Source: Original Site Post

  • Revolution Comes

    Revolution Comes https://t.co/rKLZo62tVT

  • Revolution Comes

    by Josh Rieder I’m drawing on my observations, failures, and success for much of this. I’m not pulling much from other sources, simply localized experience. 1) what percentage of males would ‘show up’ to fight for a set of “just” demands? Percentage of MALES in general isn’t many. However, percentages broken down by demographics changes considerably between races, with a heavy tilt towards whites followed by Hispanic/whites. The longer any fighting lasts or the better known and understood the “just demands” are, the more show up. My own local percentages that I’ve tracked since January: Male pool of 90% white, 10% Hispanic who are supportive and care enough to be counted by name for this: 96% armed sufficiently (not sure why this isn’t 100%, but it’s not. The 4% are very supportive, yet nearly useless. Being unarmed is also an indication of being unable to take care of yourself or family.) 24% Equipped for combat (method of carrying basic/necessary equipment on self) 20% Physically able and equipped (Lack a sense of higher urgency for our current plight and are either complacent or feel scared of the world. Family is often the excuse for inaction rather than the motivation for action) 12% READY for action (not able to understand what’s happening in the world, but intuition tells them to be ready. They could show up if properly motivated by high agency leadership) 8% will show up for initial action (these are solid, ready, trained, equipped, and the modern “minute man”. Not activist marchers, but truly capable of winning a fight. 2) what is the percentage of the male population necessary for a successful revolution. Lower than most would think. By my numbers, 8–12% is enough for the rest to let someone else “do the fighting” for them and merely support the cause. 3) what is different about today’s revolutions by 4gw (think arab spring) than revolutions in the past? Group structure, we don’t need to build and train massive armies. Small and close groups of buddies can train as fireteams in a standardized method (communications, movement, tactics, etc.) and still be able to mesh with other groups for effective maneuvers. With limited coordination and highly vulnerable points of interest, these aligned groups are highly effective (and autonomous) on their own and able to use mass hysteria to their advantage. 4) why are revolutions in the anglo-saxon world more successful than revolutions in the rest of the world? There is a high level of commitment via risk. Once the line is crossed, the anonymity is removed and it’s “do or die”. It’s not simply participation in a riot or mass hysteria. The purpose of revolution is understood and articulated in a manner that can be explain in simple terms to most, and an understood in an intricate manner by those who can. It isn’t some implied demand for restitution in place of an excuse to run wild. It is a reform and control to the current state of affairs and problems rather than an addition to the problem. Essentially, there is an idea in place for what comes next, rather than simply burning everything to the ground. Eric Danelaw: Excellent. Although rule of law is missing from 4, and the number needed for 2 is under 3%. Well done. Really. Josh Rieder: Thank you! This was something I had answers for. Wish I coulda put more time into it. You would catch me on a day when I’m on vacation and punching this out on a phone while holding an infant.

  • Revolution Comes

    by Josh Rieder I’m drawing on my observations, failures, and success for much of this. I’m not pulling much from other sources, simply localized experience. 1) what percentage of males would ‘show up’ to fight for a set of “just” demands? Percentage of MALES in general isn’t many. However, percentages broken down by demographics changes considerably between races, with a heavy tilt towards whites followed by Hispanic/whites. The longer any fighting lasts or the better known and understood the “just demands” are, the more show up. My own local percentages that I’ve tracked since January: Male pool of 90% white, 10% Hispanic who are supportive and care enough to be counted by name for this: 96% armed sufficiently (not sure why this isn’t 100%, but it’s not. The 4% are very supportive, yet nearly useless. Being unarmed is also an indication of being unable to take care of yourself or family.) 24% Equipped for combat (method of carrying basic/necessary equipment on self) 20% Physically able and equipped (Lack a sense of higher urgency for our current plight and are either complacent or feel scared of the world. Family is often the excuse for inaction rather than the motivation for action) 12% READY for action (not able to understand what’s happening in the world, but intuition tells them to be ready. They could show up if properly motivated by high agency leadership) 8% will show up for initial action (these are solid, ready, trained, equipped, and the modern “minute man”. Not activist marchers, but truly capable of winning a fight. 2) what is the percentage of the male population necessary for a successful revolution. Lower than most would think. By my numbers, 8–12% is enough for the rest to let someone else “do the fighting” for them and merely support the cause. 3) what is different about today’s revolutions by 4gw (think arab spring) than revolutions in the past? Group structure, we don’t need to build and train massive armies. Small and close groups of buddies can train as fireteams in a standardized method (communications, movement, tactics, etc.) and still be able to mesh with other groups for effective maneuvers. With limited coordination and highly vulnerable points of interest, these aligned groups are highly effective (and autonomous) on their own and able to use mass hysteria to their advantage. 4) why are revolutions in the anglo-saxon world more successful than revolutions in the rest of the world? There is a high level of commitment via risk. Once the line is crossed, the anonymity is removed and it’s “do or die”. It’s not simply participation in a riot or mass hysteria. The purpose of revolution is understood and articulated in a manner that can be explain in simple terms to most, and an understood in an intricate manner by those who can. It isn’t some implied demand for restitution in place of an excuse to run wild. It is a reform and control to the current state of affairs and problems rather than an addition to the problem. Essentially, there is an idea in place for what comes next, rather than simply burning everything to the ground. Eric Danelaw: Excellent. Although rule of law is missing from 4, and the number needed for 2 is under 3%. Well done. Really. Josh Rieder: Thank you! This was something I had answers for. Wish I coulda put more time into it. You would catch me on a day when I’m on vacation and punching this out on a phone while holding an infant.

  • What Would a Christian Religion – One that Taught the Love of Jesus – that Did N

    What Would a Christian Religion – One that Taught the Love of Jesus – that Did Not Require Fundamentalism and Falsehood, Look Like? https://t.co/Dl6cQ6LBkM

  • What Would a Christian Religion – One that Taught the Love of Jesus – that Did N

    What Would a Christian Religion – One that Taught the Love of Jesus – that Did Not Require Fundamentalism and Falsehood, Look Like? https://t.co/7t0fWPigAW

  • What Would a Christian Religion – One that Taught the Love of Jesus – that Did Not Require Fundamentalism and Falsehood, Look Like?

    —“There is a correlation between denomination and understanding. At the higher end, you get something more like “religion is studying the mind of God”, symbolic reasoning, metaphor, etc. At the lower end, you get something more like “Don’t loot stores. That’s bad.””—Will Peavy

    How about this: 1 – religions all evolved from the feast ritual ( debt, submission,, equality) to the death mourning (debt), to pre-history (myth, debt), to pre-law (rules of cooperation). 2 – That all organized religions evolved at about the same time – during the recovery from the bronze age collapse – and that there is a correlation between ‘ancient mysticism’ of the axial age religions and the pre-axial age religions. 3 – That religion provides services that people consume. Those services satisfy a cognitive necessity, which we experience as an emotional necessity. But in most simple terms they solve the problem of alienation (fear) at scale. 4 – That organized religion created monopoly institution that used those services for political purposes to various degrees of beneficial and harmful. 5 – This monopoly conflated all knowledge into a single paradigm that caused stagnation and nearly destroyed human civilization with ‘false comforts’ – that were addictive because they deprived us of competitive incentives and natural selection. 6 – The opposite strategy – markets rather than monopolies – created specialized knowledge that continuously advanced and reversed the stagnation of the monopoly religions. 7 – The church failed in Europe to consolidate power in opposition to the state and failed to solidify its monopoly, because our martial and legal tradition persisted despite the competition from the church – and largely because the church as a political institution was subject to even greater corruption than the military and financial competitors. 8 – That the continuous need for military competition given the distributed agrarian geography, the continuous use of our traditional common germanic law, and then it’s roman institutional inheritance, were more influential than the church, despite it’s near-monopoly as land-renter, as commerce and trade moved north as the north sea and continent developed trade given the impossibility of trade in the Mediterranean given Muslim conquests. 9 – That between the restoration of Aristotelian learning, the restoration of trade, increased demand for literacy because of it, the restoration of literacy, and the re-expansion of knowledge, and the corruption of the church, the ‘rising’ germanic regions of Europe sought to reharmonize their civilization’s hearth and myth, it’s law, and its military tradition, by removing a corrupt church that exploited the people and sold them falsehoods. 10 – Unlike the orthodox that had not created a competitor to the state, the western church was both a landholder like the aristocracy – because it functioned as a holding company for local aristocratic families – and as a landholder, local administrator, had material interests in resisting reform that would deprive them of rent-seeking, the assets that they used for rent-seeking, the status that came from both, and the false promise that made all of that possible. 11 – That the protestants have, generation by generation, continued to divest their religion of the institutions and propaganda and dogma and instead return Christianity to its function: mindfulness for those that need it by immaterial means. 12 – And that the Orthodox have a lesser problem, and less need of fundamentalism because their state does not tolerate competitors, and they have not been as thoroughly undermined by the (((enemy))) as has the west. But if we eliminate those threats to our civilization what would a Christian religion – one that taught the love of Jesus – that did not require fundamentalism and falsehood, look like?

  • What Would a Christian Religion – One that Taught the Love of Jesus – that Did Not Require Fundamentalism and Falsehood, Look Like?

    —“There is a correlation between denomination and understanding. At the higher end, you get something more like “religion is studying the mind of God”, symbolic reasoning, metaphor, etc. At the lower end, you get something more like “Don’t loot stores. That’s bad.””—Will Peavy

    How about this: 1 – religions all evolved from the feast ritual ( debt, submission,, equality) to the death mourning (debt), to pre-history (myth, debt), to pre-law (rules of cooperation). 2 – That all organized religions evolved at about the same time – during the recovery from the bronze age collapse – and that there is a correlation between ‘ancient mysticism’ of the axial age religions and the pre-axial age religions. 3 – That religion provides services that people consume. Those services satisfy a cognitive necessity, which we experience as an emotional necessity. But in most simple terms they solve the problem of alienation (fear) at scale. 4 – That organized religion created monopoly institution that used those services for political purposes to various degrees of beneficial and harmful. 5 – This monopoly conflated all knowledge into a single paradigm that caused stagnation and nearly destroyed human civilization with ‘false comforts’ – that were addictive because they deprived us of competitive incentives and natural selection. 6 – The opposite strategy – markets rather than monopolies – created specialized knowledge that continuously advanced and reversed the stagnation of the monopoly religions. 7 – The church failed in Europe to consolidate power in opposition to the state and failed to solidify its monopoly, because our martial and legal tradition persisted despite the competition from the church – and largely because the church as a political institution was subject to even greater corruption than the military and financial competitors. 8 – That the continuous need for military competition given the distributed agrarian geography, the continuous use of our traditional common germanic law, and then it’s roman institutional inheritance, were more influential than the church, despite it’s near-monopoly as land-renter, as commerce and trade moved north as the north sea and continent developed trade given the impossibility of trade in the Mediterranean given Muslim conquests. 9 – That between the restoration of Aristotelian learning, the restoration of trade, increased demand for literacy because of it, the restoration of literacy, and the re-expansion of knowledge, and the corruption of the church, the ‘rising’ germanic regions of Europe sought to reharmonize their civilization’s hearth and myth, it’s law, and its military tradition, by removing a corrupt church that exploited the people and sold them falsehoods. 10 – Unlike the orthodox that had not created a competitor to the state, the western church was both a landholder like the aristocracy – because it functioned as a holding company for local aristocratic families – and as a landholder, local administrator, had material interests in resisting reform that would deprive them of rent-seeking, the assets that they used for rent-seeking, the status that came from both, and the false promise that made all of that possible. 11 – That the protestants have, generation by generation, continued to divest their religion of the institutions and propaganda and dogma and instead return Christianity to its function: mindfulness for those that need it by immaterial means. 12 – And that the Orthodox have a lesser problem, and less need of fundamentalism because their state does not tolerate competitors, and they have not been as thoroughly undermined by the (((enemy))) as has the west. But if we eliminate those threats to our civilization what would a Christian religion – one that taught the love of Jesus – that did not require fundamentalism and falsehood, look like?

  • Anglo-Saxon Revolutions

    Anglo-Saxon Revolutions https://t.co/DYntpblvfh

  • Anglo-Saxon Revolutions

    by Alex Hill Anglo-Saxon revolutions have been largely been restrained and restorative in nature. The Glorious Revolution was nearly bloodless. The American Revolution was waged by the middle class and didn’t seek to totally upend and remake society the way the French did. The final Anglo-Saxon Revolution was the Civil War in which the South tried to form their own nation that used the US Constitution almost to the letter.

  • Anglo-Saxon Revolutions

    by Alex Hill Anglo-Saxon revolutions have been largely been restrained and restorative in nature. The Glorious Revolution was nearly bloodless. The American Revolution was waged by the middle class and didn’t seek to totally upend and remake society the way the French did. The final Anglo-Saxon Revolution was the Civil War in which the South tried to form their own nation that used the US Constitution almost to the letter.