The kind of society I long for is an organic one, in which people live in the way they see fit, guided by their own inclinations, the customs they have inherited and the circumstances of place. As an anarchist, I am obviously opposed to all authority imposed from above, to any kind of formalised, entrenched power, but that does not mean that there could be no kind of moral “authority” or guidance in the world I want to see.
It might help to know that we have been fighting this same war for 200,000 years. Humanity is very strong. Subjugating all of us is very difficult. Part of our resilience is our individual ability to withdraw from the community and retain our integrity and strength. Part of their weakness is their substantial dependence on their hierarchy. It is possible to end this war, soon, in this place, for a very long time. Our success here provides a spiritual stronghold from which to grow and spread and help others heal.
"Indeed, it takes sadistic pleasure out of using, manipulating and inverting the majority population’s values – their sense of justice, their fondness for their homeland or their love of nature – in order to advance its own venal programme." — The old "beatings will continue until morale improves" standby comes to mind.
The other method the criminocracy use to hamstring the opposition (the free thinkers/antennae as you put it - I like your use of that word there, by the way) is of course subversion/infiltration - once inside, they spread misinformation and misdirection and carry out acts in the name of the group in order to demonise and discredit them in the eyes of the general population, so the general population are turned away from them and don't listen to anything they have to say, because they're perceived in a negative light. This has become my concern du jour.
The other point I'd echo you with here is in the way the criminocracy treat the population, which is as a colonialist, occupying force where the population are, in fact, the 'subjugated native population', i.e. 'a different racial group' (an 'other' in other words - social group theory being important here). For me, if we're looking at Britain specifically I take a historical view and would in fact trace the origin of this state of affairs (a ruling 'other' compared to the native population) back to 1066, at which point Britain became an occupied country. so in the case of Britain what you describe is a genuine historical reality, not simply 'one way of looking at things'. The deceitful genius of the Establishment's propaganda has been to masquerade as 'British' (we see this accelerating with Starmer and his flags) even though they are not, they are effectively Norman, with regards to their 'social group' or 'cultural' identity. Their identity is fundamentally different to that of the native population - this is the one great historical fact they really don't want the people to realise, because if they did realise then they would understand they really are an occupied people, and sheer weight of numbers would bring revolutionary success - but it wouldn't really be 'revolution' so much as 'taking our country back'. The Normans were nothing if not fascist murderous barbarians. Seeing this, one can see how that personality profile fits the criminocracy. The irony being, they are not British in the slightest!
Likewise, if we study Britain before 1066 we do in fact see the organic way of living that you describe. Anglo-Saxon (and Celtic) Britain was a largely peaceful place in which different tribes got along pretty well, preferred the use of diplomacy rather than conflict to resolve differences, and generally saw each other as 'part of the same social group/cultural identity' rather than 'the other'. It may have seemed like they had a 'King' but that king didn't 'lord it over' the people the way the criminocracy do, and his representatives the thanes were a part of the communities they represented, and genuinely looked out for their interests.
This is the kind of history and psychology that should be taught, because it explains the people vs. power relationship much, much more understandably. Which - naturally - is why they don't let it be taught that way!
How do I learn to love those that so blindly spit in my face, ostracise me and insult me when I show them how the ruling class are are destroying all that is beautiful and true? How can I not be hostile when those to whom I am bound and love would rather side with their jailers?
Question, do you see the society of the high middle ages that centered around the Catholic Church, village life and crafts guilds more than around state power as an example of such an "organic society?"
It might help to know that we have been fighting this same war for 200,000 years. Humanity is very strong. Subjugating all of us is very difficult. Part of our resilience is our individual ability to withdraw from the community and retain our integrity and strength. Part of their weakness is their substantial dependence on their hierarchy. It is possible to end this war, soon, in this place, for a very long time. Our success here provides a spiritual stronghold from which to grow and spread and help others heal.
"In either case, they have completed the work of the ruling gang by cutting themselves off from the social organism to which they belong..."
Misanthropic gangsters are intent on transforming the empathetic into someone who represents their own image--the catatonic living dead.
"Indeed, it takes sadistic pleasure out of using, manipulating and inverting the majority population’s values – their sense of justice, their fondness for their homeland or their love of nature – in order to advance its own venal programme." — The old "beatings will continue until morale improves" standby comes to mind.
The other method the criminocracy use to hamstring the opposition (the free thinkers/antennae as you put it - I like your use of that word there, by the way) is of course subversion/infiltration - once inside, they spread misinformation and misdirection and carry out acts in the name of the group in order to demonise and discredit them in the eyes of the general population, so the general population are turned away from them and don't listen to anything they have to say, because they're perceived in a negative light. This has become my concern du jour.
The other point I'd echo you with here is in the way the criminocracy treat the population, which is as a colonialist, occupying force where the population are, in fact, the 'subjugated native population', i.e. 'a different racial group' (an 'other' in other words - social group theory being important here). For me, if we're looking at Britain specifically I take a historical view and would in fact trace the origin of this state of affairs (a ruling 'other' compared to the native population) back to 1066, at which point Britain became an occupied country. so in the case of Britain what you describe is a genuine historical reality, not simply 'one way of looking at things'. The deceitful genius of the Establishment's propaganda has been to masquerade as 'British' (we see this accelerating with Starmer and his flags) even though they are not, they are effectively Norman, with regards to their 'social group' or 'cultural' identity. Their identity is fundamentally different to that of the native population - this is the one great historical fact they really don't want the people to realise, because if they did realise then they would understand they really are an occupied people, and sheer weight of numbers would bring revolutionary success - but it wouldn't really be 'revolution' so much as 'taking our country back'. The Normans were nothing if not fascist murderous barbarians. Seeing this, one can see how that personality profile fits the criminocracy. The irony being, they are not British in the slightest!
Likewise, if we study Britain before 1066 we do in fact see the organic way of living that you describe. Anglo-Saxon (and Celtic) Britain was a largely peaceful place in which different tribes got along pretty well, preferred the use of diplomacy rather than conflict to resolve differences, and generally saw each other as 'part of the same social group/cultural identity' rather than 'the other'. It may have seemed like they had a 'King' but that king didn't 'lord it over' the people the way the criminocracy do, and his representatives the thanes were a part of the communities they represented, and genuinely looked out for their interests.
This is the kind of history and psychology that should be taught, because it explains the people vs. power relationship much, much more understandably. Which - naturally - is why they don't let it be taught that way!
How do I learn to love those that so blindly spit in my face, ostracise me and insult me when I show them how the ruling class are are destroying all that is beautiful and true? How can I not be hostile when those to whom I am bound and love would rather side with their jailers?
Question, do you see the society of the high middle ages that centered around the Catholic Church, village life and crafts guilds more than around state power as an example of such an "organic society?"