The only emergency that exists for politicians is the governed not complying enough.
As we are old enough to remember and have personal experience of the USSR and the German Democratic Republic, we also know that there are no real way to fight this short of armed insurrection and then only if significant portions of police and military join in.
So to survive, perhaps even thrive, there a couple of universal methods:
Join the oppressors. It's a better life being the sheepdog than the sheep after all.
Make a lot of sound and fury being oppositional; either stick to your guns and get the Havel treatment, or the Allende treatment.
Escape; there are nations where technological infrastructure is far from up to date with such a system as is proposed here.
Learn the system, then game the system. Outward compliance only as and when enforced, keeping your mind free. (This one works best if one can wrangle a position as overseer of procedural matters, commissar or in logistics and transportation.)
As above, but opt out. Be of no interest to the system. Unprofitable, unexploitable, and generally useless (call it the Svejk option).
If this technological terror they've created would have been available to Frederic the Great, or Willima Pitt, or Atatürk or Magsaysay - they would all have used it. The ability to create technological control is primary to the power of ideology after all: ideology may dirct the how and the semantics of why, but if all you've got is the technology of Sidon 450BC, that sets the level of control. If you have people chipped, always online, wih the chip reposrting position, blood pressure, stress, and so on then that's what you use.
The rest is semantics and rethorics I'm afraid: a civilisation which backs off from technological innovation and implementation... well, look at the arabs and the chinese to se what that means in the longer perspective. Kings of the hill, and fat and lazy and complacent - and then in a few short decades subjugated by what they thought was perpetually uncouth barbarians (us).
However, by opposing mandates such as this, we can expose those politicians and others with a sadistic perosnality, and try to wrestle control of the implementation from then.
Agreed on the above--if these opportunities existed, surely our ancestors would have used them. The problem now is that I do see about 1/3 of the population who will generally do what the gov't tells them to do, irrespective of what that 'thing' is at any given time: yesterday it was Covid-19, today it is rabid cries of 'Russia bad!', tomorrow it'll be…another 1/3 of the population is kinda moving with the flow, so to speak, and the remaining 1/3 is opposed to these lunatic aspirations for either practical and/or principled reasons. The trick appears to be to swing the middle 1/3 to form a majority.
Yet, there are so many constraints on esp. the middle third as well as on the opposing third: financial worries, school districts, no easy way out, etc.
Forgive me for sounding perhaps 'conservative' in the traditional Burkean way, but the main problem isn't any of these above constraints (although they are very real), but how the basis of Western Civilisation, the (nuclear) family, works. If the family unit broke down because of, say, disagreements over getting injected with the products offered 'against' Covid-19, then there's probably little hope to discuss any other issue that warrants calm and measured examination of the facts, one's individual situation, and the reaction to the coming disruptions.
I'm not religious at-all, but I do see the subversive power of charity: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but other than that, leave me the heck alone constitutes perhaps the most viable way forward.
Oh I am quite conservative myself, to the point that I frequently refer to mysefl as reactionary or even atavistic as to make a point about modern day conservatives (using the mainstream media definition) in real terms being liberals. On the other hand, labels are only useful if one also looks inside the labeled box so to speak, so I'm on the whole pretty lukewarm when it comes to terms like left or right or -isms, since I think it is quite clear by now (as was argued by Herbert Tingsten* in the 1960s that the ideologies are dead. They are a puppet show needed only by politicians and those who make their living from politicking, and serve only to distract and obfuscate from real issues. As I'm fond of saying to ideologically passionate (read: party loyal as if the party was a football team) friends: name one concrete political issue and explain to me how it is left or right. Emulating Sokrates, it is the quite easy to prove that the issue is the opposite of what they claim, purely by changing how it is described.
Yes, the 1/3 estimate seems to hold true across civilisations and time, as far as can be known at least. And the destruction of the family (by which I mean cousins and second cousins and in laws too) is surely the capstone of this rapidly progressive societal gangrene. I believe it can be sketched out like this: a trait or an act is proclaimed abhorrent and evil, and is forbidden. Over time, the enforcement of this slackens off when it becomes evdent that the trait/act does not really hurt or affect anyone than those directly involved. After another couple of generations, the act/trait has been analysed, and becomes tolerated meaning allowed to exist. From there it becomes a part of identity, and garners acceptance.
Onc accepted, one of two thingscan happen: if the above process was spontanenous, it stops with acceptance. The trait/act may exist under the same conditions as everything else: don't hurt others, don't use coercion or threats. But if a movement ha been established, centered on championing this trait/act, it cannot stop since the existence of the movement by then has becomes the point of the movement (Simone Weil died much too young) and the act/trait is at best an excuse - this all means the movement must continue inventing goals, since all such movements are progressive rather than reactive. And the logical step after acceptance is endorsement, and the next making the act/trait compulsory and mandatory, if only in rhetoric.
The last step is secular canonisation: the act/trait, in reality the movement and those who embody said act/trait are holy, unviolable and above criticism. Any and all acts such individuals may take, can only be understood and discussed through that filter of holyness.
I think the above bears out, the most triumphant example being homosexuality going from a nameless act to a mortal sin to a deficience of character to bein scientifically explained to being a sexual reference to a lifestyle chice to a right others must adapt to.
And since this already resembles occultism, I'll borrow a principle from there: "If something rises, something else must sink". In this case, the family and with it civilisation.
But if I'm wrong and live long enough to see the promised mulitkultural schlaraffenland all the virtuous people say awauts behind the horizon (or five year plan), I'll happily admit it.
* Shamelessly copied from Wikipedia: "...schwedischer Politikwissenschaftler, Schriftsteller und Journalist. Er war Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der Universität Stockholm von 1935 bis 1946 und Chefredakteur der Zeitung Dagens Nyheter von 1946 bis 1959."
It is embarassing to see such plans coming from the German government that has provided proof of its incompetence regarding even local disasters, such as the 2021 floods (in particular, at the river of Ahr, where unfortunately over 100 people died). The woman who was back then the responsible minister at state level (Green party politician Anne Spiegel) did not really care about it on the evening the floods came in (except that she required that messages be gendered - Campingplatzbetreiber*innen, for connoisseurs). Now she is minister for "everything but middle-aged men" in Germany. Your suggestions at the end are reasonable indeed.
You know, the thing that I'm more afraid than the coming 'disruptions' is the efforts by the powers-that-be to be seen 'doing something'. My guess is that these 'actions' will make things (much) worse than they have to be, but then again, perhaps this is intentional.
Thanks for bringing up the gender mainstreaming aspect of the Ahr flooding: I'm sure it helped (that is, at least Ms. Spiegel, who is now in a 'better' position…)
Indeed the 'actions' will make things worse. And at the same time, bottom-up initiatives that might really work will be suppressed. Again, the Ahr floodings provide examples: someone I know, who is working for one of the largest engineering companies in Rheinland-Pfalz, told me about their efforts to offer help, free of charge, in order to help with the rebuilding. It all got drowned somewhere in the bureaucracy.
The only emergency that exists for politicians is the governed not complying enough.
As we are old enough to remember and have personal experience of the USSR and the German Democratic Republic, we also know that there are no real way to fight this short of armed insurrection and then only if significant portions of police and military join in.
So to survive, perhaps even thrive, there a couple of universal methods:
Join the oppressors. It's a better life being the sheepdog than the sheep after all.
Make a lot of sound and fury being oppositional; either stick to your guns and get the Havel treatment, or the Allende treatment.
Escape; there are nations where technological infrastructure is far from up to date with such a system as is proposed here.
Learn the system, then game the system. Outward compliance only as and when enforced, keeping your mind free. (This one works best if one can wrangle a position as overseer of procedural matters, commissar or in logistics and transportation.)
As above, but opt out. Be of no interest to the system. Unprofitable, unexploitable, and generally useless (call it the Svejk option).
If this technological terror they've created would have been available to Frederic the Great, or Willima Pitt, or Atatürk or Magsaysay - they would all have used it. The ability to create technological control is primary to the power of ideology after all: ideology may dirct the how and the semantics of why, but if all you've got is the technology of Sidon 450BC, that sets the level of control. If you have people chipped, always online, wih the chip reposrting position, blood pressure, stress, and so on then that's what you use.
The rest is semantics and rethorics I'm afraid: a civilisation which backs off from technological innovation and implementation... well, look at the arabs and the chinese to se what that means in the longer perspective. Kings of the hill, and fat and lazy and complacent - and then in a few short decades subjugated by what they thought was perpetually uncouth barbarians (us).
However, by opposing mandates such as this, we can expose those politicians and others with a sadistic perosnality, and try to wrestle control of the implementation from then.
Agreed on the above--if these opportunities existed, surely our ancestors would have used them. The problem now is that I do see about 1/3 of the population who will generally do what the gov't tells them to do, irrespective of what that 'thing' is at any given time: yesterday it was Covid-19, today it is rabid cries of 'Russia bad!', tomorrow it'll be…another 1/3 of the population is kinda moving with the flow, so to speak, and the remaining 1/3 is opposed to these lunatic aspirations for either practical and/or principled reasons. The trick appears to be to swing the middle 1/3 to form a majority.
Yet, there are so many constraints on esp. the middle third as well as on the opposing third: financial worries, school districts, no easy way out, etc.
Forgive me for sounding perhaps 'conservative' in the traditional Burkean way, but the main problem isn't any of these above constraints (although they are very real), but how the basis of Western Civilisation, the (nuclear) family, works. If the family unit broke down because of, say, disagreements over getting injected with the products offered 'against' Covid-19, then there's probably little hope to discuss any other issue that warrants calm and measured examination of the facts, one's individual situation, and the reaction to the coming disruptions.
I'm not religious at-all, but I do see the subversive power of charity: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but other than that, leave me the heck alone constitutes perhaps the most viable way forward.
Oh I am quite conservative myself, to the point that I frequently refer to mysefl as reactionary or even atavistic as to make a point about modern day conservatives (using the mainstream media definition) in real terms being liberals. On the other hand, labels are only useful if one also looks inside the labeled box so to speak, so I'm on the whole pretty lukewarm when it comes to terms like left or right or -isms, since I think it is quite clear by now (as was argued by Herbert Tingsten* in the 1960s that the ideologies are dead. They are a puppet show needed only by politicians and those who make their living from politicking, and serve only to distract and obfuscate from real issues. As I'm fond of saying to ideologically passionate (read: party loyal as if the party was a football team) friends: name one concrete political issue and explain to me how it is left or right. Emulating Sokrates, it is the quite easy to prove that the issue is the opposite of what they claim, purely by changing how it is described.
Yes, the 1/3 estimate seems to hold true across civilisations and time, as far as can be known at least. And the destruction of the family (by which I mean cousins and second cousins and in laws too) is surely the capstone of this rapidly progressive societal gangrene. I believe it can be sketched out like this: a trait or an act is proclaimed abhorrent and evil, and is forbidden. Over time, the enforcement of this slackens off when it becomes evdent that the trait/act does not really hurt or affect anyone than those directly involved. After another couple of generations, the act/trait has been analysed, and becomes tolerated meaning allowed to exist. From there it becomes a part of identity, and garners acceptance.
Onc accepted, one of two thingscan happen: if the above process was spontanenous, it stops with acceptance. The trait/act may exist under the same conditions as everything else: don't hurt others, don't use coercion or threats. But if a movement ha been established, centered on championing this trait/act, it cannot stop since the existence of the movement by then has becomes the point of the movement (Simone Weil died much too young) and the act/trait is at best an excuse - this all means the movement must continue inventing goals, since all such movements are progressive rather than reactive. And the logical step after acceptance is endorsement, and the next making the act/trait compulsory and mandatory, if only in rhetoric.
The last step is secular canonisation: the act/trait, in reality the movement and those who embody said act/trait are holy, unviolable and above criticism. Any and all acts such individuals may take, can only be understood and discussed through that filter of holyness.
I think the above bears out, the most triumphant example being homosexuality going from a nameless act to a mortal sin to a deficience of character to bein scientifically explained to being a sexual reference to a lifestyle chice to a right others must adapt to.
And since this already resembles occultism, I'll borrow a principle from there: "If something rises, something else must sink". In this case, the family and with it civilisation.
But if I'm wrong and live long enough to see the promised mulitkultural schlaraffenland all the virtuous people say awauts behind the horizon (or five year plan), I'll happily admit it.
* Shamelessly copied from Wikipedia: "...schwedischer Politikwissenschaftler, Schriftsteller und Journalist. Er war Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der Universität Stockholm von 1935 bis 1946 und Chefredakteur der Zeitung Dagens Nyheter von 1946 bis 1959."
It is embarassing to see such plans coming from the German government that has provided proof of its incompetence regarding even local disasters, such as the 2021 floods (in particular, at the river of Ahr, where unfortunately over 100 people died). The woman who was back then the responsible minister at state level (Green party politician Anne Spiegel) did not really care about it on the evening the floods came in (except that she required that messages be gendered - Campingplatzbetreiber*innen, for connoisseurs). Now she is minister for "everything but middle-aged men" in Germany. Your suggestions at the end are reasonable indeed.
You know, the thing that I'm more afraid than the coming 'disruptions' is the efforts by the powers-that-be to be seen 'doing something'. My guess is that these 'actions' will make things (much) worse than they have to be, but then again, perhaps this is intentional.
Thanks for bringing up the gender mainstreaming aspect of the Ahr flooding: I'm sure it helped (that is, at least Ms. Spiegel, who is now in a 'better' position…)
Indeed the 'actions' will make things worse. And at the same time, bottom-up initiatives that might really work will be suppressed. Again, the Ahr floodings provide examples: someone I know, who is working for one of the largest engineering companies in Rheinland-Pfalz, told me about their efforts to offer help, free of charge, in order to help with the rebuilding. It all got drowned somewhere in the bureaucracy.