Such an important point that the dissident lefties and righties who so hated one another for cultural reasons arguably had more in common with each other than with the buttoned-down establishment. Much as the hippies tend to be coded as "progressive," at least back in the 60s they would have been skeptical of the top-down technocratic managerialism that has come to dominate the institutional left.
These people have voted with their feet. And getting on with what you talk about with the townsquare independence thing...
I grew up in one, in NZ and the mindset is - Let the people in the Matrix do what they do and we will do what we do. I can say that they are much much happier. Its not Easy though.
A sort of footnote. THE THREE LEVELS OF ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT COMMITMENT
1. Tactical anti-establishment. This is a person who sees being anti-establishment as a good short term tactic to reach some other goal, usually personal wealth and/or power. This is the level of of the grifter, they will be left wing anti-establishment when the right is in power and vice versa. Beware, these people have no core values, they will stab you in the back if it suits their self interest, and will steal your ideas without acknowledgement or compensation. Present day examples James Lindsey and most likely Christopher Ruffo.
2. Strategically anti-establishment. These people are true believer revolutionaries who want to burn it all down and build up new institutions in the smouldering ashes after they win. If it is a battle and institutional power for your ideology you are looking for these people are the real deal, loyal trustworthy, virtuous, with Roman soldier stoic characteristics. The thing I find personally off putting is most just want to set up a new establishment to replace the old establishment. Most of the NrX and "dissident right," fit into this category as well the "intellectual dark web" thinkers like the Weinstein brothers, Heather Heying, and Jordan Peterson.
3. Spiritually anti-establishment. This person is against all establishments not for some personal goal goal of wealth or fame, but because they see technique and bureaucracy as being a morally offensive abomination. This person is not a fighter, they are a scholar, a poet, or at the most evolved level a prophet. So they are no ally to anyone other than their moral vision of defeating "the black iron prison," in all its forms, and many of them will call this moral vision "God." These people are "the voices crying out from the wilderness," and are often hermits, or living in monasteries, or in garrets in urban areas in extreme voluntary poverty. Extremely rare, I can't really think of any modern living examples, though Jacque Ellul and Rene Gerard are arguable candidates who lived into the modern era. There are many old school, examples Henry Miller in his Big Sur years, Lew Welch, Robinson Jeffers, Walt Whitman, William Wordsworth, William Blake, Buddha and Jesus.
Hello Mr. Raven, you say you like reading. I started publishing books on my site. Every work is my original translation from the Russian language, and from Russian authors. I have never found any of them elsewhere in English. The subjects are ancient Asian history and a theory of the rise and fall of ethnicity (civilizations), from a Russian point of view. There are short 25 page monographs, on up to full 200 - 300 page books.
By learning more about long and expanding strings of "events", we DO become knowledgeable. But knowledge is not necessarily understanding. That's why it seems like overload. What we're lacking is a theory to tie it all together.
My theme for the site is "The Process for Peace and Conciliation is through UNDERSTANDING". Also understanding who your supposed adversaries are, which started me probing into Russia. But I had to go beyond the western narratives. The rise and fall theory is called the theory of passionarity, by the Russian L.N. Gumilev.
It is getting to be a voluminous site, (12 unique translations in just a few weeks), but it is very organized through a "Master Index page pinned to the top, like the card catalog. They're all broken into bite-sized chapters. If you think that you would enjoy learning more about this theory, in 1b) is a short introduction excerpt, and then some (alt)-examples from Russian history to demonstrate the theory. 1a) is more philosophical excerpt, but as I remember very enjoyable. There now is an assortment of Ancient Asian histories, which also leads to understanding the period.
Such an important point that the dissident lefties and righties who so hated one another for cultural reasons arguably had more in common with each other than with the buttoned-down establishment. Much as the hippies tend to be coded as "progressive," at least back in the 60s they would have been skeptical of the top-down technocratic managerialism that has come to dominate the institutional left.
I have a whole essay on the cultural conservatism of the hippies here you may enjoy.
Look into Intentional Communities. big uptick in these - both Left learning and right leaning.
Middle Right - https://wheaton-labs.com/
Far Left - https://www.dancingrabbit.org/about-dancing-rabbit-ecovillage/
These people have voted with their feet. And getting on with what you talk about with the townsquare independence thing...
I grew up in one, in NZ and the mindset is - Let the people in the Matrix do what they do and we will do what we do. I can say that they are much much happier. Its not Easy though.
Appreciate your vision.
Thanks.
Absolutely Love It. Thanks for the me tion
A sort of footnote. THE THREE LEVELS OF ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT COMMITMENT
1. Tactical anti-establishment. This is a person who sees being anti-establishment as a good short term tactic to reach some other goal, usually personal wealth and/or power. This is the level of of the grifter, they will be left wing anti-establishment when the right is in power and vice versa. Beware, these people have no core values, they will stab you in the back if it suits their self interest, and will steal your ideas without acknowledgement or compensation. Present day examples James Lindsey and most likely Christopher Ruffo.
2. Strategically anti-establishment. These people are true believer revolutionaries who want to burn it all down and build up new institutions in the smouldering ashes after they win. If it is a battle and institutional power for your ideology you are looking for these people are the real deal, loyal trustworthy, virtuous, with Roman soldier stoic characteristics. The thing I find personally off putting is most just want to set up a new establishment to replace the old establishment. Most of the NrX and "dissident right," fit into this category as well the "intellectual dark web" thinkers like the Weinstein brothers, Heather Heying, and Jordan Peterson.
3. Spiritually anti-establishment. This person is against all establishments not for some personal goal goal of wealth or fame, but because they see technique and bureaucracy as being a morally offensive abomination. This person is not a fighter, they are a scholar, a poet, or at the most evolved level a prophet. So they are no ally to anyone other than their moral vision of defeating "the black iron prison," in all its forms, and many of them will call this moral vision "God." These people are "the voices crying out from the wilderness," and are often hermits, or living in monasteries, or in garrets in urban areas in extreme voluntary poverty. Extremely rare, I can't really think of any modern living examples, though Jacque Ellul and Rene Gerard are arguable candidates who lived into the modern era. There are many old school, examples Henry Miller in his Big Sur years, Lew Welch, Robinson Jeffers, Walt Whitman, William Wordsworth, William Blake, Buddha and Jesus.
Hello Mr. Raven, you say you like reading. I started publishing books on my site. Every work is my original translation from the Russian language, and from Russian authors. I have never found any of them elsewhere in English. The subjects are ancient Asian history and a theory of the rise and fall of ethnicity (civilizations), from a Russian point of view. There are short 25 page monographs, on up to full 200 - 300 page books.
By learning more about long and expanding strings of "events", we DO become knowledgeable. But knowledge is not necessarily understanding. That's why it seems like overload. What we're lacking is a theory to tie it all together.
My theme for the site is "The Process for Peace and Conciliation is through UNDERSTANDING". Also understanding who your supposed adversaries are, which started me probing into Russia. But I had to go beyond the western narratives. The rise and fall theory is called the theory of passionarity, by the Russian L.N. Gumilev.
It is getting to be a voluminous site, (12 unique translations in just a few weeks), but it is very organized through a "Master Index page pinned to the top, like the card catalog. They're all broken into bite-sized chapters. If you think that you would enjoy learning more about this theory, in 1b) is a short introduction excerpt, and then some (alt)-examples from Russian history to demonstrate the theory. 1a) is more philosophical excerpt, but as I remember very enjoyable. There now is an assortment of Ancient Asian histories, which also leads to understanding the period.
.
This is spam and I am deleting it and blocking you.
thank you