by Giego Caleiro

Facebook is the second worst place to post about this, after Twitter but here’s the issue:

A lot posting related to politics is reactive only. We see something in the news and publically react to it.

Yet the battles in politics are being won by smart French guys in the 60s and smart German/Austriac guys in the 30s and 40s who engineered the language changes that we currently see, leading to thing like the current attempt to change the meaning of the word racist to include people who think there are differences between the average member of different races, while keeping the negative connotation of the old and still true meaning “mistreating or willing to mistreat others on a racial basis, in particular favoring one’s own race over some other”

On the RightWing, I see basically Curt having a project that is proactive, Propertarianism, and which could, in theory, become part of the discourse and progressively get some power to the point of actually guiding the discussion in a non reactive way in the next few decades.

I see Pat Ryan who does seem to have a more hidden but still strategic process with actual flowcharts, aims etc… who is at least trying to implement it.

I see also Thiel who doesn’t really think we can change politics too much, but only one or another opportunistic change.

Bannon seems to truly have a plan and is helping many countries do it.

Most people on Facebook though are just reacting. Showing how silly the squad or some liberal or some corporatist or some SJW is.

That strategy won’t win.

And judging by the changes in language, the other team is currently winning.

So what are some more proactive ways to plan ahead how to actually make the world be this or that way a couple decades from now? It’s easy to know what not to do. Don’t say femicide, perpetuate, opressed, systemic, equity. Don’t concede anything on language.

But having a specific well determined view of the future. What philosophers call a kind, is often helpful in bringing people into it.

Thiel jokes that there’s three visual kind specific futures:

  1. Islam: and women wear burkas

  2. Environmentalism: electric scooters and Greta

  3. Totalitarian surveillance: China style

And between those he picks Greta.

Fair enough.

But it would be ideal if there were 2 things missing from conversation

  1. Some other alternative that is more evolutionarily sustainable but still increases our odds of eventually seizing the astronomical value of the cosmic commons.

and

*) A strategy to disburse to people to cause us to get there, just like the left of 50 years ago took over academia, menial administrative positions, education, hollywood, and now uses that to control the youth and shift the language slowly and steady, until the Bildeberg Circle, trilateral commision, Davos etc… win and they can all farm everyone else to death.

For those of us who think that’s a bad outcome, we need a strategy of our own. And the ones we have are somewhat incomplete stories that don’t encompass technology (like Christianity) and this reactive stance.

We’re falling for the bait. We react to “the worst of the left” but we don’t create “the best of the non-left in an evolutionarily sustainable way that can slowly take over in the next few decades”

But the future lies ahead, and a plan is needed. If possible one that can be decomposed into small parts like the SJW borg.

There’s a huge army of rightwing people who just react. It would be nice if there was a plan besides imitating Tucker Carlson and making sarcastic remarks when the far left goes crazy.