It is breathtaking how quickly the population split into The Virtuous versus The Selfish based on nothing more than compliance with the State. What The Virtuous don’t realize is that The Selfish are fighting for everyone’s natural rights, not just their own. And yet The Virtuous are being conditioned to think of even natural human rights as an expression of selfishness. Would The Virtuous still believe in their own righteousness once we’re all in cattle cars or camps?
(Probably so. They’d still be wagging a finger at The Selfish instead of the State.)
Sadly, you're likely correct. As it stands right now, the virtuous are still virtuous and are not willing to apologize and admit any wrongdoing. What they did, they with virtuous intentions, so that makes it OK. They are not selfish like the "unvirtuous." I find that many of the virtuous are the social media "look at me" types. They always want people admiring them.
A bigger picture which allows the reader to autonomously use this article in every aspect of life:
We may roughly classify any community into two groups: suppliers and recipients. Some people feel fulfilled when they actively contribute to the community (of any scale), some do not share this call and are perfectly happy on the consuming end. This is a natural division. Plumbers and academic teachers are equally important and needed as house owners and students, and usually are not interchangeable.
Suppliers deliver what recipients need or want. Recipients compensate them with cash, products or services. So far, so good.
(For a universal picture, recipients may be seen as suppliers of funds for suppliers.)
Problems arise when suppliers want to force recipients to accept products or services which they perceive as unnecessary, unwanted or “not now, not here”. This is the point where compliance comes into play.
The easy way for suppliers is to make promises. If these are rational and based on actual capacity and approved intention, recipients (we) can accept them, knowing that it is a good investment for them. Like in upgrading a local road funded by local residents. We may call it (low level) social coexistence. It is low level because both parties are more or less equally supported by law.
Problems arise when one party takes advantage of its position, contacts or resources and makes empty promises, knowing from the start that they are all only selling points, no obligations related. All presidential campaigns all over the world are based on this premise. Before: “I will give you this and that.” After: “New circumstances force us to change…” or “We decided that it would not be in the best interest…” or any other story to disarm the original promise.
It was a promise. When offered a product or service, we tend not to watch out for small print. We jump right to how we could use the offer for our own benefit. And we usually accept the promise without asking the key question: “What happens when you do not deliver?”
Ask this question and proceed according to what you hear in the answer. Then, if you decide to accept the promise, sign a written paper with the relevant data - but first verify the identity AND credentials of the promising party. Simple, effective, this will minimize losses, if any.
This is commonly done in personal affairs (contract of marriage or divorce, distribution of assets), in business life (we sign a lot of contracts), there is no reason why it could not be introduced into the affairs of the state. Then, compliance by force could be minimized. Theoretically.
For the starters, you may demand from your local representative to present a legal contract under which he/she is remunerated by the government. There must be some form of employment or agency contract, otherwise no income. Step by step, go upwards the system and (try to) find a contract of employment under which top state officials receive their salaries…
Remember, they make promises every day. Plenty of them. Ultimately, you are the supplier of their funding. They are the recipients of your sweat, health loss, family time loss or time investment put in to generate the money which you are handing over.
No need to be hostile, militant or demanding. Only curious.
Nolte: Snickers Hits Back at Joe Biden over State of the Union Smear
Snickers released a statement hitting back at Joe Biden for smearing the candymaker during last week’s State of the Union address.
So, yeah, because of Joe Biden, you’re getting fewer chips and cookies. Not an ideal situation, but better than the alternative, which is a box of Cheerios priced out of your family’s budget. All of this is squarely Biden’s fault. (CHEERIOS AND QUAKER PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN LINKED TO 2 PESTICIDES CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS. TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA ALLOWS HIGHER LIMITS IN THEIR OATS.) Don't be lazy look it up.
I think James is cleverly redirecting blame for the actions of our bureaucracy and political leaders onto Mao and China. The roots of this come from us, not China
Regarded from a Marxist viewpoint, your appellation "Neo-Maoism" is accurate.
Having thought that discarded mantle of Marxism a dim remembrance of youthful folly, it pains me to don it temporarily for any reason, but these are extraordinary times.
China's dynastic legacy of behavioral observation, shaped Mao's revolutionary methodology. His unique blend of coercion and targeted executions was highly effective within the choice architecture extant when he seized power.
I would very much like to see you make a study of how western behavioral science correlates with the Chinese methodology. What the Chinese learned over thousands of years was verified within the span of time between Pavlov and Skinner.
What I'm saying, is that you have identified the situation accurately, but are still in the first stage, that of parameterizing the problem. The solution(s) are forthcoming. Because you are "ahead of the curve," it falls to you to bring it to the next stage.
It is breathtaking how quickly the population split into The Virtuous versus The Selfish based on nothing more than compliance with the State. What The Virtuous don’t realize is that The Selfish are fighting for everyone’s natural rights, not just their own. And yet The Virtuous are being conditioned to think of even natural human rights as an expression of selfishness. Would The Virtuous still believe in their own righteousness once we’re all in cattle cars or camps?
(Probably so. They’d still be wagging a finger at The Selfish instead of the State.)
Sadly, you're likely correct. As it stands right now, the virtuous are still virtuous and are not willing to apologize and admit any wrongdoing. What they did, they with virtuous intentions, so that makes it OK. They are not selfish like the "unvirtuous." I find that many of the virtuous are the social media "look at me" types. They always want people admiring them.
Great piece! James Lindsay is ✨👌🏾
EXCELLENT. All the clothes at Walmart are MAO clothes, just in different colors.
After 8 consecutive months of 3% inflation, the Fed's 2% goal remains elusive
The biggest economic story of the post-pandemic period has been inflation.
https://www.aol.com/news/no-landing-8-straight-months-223116604.html
BUT HE IS DOING IT! The White House Claims Borrowing $16 Trillion Over the Next Decade Is Fiscally Responsible
https://www.aol.com/news/white-house-claims-borrowing-16-150054422.html
The dramatic examples discussed need to be paired with the more insidious examples we might not notice...
Quality standards in health care
Our entire educational system
On and on and on...
A bigger picture which allows the reader to autonomously use this article in every aspect of life:
We may roughly classify any community into two groups: suppliers and recipients. Some people feel fulfilled when they actively contribute to the community (of any scale), some do not share this call and are perfectly happy on the consuming end. This is a natural division. Plumbers and academic teachers are equally important and needed as house owners and students, and usually are not interchangeable.
Suppliers deliver what recipients need or want. Recipients compensate them with cash, products or services. So far, so good.
(For a universal picture, recipients may be seen as suppliers of funds for suppliers.)
Problems arise when suppliers want to force recipients to accept products or services which they perceive as unnecessary, unwanted or “not now, not here”. This is the point where compliance comes into play.
The easy way for suppliers is to make promises. If these are rational and based on actual capacity and approved intention, recipients (we) can accept them, knowing that it is a good investment for them. Like in upgrading a local road funded by local residents. We may call it (low level) social coexistence. It is low level because both parties are more or less equally supported by law.
Problems arise when one party takes advantage of its position, contacts or resources and makes empty promises, knowing from the start that they are all only selling points, no obligations related. All presidential campaigns all over the world are based on this premise. Before: “I will give you this and that.” After: “New circumstances force us to change…” or “We decided that it would not be in the best interest…” or any other story to disarm the original promise.
It was a promise. When offered a product or service, we tend not to watch out for small print. We jump right to how we could use the offer for our own benefit. And we usually accept the promise without asking the key question: “What happens when you do not deliver?”
Ask this question and proceed according to what you hear in the answer. Then, if you decide to accept the promise, sign a written paper with the relevant data - but first verify the identity AND credentials of the promising party. Simple, effective, this will minimize losses, if any.
This is commonly done in personal affairs (contract of marriage or divorce, distribution of assets), in business life (we sign a lot of contracts), there is no reason why it could not be introduced into the affairs of the state. Then, compliance by force could be minimized. Theoretically.
For the starters, you may demand from your local representative to present a legal contract under which he/she is remunerated by the government. There must be some form of employment or agency contract, otherwise no income. Step by step, go upwards the system and (try to) find a contract of employment under which top state officials receive their salaries…
Remember, they make promises every day. Plenty of them. Ultimately, you are the supplier of their funding. They are the recipients of your sweat, health loss, family time loss or time investment put in to generate the money which you are handing over.
No need to be hostile, militant or demanding. Only curious.
That Lindsey video was FANTASTIC!
So very validating too. :-)
Thanks, I had missed James Lindsay's presentation.
Really profound and to the point.
Excellent
Nailed it, as usual.
Fantastic post. Truly excellent.
Nolte: Snickers Hits Back at Joe Biden over State of the Union Smear
Snickers released a statement hitting back at Joe Biden for smearing the candymaker during last week’s State of the Union address.
So, yeah, because of Joe Biden, you’re getting fewer chips and cookies. Not an ideal situation, but better than the alternative, which is a box of Cheerios priced out of your family’s budget. All of this is squarely Biden’s fault. (CHEERIOS AND QUAKER PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN LINKED TO 2 PESTICIDES CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS. TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA ALLOWS HIGHER LIMITS IN THEIR OATS.) Don't be lazy look it up.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/11/nolte-snickers-hits-back-joe-biden-over-state-union-smear/
Is there a direct link to the video?
(preferably not YouTube)
I think James is cleverly redirecting blame for the actions of our bureaucracy and political leaders onto Mao and China. The roots of this come from us, not China
Trends are trends, regardless of the culture they arise in. Mattias Desmit might say that parallel stories will follow the same course.
The difference now, is that the seed which was Mao, is now a global tree.
More a bramble thicket than a tree.
Are our accounts of Mao even the truth? I don't think the are. They are certainly disputed.
Regarded from a Marxist viewpoint, your appellation "Neo-Maoism" is accurate.
Having thought that discarded mantle of Marxism a dim remembrance of youthful folly, it pains me to don it temporarily for any reason, but these are extraordinary times.
China's dynastic legacy of behavioral observation, shaped Mao's revolutionary methodology. His unique blend of coercion and targeted executions was highly effective within the choice architecture extant when he seized power.
I would very much like to see you make a study of how western behavioral science correlates with the Chinese methodology. What the Chinese learned over thousands of years was verified within the span of time between Pavlov and Skinner.
What I'm saying, is that you have identified the situation accurately, but are still in the first stage, that of parameterizing the problem. The solution(s) are forthcoming. Because you are "ahead of the curve," it falls to you to bring it to the next stage.
If not you, then who?