact come to the intimate conviction of being able to obtain an almost absolute power over the citizens (in their mental dimension they are not able to set a limit: the pleasure of power that has animating up to that point blurs their minds).
This phase of delusion of omnipotence of the “rulers” is not typical only of current ideological regimes. In the past there are many examples such as those of Napoleon and Hitler who, in their delirium of omnipotence, wanted to dare the impossible: to conquer Russia in winter, and in this attempt they are literally self-destroyed. Often the same phenomenon is seen in Sport.
It therefore happens that in this condition of delusion of omnipotence the Rulers, not satisfied with what has been obtained, continue to increase their dimension of power, effectively creating the conditions for their fall.
2) another critical factor for the establishment: incompetence (and stupidity)
Another factor that makes it possible to facilitate the process of replacing Social Democracy with real Democracy is the stupidity and incompetence of the people who work in it.
The issue of incompetence is a problem that has been present for decades both in the market and in government, which derives from the establishment’s need to use people capable of passively executing directives.
In fact, incompetence is a fundamental quality of the structures of large companies and social-democratic government. Those who work in such systems must, for example, stop thinking in terms of the real economy (you spend what you have in cash), and start thinking in terms of deficit spending (you can spend any amount, as long as it leads to success your party). Basically, people in Government structures must begin to think in the manner “the end justifies the means”, something that those who think in a “traditional” way (from “Conservative”) cannot do.
Note that a similar problem was previously identified as the Peter principle:
“… Once an employee reaches a position in which they are incompetent, they are no longer evaluated based on their output, but instead are evaluated on input factors, such as arriving at work on time and having a good attitude. Dr. Peter further argued that employees tend to remain in positions for which they are incompetent because mere incompetence is rarely sufficient to cause the employee to be fired from the position. Ordinarily, only extreme incompetence causes dismissal. ” [investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp] <see my document “The need to update the Peters Principle (the issue of the incompentence)“>
The incompetence of the Social Democrats (or, if we turn, their stupidity) represents a problem for Social Democracy: the Democrats have now been selected for generations on the basis of these qualities (the leaders of the Left Parties in the 50s were quite another level).
Putting as a result of this incompetence (and stupidity) of the left politicians it is possible to develop strategies that discredit them in front of the citizens.
These negative characteristics not only affect the rulers, but also people who today hold key roles in the administration of the nation, such as experts and bureaucrats.
∙[excursus] how and why this transformation of the Government of Western democracy took place (beyond panem and circenses: emergency government)
It is important, in order to better understand the reason for the current condition of Western Democracy, to quickly analyze how the current situation has come about.
The fact is that the previous “psychological” mode of government, the one based on “panem et circences”, was no longer able to function.
Panem et circences is a policy inherited from the Roman Empire, made of bread (essential elements for survival) and entertainment as a distraction – started in the 1960s and defined as an “economic boom”.
This impossibility of continuing the policies of Panem et circences was due to the fact that the situation was beginning to verify a condition of disillusionment of the citizens with respect to the promises of Western Social-Democracy, since the serious problems produced by this form of government began to be evident (people’s living conditions were beginning to be physically unsustainable).
It is for these reasons that the Government has had to change its mode of governance, inventing something literally new in the case of Covid-19: the new level, the new Dictatorship of voluntary servitude based on fear. That is, on the need to defend oneself from a mortal danger: something that in the eyes of most citizens justifies the implementation of typical actions of dictatorships (the measures taken on the occasion of Covid-19 are the same as previously applied by communist China).
In practice, in the phase preceding Covid-19 it was happening that the so-called establishment – the rulers who are based on the ideology of the Left – began to have to leave power to the “populist” opposition (ie from those Governments that simply try to give a voice to people’s real needs)
The problem that presents itself for these “governments based on emergency” is that they create serious problems for citizens: in order to induce citizens to respect the laws they are forced to increase both the repressive laws and the narrative based on fear. But at a certain point the justification of the state of emergency becomes unsustainable, easy to unmask.
the situation becomes paradoxical for the Rulers:
the more they go forward,
the more they are forced to increase both the level of authoritarianism and the falsity of their arguments:
and thus they become more vulnerable.