by Frederick Mann
[This article originally appeared as a post on the Advanced Freedom Solutions list.]
Posted by: Frederick Mann (FM): My general strategy regarding violence-based systems is to withdraw support, based on the notion that the power of the tyrant depends on the support of the victims. If sufficient victims withdraw their support, the tyrant's power collapses.
At 01:32 PM 5/11/98, gene.albinder@rhii.com (Albinder, Gene) (GA) replied:
You think? I would hope, that you are correct, but I have lived under the system which virtually no constituent support (soviet Russia) and it has managed to maim 100 million people before its demise. And, considering the state of the population now - it is continuing in its malicious endeavor although it is officially non-existent. Violence inherited from the founding fathers of that regime is so deeply ingrained in human psyche - they don't even envision a different method of interaction.
FM: Different people should follow different strategies. See '#TL074: Peme-theory - Basic, Intermediate & Advanced' for a range of strategies corresponding to what I classify as level 1, 2, and 3 freedom.
It seems to me that the soviet tyrants enjoyed considerable constituent support, particularly at the level of negative deep pemes -- the most powerful support of all. I think it's unlikely that more than a handful of the 100 million victims did not support the tyrants at this level. I don't know how many generally obeyed "the system," paid taxes, used the tyrants' money system, voted, etc. Nevertheless, I suspect that if we analyze the entire range of forms of support, we'll find that the constituent support was overwhelming.
(GA's reply continues): I read through some of the articles posted on your site (Anti-Constitutionalist). I am compelled to say that, though it is understandable why the author is enraged with the current system - I have not been able to draw any practical conclusions out of this article. Practical in terms of concrete implementation of new methods of achieving an individual liberty.
FM: Specifically which article(s) did you read? Which ones did you find "Anti-Constitutionalist?" Which "author is enraged with the current system" and what led you to this conclusion? I suggest that if you read more of the reports on the website, you'll find a wealth of practical steps to implement individual liberty.
GA: I agree with you that the power of the tyrant depends on the the support of victims. I, however, view the tyrant not in terms of conspiracy, but, rather, in terms of the system itself. Those who administer this system are, at this point - cats, riding an elephant. I might be mistaken, for I don't have a broad view or the intimate knowledge of the power structures, but it would seem to me that the only plausible solution to the current social, economic and political deadlock must lie in a method which would establish humanity as a whole as a unit of the system functioning within the system. However inadequate this system is - one cannot survive without it.
FM: Whenever someone says that "his solution" is "the only plausible solution," I suspect that he has no solution.
The notion that "one cannot survive without" a violence-based political system seems to me like the equivalent of saying that no matter how deadly cancer is, you can't survive without it.
I think you need to look, not only beyond the terrocrats who operate the system, but also beyond the system itself, to the fundamental concepts that keep the system in place -- negative deep pemes.
GA: I also don't think that "us vs. them" approach is helpful. Whatever the motivation (noble as it is) it creates a separation within the society. Advocates of various approaches thus engage in the business of defending their method or philosophy while the evolutionary process awaits practical steps on our part. It is, after all - conscious evolution, if one were to adhere to that maxim.
FM: I think the "us vs. them" approach is most useful. Generally, it's "New-Agers" (who tend to blind themselves to certain forms of violence and evil) who decry "us vs. them." I think, for many people, it's more practical and efficacious to take their practical steps and accelerate their conscious evolution "outside the system."
GA: If 30% of American population decided not to pay taxes next year, for example, I don't think that the system would really suffer. The population would, since the lack of funds would be felt in public programs, health, education - not military, not NSA, not CIA, not IRS - these organizations are direct descendants of the masonic order and have built substantial cushions in raw resources, money, military might, political influence... In fact - this sort of move would trigger a violent reaction that is likely to be disastrous to any freedom movement.
FM: Paying taxes is one form of support. There are many others. Probably about 15% already don't pay. Then there are many more who pay only part of what the terrocrats claim is "owed".
I think any overt "violent reaction" from terrocrats will most likely backfire, increasing the extent to which people "exit the system." Like Waco, it'll most likely further weaken the credibility of terrocrats and their system. I think it would be a boost to most freedom movements.
GA: Withdrawing support from the system, in my view, is admitting that the system is quite resistant to the change from within. To me - the more subtle approach is to work from inside of the system, building a constituency of liberty-minded souls capable of changing the mode in which this system operates.
FM: As I indicated before, different people should follow different strategies. Each strategy could be regarded as addressing a different "front." The prospects for freedom victory are maximized if the war is fought on as many fronts as possible.
You also seem to be an advocate of "us vs. them" -- "us" = people who work inside the system and "them" = those who work outside the system. (Furthermore, "Us" = those who criticize "us vs. them" and "them" = those who advocate "us vs. them." You can't escape "us vs. them." "Us" = those with "the only plausible solution" and "them" = all the idiots who believe in other ways.)
GA: We can talk about system intelligence on a more meta-physical level, if you wish.Cheers,
Gene.
FM: Yes, let's talk about "system intelligence." This may be useful to those of us involved in attempting to create alternative systems.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com