People at the top will always make the rules and they will always make the rules to favor themselves.
Corruption and structural deterioration of the State is inevitable until it is reset by patriots, it's cyclic in nature
Corruption and structural deterioration of the State is inevitable until it is reset by patriots, it's cyclic in nature
Oh... patriots and revolutionaries and the like can be motivated by corruption...
I'd simplify it to "Corruption is inevitable".
What are you SC users views of the State (could be anywhere in the world). Personally, the two countries I have the closest connections with are corrupt as all hell. I've been trying to figure out how to battle this, of if others even see this as a problem.
The more totalitarian a nation is, the stronger it is.
I think totalitarian could work for the benefit of a country, making it more powerful but many countries are weak because their totalitarian leaders do not give two shits about their people. IF the state can keep promises, foster a good economy, and provide a highly structured educational system for people to follow than a country will become mighty in less than one generation, it could take only 30 years. This educational system would have to include physical exams, be able to develop an aristocratic class that would be given more freedom than the workers, but would be completely dedicated to continuing and developing the spirit of the nation (through literature, the arts, fashion etc etc) and various different trades alongside academics. Children who are not from academic background would develop trades between the ages of 14-16 but they would have the exact same education as other children before this age. boys and girls would also receive the same education until this age, where at this point boys and girls would have arranged marriages between families and the woman would dedicate her life to housework.
The aristocratic class would prevent occultism to breed in the arts like it does in the US nowadays, as they would be given the time to create their skills under the security of the state. To further oppose occultism religion would also have to be enforced, including a highly religious and motivated class of people (the protestants) who would prevent poverty in the people, fostering continual economic growth and creating the elusive middle class.
To do this all requires a genius legislature branch and a strong/charismatic leader (hard to come by nowadays). It also requires that political parties operate not to undermine each other but instead solely focus on creating what they believe to be the best solution that the state should take for the benefit of the people. The protestants may take to the streets to preach but this is ok because you know that they are the most active people who'se voice should be the loudest (as it will always have religious undetones) other types of speech should be suppressed which could be further helped by the papacy, priests and recommended attendance to church on sundays.
The most important part of all of this would have to be the military though, and all technology COULD NOT be for private interests (like it is in the US as well). Medtech, biotech, military tech all of it would be supervised under the state officials and reported back to the executive branch and his foreign policy advisors. This, with a highly trained and organized set of troops, airforce, navy, army, marine, special ops, black ops, surveillance & intelligence, Federal bureau would create the coercive force necessary to suppress dissent and militias within the state, and would also allow for deterrence of foreign powers. IF a military is strong enough their is no need for ordinary people to own guns and form their own militias as they would only pale in comparison.
ALL OF THIS FAILS IF THE STATE BECOMES CORRUPT. If the state turns away from its people, regardless of their background, race, economic class and does not foster a megalomaniac grasp on its people, than it will fail and it will retreat into private interests, creating occultism and doing damage to the Holy Spirit of the nation.
Corruption and structural deterioration of the State is inevitable until it is reset by patriots, it's cyclic in nature
Oh... patriots and revolutionaries and the like can be motivated by corruption...
I'd simplify it to "Corruption is inevitable".
I imagine this could happen, but I can't even recall an instance in history. To intentionally corrupt the people against the establishment you'd be making a very dangerous investment, with a low chance of success that wouldn't bear fruit for a very long time. You'd make yourself a target of the establishment and most revolutions/uprisings get quelled. It's a 200 IQ move that I could see being pulled off in our time, but too complex for anything before us
It's one of those matters where if you were looking to seek more power you'd just have to out corrupt the existent corruption than bribe basically the entire civilian populace of a nation
Corrupting something just takes taking their intended meaning and twisting it into something else. Fight Club for instance could be argued to be a corruption of many tenets within Eastern Philosophy.
Some corrupt these days just for the lulz, and a surprising amount get media attention over it too (like the "It's Okay To Be White" scandal, or the guy that made the first 3D printer file for firearms).
Corruption and structural deterioration of the State is inevitable until it is reset by patriots, it's cyclic in nature
Oh... patriots and revolutionaries and the like can be motivated by corruption...
I'd simplify it to "Corruption is inevitable".I imagine this could happen, but I can't even recall an instance in history. To intentionally corrupt the people against the establishment you'd be making a very dangerous investment, with a low chance of success that wouldn't bear fruit for a very long time.
I disagree. There's been arguments that groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, and 4chan have been used to further political agendas by simply directing the corrupted revolution sentiments towards their intended targets. People want to feel like they're a part of something greater but typically have no idea what's going on, leading to an easily swayed "Rebel Without A Cause" demographic (ie: the Anarchy vote during the election that supported Trump). It being "For the Lulz" helps them remain detached instead of allowing themselves to notice their emotional investment over their contributions as well.
By being in a bipartisan system, you can be corrupted to hate what a specific establishment is doing instead of what the establishment is doing as a whole through the use of both parties.
While it is not the backbone for building a new system, it is a way to remove what's already there. Integrating an entirely new system is a lot easier to do when there's no other systems that'd seek to take it down in it's infancy.
Essentially though, they've instead found a way to divide us and turn us against ourselves through corrupting key demographics. They've created tailored conflicts that we can verse each other over while they continue doing business as usual behind the scenes.
We actually saw something similar going on during Bush Jr, except they the government were trying to directly have people harbor resentment as an intimidation ploy. "We're aware of you over the hill" was meant to make the opposition shut up, and largely is responsible for a lot of the jaded youth we see today.
You'd make yourself a target of the establishment and most revolutions/uprisings get quelled. It's a 200 IQ move that I could see being pulled off in our time, but too complex for anything before us
The risk of becoming a target is likely why this stuff is handled through anonymous groups.
Government is steered by corporate backing, and as we've seen through the left wing PC movement, corporations can be steered by public opinion, and said public opinion doesn't take much for media outlets and the like to steer. It's not too crazy to think that someone could anonymously appeal to people's need to burn things to hurt a competing interest, in fact, I'd argue it's easier to appeal to a person's sense of destruction far more readily than their urge to build something new, as people like breaking things and being led around in one form of another.
How to survive this sort of system requires money and a decent legal team. Basically take Scientology's model and you can do anything within a Capitalist structure.
Corruption can also mean dishonest or fraudulent behavior, which is more of the issue than just twisting something into a new meaning. Twisting something happens normally in speech and is less planned than actual, determined fraudulent conduct.
I understand what you mean with all the underground happenings as well but personally, I think that the only way to really change anything (and not become subsumed in your own private interests) is to go public and to invoke something new, that is not a hidden path which regular citizens can take alongside a leader.
This is much more difficult yes, but that's why the US is composed of a bunch of secret corporate tribes. It is easier because it invokes our nature, although it disrespects constitution, which was ultimately formed because the freedom to live under a law provides that much greater happiness than just the simply freedom of nature which every human is born into.
Corrupting something just takes taking their intended meaning and twisting it into something else. Fight Club for instance could be argued to be a corruption of many tenets within Eastern Philosophy.
Some corrupt these days just for the lulz, and a surprising amount get media attention over it too (like the "It's Okay To Be White" scandal, or the guy that made the first 3D printer file for firearms).Corruption and structural deterioration of the State is inevitable until it is reset by patriots, it's cyclic in nature
Oh... patriots and revolutionaries and the like can be motivated by corruption...
I'd simplify it to "Corruption is inevitable".I imagine this could happen, but I can't even recall an instance in history. To intentionally corrupt the people against the establishment you'd be making a very dangerous investment, with a low chance of success that wouldn't bear fruit for a very long time.
I disagree. There's been arguments that groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, and 4chan have been used to further political agendas by simply directing the corrupted revolution sentiments towards their intended targets. People want to feel like they're a part of something greater but typically have no idea what's going on, leading to an easily swayed "Rebel Without A Cause" demographic (ie: the Anarchy vote during the election that supported Trump). It being "For the Lulz" helps them remain detached instead of allowing themselves to notice their emotional investment over their contributions as well.
Any argument that says anonymous or 4chan has any political sway are from sources with a reactionary agenda. They hold no weight what so ever and are memes to politically versed people. It's literally elder bait. Wikileaks is the exception, but is in an entirely different category than those two. These are also very recent, which like I said could be pulled off today. This sort of thing can only even have a fleeting chance of success in the age of information.
As far as the rebel without cause bit, those people are in the minority. America is very polarized, most in the middle and so called centrist are frequent only in places like these. I'd say they make up 10% of the population at best. I also disagree with your analysis of them. Centrists don't have a call to something greater, even if they are hipsters or out of the loop they would side with a third party/libertarian.
By being in a bipartisan system, you can be corrupted to hate what a specific establishment is doing instead of what the establishment is doing as a whole through the use of both parties.
While it is not the backbone for building a new system, it is a way to remove what's already there. Integrating an entirely new system is a lot easier to do when there's no other systems that'd seek to take it down in it's infancy.
Essentially though, they've instead found a way to divide us and turn us against ourselves through corrupting key demographics. They've created tailored conflicts that we can verse each other over while they continue doing business as usual behind the scenes.
We actually saw something similar going on during Bush Jr, except they the government were trying to directly have people harbor resentment as an intimidation ploy. "We're aware of you over the hill" was meant to make the opposition shut up, and largely is responsible for a lot of the jaded youth we see today.
I'm aware of the uses of this style of corruption, I am saying it is too complicated to have a high odds of success, is far more difficult and less rewarding than just bribing the current corrupt government. I also don't believe it was even possible preinternet.
You'd make yourself a target of the establishment and most revolutions/uprisings get quelled. It's a 200 IQ move that I could see being pulled off in our time, but too complex for anything before us
The risk of becoming a target is likely why this stuff is handled through anonymous groups.
Government is steered by corporate backing, and as we've seen through the left wing PC movement, corporations can be steered by public opinion, and said public opinion doesn't take much for media outlets and the like to steer. It's not too crazy to think that someone could anonymously appeal to people's need to burn things to hurt a competing interest, in fact, I'd argue it's easier to appeal to a person's sense of destruction far more readily than their urge to build something new, as people like breaking things and being led around in one form of another.
How to survive this sort of system requires money and a decent legal team. Basically take Scientology's model and you can do anything within a Capitalist structure.
Anonymous groups cannot remain anonymous if they are looking to gain the support of the people. Without establishing a genuine identity, said movement will only temporarily attract contrarians. In any time before this, supporting a rival cause to the establishment world wide meant death or social black listing. People would not and have not trusted their lives to shadowy groups in favor of an outright party even if it's the wrong choice to support.
Also you're using an example of something as simple as burning things, not supporting a rival style of structure. Far easier to work with. When new ideas challenging the traditional structure of government appear they are always labeled as radical. Corporations and media will immediately recognize the easier slander target to gain traction with the masses. Effectively spreading counter propaganda almost organically to anything challenging the establishment. To pull something like this style of corruption off, you will be fighting against a indoctrinated populace, further reaffirmed by an established system of celebrities/corporations that the populace already knows and we haven't even factored in the actual governments response to said movement
Rebellions only gain support once their party has a flag and actual representation. No one will take the side of a shadowy group in a world full of representatives. Word of mouth is never enough
