Monday, 20 February 2017

Anatomy of a Trump Fandango

Just checked the BS news & here is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "4d chess" - the cat and mouse game that Team Trump are playing, which runs rings around the main stream press narratives:
I call it the "Trump Fandango" after the aggressive latin dance.
It basically goes in five phases:
1) Bumbling vague remark.
In this case, he lists off a list of countries experiencing problems with migrant crime.  Something I refer to as "pattern recognition", but which we are taught is dangerous bigotry, that will end in genocide. Literally Hitler...
2) MSM point and snark.
Ha! Trump just made up a fake terrorist attack in Sweden to scare the populace into accepting his Hitlerian ideas.  (Note - he's not mentioned anything about terror yet...)
3) Double Down.
He will come out in the next few days & point to the fact that stats show more than one person gets raped by a migrant every night - or will point to an under-reported, yet horrific specific crime.
4) Split hairs.
MSM will go apoplectic in disbelief that, having been caught in a flagrant falsehood, Trump is trying to cover his tracks. However, their ineffective narrative will effectively either be - "Trump was making out that Sweden had a terrorist attack, but now admits it was just a few thousand Swedish women raped by aggressive third worlders, who we keep pretending are women and children refugees that you are morally obliged to let into your country." Or alternatively "Trump lied about five afghans raping a teenage boy last night.  That happened two weeks ago!!!".
5) Smack Down.
As you can see - the media win the argument on a technicality, but lose the moral ground.  This is all that matters in politics.  Strangely though - this is traditionally the point at which there is an expectation of restraint, as if the whole thing were an exercise in politeness.  Somehow (and I'm unsure how/why this happened for so long) one was expected to rise above the level of gloating, or name calling.  Trump, however will make sure to remark, publicly & prominently, on how disgusted he is by their moral purblindness & outright dishonesty, in very basic terms.
In the early days, I used to think this was all quite haphazard; a bit "Millenium Falcon", if you like.  Chaotic, but somehow agile enough to maneuver through an asteroid field.  (or through the debris of a planet destroyed by megalomaniac statists, to be more accurate...) but this is exactly how he won the election & he has done it far too many times to be a coincidence.  
His strategist Steve Bannon is said to be the brains behind most of it. Its also the diametric opposite of the strategy conservatives have used to conserve the sum total of naff all for the past 50 years. It's amazing how journalists don't seem to have learned the pattern yet.  It makes one wonder how many are genuine autists? After all, how many non-Asperger's sufferers think hairsplitting, at that level, is a winning strategy? 
The dispassioned, spock-like mode of discussing how left wing politics results in worse outcomes for immigrants and increased racial inequality, and interracial hostility, is known as DR3 (Demoncrats "R" the "R"EAL " R"acists).  
Having read excellent, scholarly books such as Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", I was firmly in this camp myself for many years & used to get incredibly frustrated that people couldn't see this.  It was the middle path that would lead to a global enlightenment if only I could bring right minded, but wrong thinking people to see the light. 
It took me a while to realise that the problem with this approach is that it accepts the debate on the left's terms, and simultaneously ignores the fact that the debate is being held on emotional rather than rational terms.
Aylan Kurdi
To see the mirror image of this mindset, let's go back to "beach boy" - Aylan Kurdi, the toddler who was pictured washed up on a beach.  The mainstream presses ran overtime gleefully churning out that unsavory image, in a massive outpouring of feels, to show how caring and moral they are, with little critical journalistic insight.  It was only days, or weeks later that we discovered that his father was a people smuggler, taking enormous risks (presumably for huge sums of cash) to leave a safe country to get dental work.  
The correct response should have been:  "Look at how horrendous these people are - if they take chances like that with their own kids, just think what a risk they pose to our own societies."
Instead, we got:  "What poor people, how desperate they must be. We must do everything we can to help them".  
The first response is the correct one from both a factual and moral standpoint.  It also displays a kind of moral strength. Instead, conservatives push the angle of "but, if we let them in, more people will die in the inevitable rush that follows", which is factually true but weak, in that it argues ineffectively on the other side's terms.  I naturally feel sorry for the dead kid, but in all truth, less than I would if he were from my own family, neighbourhood, country, or kin.  Not only is this is normal and healthy, it is also the attitude most likely to prevent further tragedies of that nature.  The moral weapons of mass disruption that the left deploy in their eternal blitzkrieg against anyone who dares to express rational self interest have finally lost their effectiveness - on me, at least. To see somebody throwing them back in their faces, like paper darts - as Trump is doing, is impressive and heartening.
Passing back the buck.
In arranging for the creation of safe zones in Syria, and de-escalating tensions with her legitimate leader, Bashar al-Assad, Trump has brought about the beginning of the end of the biggest threat currently facing Western Civilisation.  This is an impressive thing to have done in his first month in office, which really underscores how inept all the others have been, with their moral preening and posturing.  
Our mortal allies in ISIS openly state that their primary strategy is to sneak in, disguised as refugees, so that they can commit atrocities which will fuel hatred against the Muslim populations residing in those countries.
Once the problem is dealt with at source & the displaced Syrians have a safe place to stay, it stands to reason that there will be a desperate rush for the border as that strategic window closes  This is plain, common sense.  For some reason, activist judges have seen fit to recklessly dabble in the executive and political realms, by refusing to support this common sense measure.  Again, Trump has been unrestrained by the usual faux humility that presidents are expected to show when judges choose to ignore legal precedent, as well as what the law actually says, in favour of naked partisanship.  Don't believe me? Here is the law which grants the president the same executive powers that Obama used, multiple times, during his two presidencies:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
It is amazing to watch the energy with which the new President executes his plans, knowing full well they will meet with all kinds of partisan resistance.  The differentiator is the way he makes clear that if you obstruct him, you own the problems he is trying to solve. 

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Neologism: Naive Right

Imagine a world... 
Where moderate conservative ideas are not howled down as reactionary hateful precursors to Nazism.
You've just imagined a world without Socialism.

This is both an observation and an assertion of fact; the Argumentum Ad Hitlerum tactic is more than modus operandii; it is the very lifeblood by which leftists everywhere operate.

With the fact in mind that ridicule often requires it's target's assent to be fully effective (whether willing, unwilling, silent or vocal) I formulated the term "Naive Right" to serve as a replacement for "Far Right", "Extreme Right", etc.  This post will try to explain why its adoption might help to take away the only toy our Socialist opponents posess: righteous scorn.

If you haven't read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", you should.  It is epic.  Crammed cover to cover with history & facts, it somehow still manages to present a coherent narrative.  One of the main themes surrounds the proposition that principled ideals occupy thr extremes, and intolerant totalitarianism arises from the mushy nihilistc middle ground.  Truth itself is, after all, an extreme position.  This runs counter to the idea purportedly favoured by the P.C. types that run the media, academia, etc. who claim salvation lies with moderation in all things & that all extremes are, perhaps, as bad as each other.  Maybe like me, you learned the horseshoe theory of politics at school, developed by French Postmodern philosopher poet Jean-Pierre Faye which explains how left & rightwing ideas both end up in the same place?

This is nonsense, of course...

For example, one might either have a principled belief in free markets, or a pragmatic belief in protected markets.  Once he has staked out his position, the principled man from whichever side presents his system to stand or fall on its merits.  However, the centrist chancer who lands a position of power will have nothing but appeals to emotive rhetoric to bolster his personality cult, which he will then use to jerry-rig favoured markets against failure & maximise private gain from successful investments.  Thus is authoritarianism born.

Birth of the term "Far" Right:
One interesting chapter in the book relates how the label "Far Right" first came to be applied to the Nazis of the NSDAP.  Did you know that this linguistic artifact came from none other than Joe Stalin himself when it suddenly dawned on him that he badly needed to distance himself from his former ally Adolf H. post Operation Barbarossa?  Mr Goldberg goes on to expose how laughably hypocritical this is given that, prior to Hitler's invasion of Russia, National Socialism (Fascism) was understandably viewed by International Socialists (Marxists) as a step on the path towards communism.  "First brown, then red" was the phrase used to describe progress the brownshirts were making on their behalf.

Standard Operating Procedure.
Perhaps you've noticed the way that real life enemies who genuinely might rob/hurt/kill are waved away as imaginary.  On the other hand, challenges to lefty moral superiority (which I maintain is the sole source of their political authority...) from more historically/socially/economically/scientifically literate opponents are declared to be the biggest threat to civilisation since the Nazis.

This is not a coincidence.  No "Progressive" movement ever has advanced its goals by acknowledging that things have actually progressed quite well up until now, but that further progress could be made if things were just organised a bit better.  Each follows the same script - regardless of wealth or level of technical and industrial advancement, the arguments are the same; tear down defenders of the status quo as being venal, exploitative merchants of death.

Consider two hypothetical societies at different stages of advancement:

Society A) has grown wealthy & developed radiotherapeutic nanorobots to cure all kinds of cancers.

Society B) has not progressed technologically beyond use of the left hand as toilet paper.

In either case, you might choose to acknowledge the progress that has already been made in the battle against debilitating tumours or e-coli contaminated bar snacks.  From there, you could try to argue that more needs to be done to extend this progress to all & that this could better be acheived with central planning.  Alternatively, you could loudly point and shriek at the inequalities inherent in the current system and angrily insist that bathroom sanitation/lifesaving medicine is somehow being stolen or withheld from those who dont have it.

The fact that the logical position is never attempted should tell you all you need to know.  Socialism is not asserted by rational means & cannot therefore be countered by reason.  Countering emotional appeals with emotional appeals is just messy.  The way to do it is simply to disrupt their ability to assert their emotional appeals to moral authority.  Von Mises asserts that when this is acheived, Socialism will cease to exist.

As I see it, there are effectively only four possible stances you could strike in reaction to the idea that Fascism/Nazism is an extreme rightist position.

Position A) Agree willingly & embrace Fascism. (Neo-nazi)
Position B) Agree reluctantly to the use of the term "Far-Right".  Make concessions to occupy the centre ground by accepting various "codes of conduct", "Non partisan" measures & the idea that certain things are just off limits.  (Cuckservative)
Position C) Oppose the idea entirely.  (Libertarian, Right wingnut, Teabagger, Kipper, etc.)
Position D) Oppose only the ordering.  Agree that neofascist nationalist movements are former socialists mugged by reality that are gradually moving rightwards & position yourself at the end of that path. (Enlightened Conservative)

For many years, I have believed position C) to be the correct one, diligently pursuing it by tediously correcting every reference to "far right" to "far left" and reminding anybody who posits these terms that the movements they are referring to espouse(d) socialist policies.  It continued to baffle me that this approach has less than zero traction, even with otherwise intelligent people.  I had yet to fully comprehend that socialism has literally no foundation whatsoever in reason and is entirely dependent on appeals to the emotions.  Marx's genius was not in formulating coherent logical positions, but in cementing criticism of his ideas as being rooted in a hateful "class based consciousness" that could not & should not be reasoned with.

Ludwig Von Mises understood this very well as early as 1932 when he wrote:

"Let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale... the question is settled in advance - Socialism is good and Capitalism evil"

Further, nationalism is actually quite hard to attribute to left or right.  Consider the following observations:

 - Both Stalin & Mao were fervent nationalist dictators, but for some reason are never ascribed the "Far Right" moniker.
 - Hitler openly admitted to basing his whole National Socialist ideology on Marx, but is rarely acknowledged as a leftist thinker.
 - Historically, Marx favoured free trade as a means to hasten the inevitable revolution.
 - Cold war Communists used to build walls to prevent migration.
 - Contemporary leftists claim (third world) migration to Western nations is a human right.
 - Hipster leftists promote localism in everything they do.
 - Globalist capitalists espouse the virtues of free movement of goods and, by extension, labour.

Somewhere near the bottom of the pile, traditional working classes and indigenous welfare state client classes have turned their back on the leftist politicians who have historically presumed to represent their interests, and are now the chief opponents of large scale unskilled immigration.

The following more or less describes the major fault lines in modern political thought:

From the right wing / conservative axis, the view is that free movement of goods and labour are intrinsically an economic or civilizational good, whereas undermining and destabilising traditional industries and communities is bad.  

The left wing / (eco)socialists see the importing of cheap goods feeding consumerism, undercutting wages and outsourcing labour to the third world as a terrible thing for all involved but embrace diversity as an endless source of domestic job opportunities and social vibrancy.  

Neither view is internally consistent, so one might reasonably conclude that none of this is set in stone...

So the question of whether nationalism is essentially leftist or rightist seems a rather arbitrary one.  However, the fact remains that core concepts of conservatism, right-wing politics and nationalism currently resonate rather nicely, especially among right thinking persons, so the question is really how to give that the maximum emotional resonance so as to make it maximally upsetting for the open-borders-eat-the-rich-eco-anarcho-EU-fascists who just know we need to import loads of cheap workers to help us spend our way out of the great big debt hole we're in.

I suggest frequent use of terms such as "Naive Right", "Recovering Socialists", "Nascent Right", "Exiles from the left" will have the following effects:

 - Having an enemy in the middle acts as a kind of endocrine disruptor to their virtue glands.  The main animating feature of Socialism is virtue signalling against their evil opponents.  It is emotionally essential for them to be able to position themselves in a comfortable moral hierarchy with themselves on top wagging ther fingers at their moderate opponents in the middle whilst pointing ominously at the devils beneath them.

 - The other animating feature of leftist thinking is terror/fear.  History shows this developing with alarming speed, to shocking effect when aroused.  If the nascent movements are placed in the centre where they belong, this fear creates a blind spot where leftists are unable to criticise moderates on the other side of the bogeyman.  Hopefully this will create enough breathing space to rebuild the conservative movement before the left assimilates the fear into their mechanisms.  (when all hell will literally break loose...)

 - Suggests the associated violence is akin to growing pains which will abate as movements mature, rather than get worse as they grow bolder.

 - Correctly attributes the aggressive nature of reactionary grassroots movements arising from disaffected working classes to Socialism rather than Nationalism.

 - Avoids "The lady doth protest too much" associations of position (C).  They already think we are all closet Nazis anyway & nothing will persuade them otherwise.  This is their last redoubt, they've bet the house - they are well and truly dug in, prepared for the frontal assault.  We should flank them instead.

 - Is a dominant, reactionary position.  Unlike (A) or (B) which both tacitly accept the moral superiority of leftist ideas.

What's to lose?

Tuesday, 3 November 2015


Just dumped a nice provocative comment over on John C. Wright's excellent blog

This thought provoking article details the three stages of progression of the modern disease whence a person might descend into SJWdom...

1) Degradation of faculty of reason, resulting in a solipsistic outlook
2) Degradation of notions of authority, leading to nihilistic obsessions with power
3) Degradation of ability to make moral distinctions, leading to inversion of the natural instincts of self-sacrifice into destructive projection.

Hop on over and have a read - riveting stuff.

For some reason, this inspired me to get on one of my favourite hobby horses, which is that we Europeans often get blamed for every kind of censorious collectivist movement ever to have graced the planet we live on.  Not quite sure what John did to merit being the target for this particular outpouring, but I suppose we have to take inspiration wherever we find it.  I'm expect if he has the time to respond it will be characteristically both amusing and challenging.

Here is the post.  The basic premise being that the USA was founded by SJWs:

I agree entirely about the political left being the home of mob-rule. That said, it is rather puzzling as to why the Founding Fathers pressed ahead with their utopia if they were far sighted enough to anticipate its downfall. It was certainly always obvious enough to us on the other side of the pond. Sadly, it has rather queered our own pitch into the bargain.

Apologies if I’m treading unceremoniously on the cherished founding myths of your glorious empire (oops, I mean nation) but look at it from our point of view for a moment:

The New York based MSM of the time whips the masses into a frenzy by appealing to popular sentiments about freedom/liberty with an affirmative action policy that consists of chanting "No taxation without representation". In reality, this is a figleaf for their real motivations of anti-militarism (seven years war) and tax avoidance. (stamp act) History vindicates the morality of the British position (Napoleon / French Revolution / Guillotine Deicides / The Terror). The French sponsors are so chuffed with the result that they send over a massive atheist statue to welcome in loads of new immigrants to cuck the remaining English Christians out of existence. The proto-Marxist Oppressor/oppressed rhetoric culminates in a gang of leftists blacking up as mohawks, going on a rampage & causing millions of dollars worth of damage to private property, needlessly dumping hundreds of casks of valuable tea in the river.

Sound familiar?

I suppose we can be thankful that the modern SJW is far more conscious of the problematic nature of cultural appropriation of indigenous groups.

Can’t we...?

It all does sound rather familiar, doesn’t it?

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

We are all Social Justice Warriors

Reposting a rather lengthy comment that I posted over at
Dialogue with a moderate

Surely the defining difference between Social & Antisocial Justice is that the former is based purely on shifting alliances whereas the latter has a fixed, external, absolute point of principle.
The strengths of the two movements are therefore respectively:

SJW: Nihilistic, solipsistic, values based on narrowly focussed clusters of identity politics with overlapping shared interests, able to score tactical victories by agile adaptation & forging powerful alliances to overwhelm defences.

Anti-SJW: Idealistic, outward looking, from a broad range of interests, based on shared ideals, able to form genuine grassroots defensive reactionary opposition & coherent offensive strategies when properly oriented.

Correspondingly, each has their own weaknesses.

SJW: Directionless, easily divided.  Supremacy in the hierarchy is decided by any given unit's usefulness to any given group at any given time.  Usefulness which in turn depends on unsustainable levels of intensity which hinders the ability to develop a cohesive strategy and consistently apply it.

Anti-SJW: Hypocritical, dogmatic, liable to procrastinate & pontificate.  The exacting standards of the abstract ideals makes real world leaders difficult to find & easy to attack on principle.  Supremacy within the hierarchy may be accorded on the basis of effectiveness.  Whereas something other than self-interest may define what that is, it may in turn be at odds with aforementioned principle.  Distraction techniques also work well against something that is implied rather than present.

Assuming the above to be true, it is safe to say that any attempts at comparison of the tactics SJWs use against the strategic wisdom inherent in the traditions and ideologies they seek to replace are doomed to failure, not just as false equivocations, as argumentum ad temperentiam / populam / baculum, nor even are they destined to fall on the incompetence of their syllogisms. 


Such comparisons are simply category error.  Tactics != Strategy

SJWs can have no coherent strategy other than destruction.  

No offensive tactics are permissible to the Anti-SJW for any purpose other than defence.

To move away from the topic of strategy vs tactics for a moment, contemplate the nature of each.  SJWs seek to divide, to isolate, to polarise.  Those that oppose them draw on the shared values that civilisation is built upon.

Spoiler Warning:  All the preceeding verbiage was of course foreplay to enable me to spout off some half baked moderate wishy washy, namby pamby, half baked "Jesus loves" you crap that has been brainwashed into me by the evil 17th century Kabballist Spinoza, so if you have only made it this far in the hope of being able to get off on how you would shoot me in the face if I tried to get in the way of your constitooshnl right to unload your ordinance at dangerous enemy nationals, it was worth the wait.

I can understand that some envy the ruthlessness that defines the SJW crowd, but it rather baffles me why anybody would want to ape their ruthless divisiveness.  Whilst a house divided is a great place to throw a party, it isn't somewhere that I would like to live.

I don't look at intersectional Feminists in awestruck admiration at the purity or versatility of their polemic (cant even decide which it is...) when they move to ban other feminists from speaking for suggesting that other feminists with whom both parties disagree may be worthy of debate.  I rightly consider it to be a manifestation of insanity.

Let's call it "meta-conflict".  Do you really want to get into that?  Whilst we can agree that swift furious rage driven application of blunt force trauma is an appropriate response to discovering somebody in flagrante delicto non consensuallissimus with your nearest and dearest or a young person, it strikes me as rather unproductive to insist on the excommunication of anybody who might tolerate the existence of a personage guilty of insufficient enthusiasm for instant execution of anybody who failed to prevent the act.

SJWs is as SJWs does.  The moment you take up arms in somebody else's defence you declare "W"ar in the name of "J"ustice on behalf of a member of "S"ociety.  That somebody may be a member of your family, a neighbour, a fellow countryman, a member of your ethnic race, or the human race.  The difference comes down to a combination of whether you actually represent the wishes or interests of the people you purport to defend, along with proportionality of the solutions you propose relative to the magnitude of the problem in something other than your own imagination.  The difference also lies in good part on whether you are able to apply some degree of fairness and equality in how you proscribe transgressions.  Whether you can put yourself in the shoes of the accused and ask how you would have acted in their position.

And yes, that does lead onto "I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me, I'm just a poor boy from a poor family...."  Every ideology contains the seeds of its own destruction in this fallen world after all.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

SJW Entryism and The Six Attitudes to Justice

The previous post "The Comparative Merits of Tolerance" catapulted this abandoned blog from literally two hits (both mine...) to over 1,000 views overnight!  It was inspired by reading a Kindle book called "SJW's Always Lie" by Vox Day, which explains how a kind of Equality & Human Rights industry has evolved in recent years, which has become known for manifestations of corruption, bigotry, nepotism and intolerance that can easily exceed the corruption, bigotry, nepotism and intolerance that it purportedly exists to oppose - not just against the predilictions and prejudices of the masses, but even against the minorities it claims to defend.  These corrupt individuals are sardonically termed "Social Justice Warriors" - the irony being that they are typically Antisocial Cowards who make a mockery of the very idea of Justice.

The post iterated through six possible attitudes that one may assume in relation to any given idea.  They were:


The lively discussion sparked off by the post merited a followup.  The descriptions provided were oversimplified & some of the terms ambiguous, but the bulk of the disagreement appeared to assume value judgements were attached to the terms, whereas what I was mostly trying to do was describe the various attitudes one might take towards any given idea that might be socially controversial, independent of its truth / moral correctness.

Today, I would like to set out how I believe these six positions relate to another concept introduced by Vox Day - Entryism, which has its roots in the collapse of Marxian ideas, with the rise of thinkers such as Gramsci, the Frankfurt School Critical Theorists & Rudi Dutschke who, having long abandoned the idea of revolution as a logical/scientific/economic inevitability, urged adherents onto a "long march through the institutions of power".  Subsequent thinkers such as Saul Alinsky built on this (so I'm told - TL;DR).

I'm going to lay out a slightly expanded definition of each position, a precis of what strategy / tactics SJWs use against people & groups who assume this attitude, symptoms that suggest this is the attitude currently assumed by the target & possible lines of defense against the lines of attack described.  For the purpose of clarity - the idea(s) and/or the attitude(s) taken in response can be moral, or immoral.  The idea(s) being asserted can be true, the ideas being asserted can be false.  It is possible to be in support or opposition to ideas in any of these categories, either from a position of principle or self-interest.  Likewise it is possible to support, permit, or oppose such ideas both willingly, or unwillingly, either voluntarily or from coercion.

This post has a dual aim, which is not to proscribe my own views (inevitable, some would argue...) but to arrive at a clear definition of the six attitudes themselves, which can hopefully then be (re?)attached to the terms themselves in our common English language to give some much needed clarity & hopefully raise the level of the debate in general.  As mentioned, I suspect the terms themselves may currently be infected with newthink/doublethink/badthink.  Some argued yesterday that they have been since the 15th century...



One of the points of entry - for the sake of deciding which way is up and which way is down, lets call it the bottom.  All rather arbitrary, as rejection of one thing could be said to imply, or at least indicate compatibility with, celebration of its opposite.  Let's view it from the perspective of the SJW's, since we are trying to get inside their OODA.  This is when somebody:

Mentally / morally rejects SJW idea(s) and also physically (bodily, economically, politcally, etc.) opposes them.


Unified purpose promotes decisiveness.
Freedom of conscience / expression sub-optimal.
Able to unabashedly indulge in elitist practices to secure the best talent.
Perception / understanding of the strategies and motivations of opponents may be impaired by groupthink.
SJW Virtue signalling by qualified agreement.  (Yes, but what about xyz...?  Well ok, but what if abc...?  On the other hand...?  Not as bad as xxx...?)
Preferred discipline = Repression (Not act on, or publicly express the idea)

SJW Attack Strategy

Get foot in the door by appearing moderate & attempt to bring in fellow travellers
Denounce opposing actions as being "extreme", "unfair", "intolerant" & move to eliminate their possibility by imposing / modifying constitutions, codes of practice, etc to promote more equal treatment.

SJW Attack Tactics

 RANK UP (+1) - Proselytise the value of "equality" in the context of human / natural / god given rights, to argue for equal treatment.
 RANK UP (+1) -  Dissembling minimisation of responsibility for "unintended", "unforseeable" or "unavoidable" consequences to relegate the idea to the private domain & remove the need for opposing action  (bonus points if you can pin them on the other side!  See: {1} SJWs always lie)
FLIP SUPPORT (+2) - Employ judicial activism by a) using restrictions and penalties from existing legislation against those it is intended to protect and b) creatively re-interpreting the meaning of repressive legislation to be the opposite of the one originally intended.
CONVERSION (+3) - Push "phobia" narrative to pathologize persecution as manifestation of internal repression i.e. "In Denial".  Acceptance / Celebration being the only other valid responses.


WIN - Escalate rejection to include all positions of meta-support for people who don't sufficiently oppose others expressing the potential possibility to theoretically discuss the idea, thereby eliminating it for all eternity.  If you get here, you probably are an SJW, btw... (WIN/FAIL)
HOLD - Appeal to the higher principle or purpose of the organisation.  I.e. Gaming journalism / Science fiction writing / God.
HOLD - Avoid the trap of being drawn in to defend the indefensible (i.e. massively disproportionate responses)
HOLD - Expose the motivations behind the deceit, as well as the deceit itself.
HOLD - Remain authoritative - avoid alarmism.
HOLD - Highlight proportionality / false equivocation in "yes, but what about" virtue signalling.
RETREAT (+1) - Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.  Consider tolerance from a tactical perspective, if pressure brought to bear is unsustainable.



When an individual or organisation mentally / morally disagrees with SJW idea(s) in a physically passive way.  

This attitude can be assumed out of principled acceptance of individual sovereignty & the right to exercise free choice, or out of feelings of powerlessness, a prudent / pragmatic sense that external damage will be negligible or acceptable, or out of neglectful indifference to manifest evil.  Tolerance is the battleground.  SJWs reject the concept, but embrace the term to describe celebration (often forced!).  Opponents also reject the term - perhaps in part due to its equation with acceptance, but also the concept more generally as an effective means of dealing with SJW entryism.


Deliberative approach to decisiveness
Able to attract a wider range of talent & therefore grow larger.
Freedom of conscience / expression maximised
Broadmindedness may veer into procrastination & philosophizing, but common sense still rules.
SJW Virtue signalling by broadcast criticism & disapproval of core values
Preferred discipline = Abstention (Express the ideas, but do not act on them)

SJW Attack Strategy

Promotion of "equal opportunities" narrative, built on established equal rights narrative.
Codify "Best" practices into constitutions, etc.

SJW Attack Tactics

HOLD - Heavy use of "Thin end of the wedge" & "slippery slope" arguments when attempting to promote "unbalanced" ideas
HOLD - Refusal to defend statements when criticised, preferring instead to retreat to within the safety of the victimhood narrative.  (See: {2} SJWs always double down)
RANK UP (+1) - Promotion of victimhood narratives to galvanise support
RANK UP (+1) - Training to identify previously unseen effects, requiring remediation.
CONVERSION (+3) - Nihilistic equivocation / "Moral Relativism" Double down on denial of links between causes and effects when it comes to unintended consequences of redistributionist ideologies, knock on effects, tolerance of the intolerable, etc, to present the idea as an equally acceptable, private domain, valid worldview.  Explain away any persistent negative associations that remain as inevitable result of marginalisation. Heavy equivocation commences at the first sign of weakening of any moral resolve.


RANK DOWN (-1) - Reject virtue signalling parties who are not aligned with core values, especially if attempting to subvert the spirit of tolerance to intolerant ends (intolerant of intolerance)
RANK DOWN (-1) - Adopt an equal opportunities approach to penalties and sanctions against attempts to exploit victimhood narrative, to be the same as would be given in cases of actual
victimisation. (intolerant of intolerance)
HOLD - Contextualise the indefensible in relation to indefensible actions from the other side. (Under extreme caution...)
HOLD - Underline the subjective nature of equal rights by highlighting examples of individuals / groups whose equal rights the SJW opposes.
HOLD - Highlight unfavourable comparisons between intolerances of the SJWs favoured groups, against tolerance from the opposed group.
RETREAT (+1) Minimise ideological association & sever links with indefensible fringes of the group under attack. (Intolerant of intolerance - submissive version)



The target still opposes the principles of the idea(s), at least in the main.  However, they now begin to support it.  Motivations for assuming this position are similar to those for tolerance.  Once again, you can submit to a true idea or you can submit to a false idea.  A moral or an immoral proposition.

Submission occurs once the "wisdom" of the SJW ideas has permeated to the point that an expectation is set.  This is the critical point at which favourable opinions are starting to form - but
crucially, when brooding resentments can also secretly burn.  At this point the target is:

Mentally / Morally against (mostly) the SJW idea(s), but now engaged in supporting them under conscientious, commercial, governmental, or social pressures.


Routine spouting of meaningless platitudes in everyday communication
Decisiveness impaired by additional imperatives
Overall reduction in freedom of conscience / expression.  Impaired for majority / expanded for a minority.  Humour still possible.
Able to retain highly skilled employees who are willing to be submissive, but correspondingly whose talents may be misdirected.
Broadmindedness gives way to censoriousness.  Internal conflicts lead to chaos and confusion.
SJW Virtue signalling by extolling the glorious, progressive, inevitable nature of the changes.  Feelgood vibes to smooth the conversion process & extreme nervousness to Feelbads to avoid triggering resentment.
Preferred discipline = Contrition (Act on the idea, but apologetically)

SJW Attack Strategy

Highlight inequalities of outcome as failures of the equal opportunity policies.
Promote the supporting value of Diversity in its place.

SJW Attack Tactics

RANK UP (+1) - Codes of conduct to include mandatory reporting of "discrimination"
RANK UP (+1) - Courses to highlight unconscious prejudices
RANK UP (+1) - Capitalise on the abandonment of evidence based decision making & push forwards to abolish evidence based reasoning.
RANK UP (+1) - Sensitivity training to identify the negative impacts of "banter" and "humour"
CONVERSION (+3) - "The Big Lie".  (See: {2} SJWs always double down).  As Goebbels discovered, sustained inculcation from an all out, cross platform, total saturation assault, presenting a unified message silencing out all dissent, can be quite effective in resolving crises of conscience in favour of the new status-quo.


RANK DOWN (-1) - Relentless mocking / ironic use of the TLAs, newly fashioned & re-appropriated terms, newthink, buzzwords, terminology & ideas in general.
RANK DOWN (-1) - Promotion of the many benefits freedom bestows on individuals and societies
RANK DOWN (-1) - Explanation of the counterproductive effect reducing free expression has on the ability to combat bigotry
RANK DOWN (-1) - Explanation that offence is not an offence.  Offence is taken, not given.  Codifying it rarely reduces its power to offend
RANK DOWN (-1) - Quotations from historical figures favoured by SJWs against patronising minorities, pandering to sensibilities, against "Great White Saviour" memes.
RANK DOWN (-1) - Present statistics demonstrating the negative economic effects of subsidising bad choices & bad behaviour and the negative social effects of lowered standards.
RANK DOWN (-1) - Proportionality over Principle.  Erode support by prioritising pragmatic proportionality (of negative vs positive effects) over abstract egalitarian principles
FLIP SUPPORT (-2) - Principle over Proportionality.  Turn opposition to negative effects / outcomes into a principled stance.
FLIP SUPPORT (-2) - A massive (rhetorical!) shit on the celebration cake.  Spirited defence to inspire those remaining to resist.  Paint the bleakest possible picture of their desired future to kindle the embers of resentment.  This is the point at which free speech matters most.



This describes the stage at which the SJWs take over their host, which is probably the most self-destructive phase & also the one where SJW attacks are at their most vociferous.  SJWs have now become the public facing "conscience" of the body/org & are able to control and direct its "core values".   Re-tasking its purpose cannot come yet, as the body/org's "soul" is still digging in & opposing the ideas. 
Though it might seem counterintuitive, "progressive" ideologies often move backwards.  Two things reverse the active support that was achieved in the previous submissive phase.  (often simultaneously, to curious effect...)
1)  SJW rules do not apply to SJWs who are somehow allowed to transcend moral consistency and the laws of logic.  The values attached to the founding imperative are allowed to dominate external expression, to allow the host to survive.  (See: {3} SJWs always project)
2) Day zero is declared.  The previous tepid support of SJW values via internal policies is recategorised as mere window dressing.  A kangaroo court appraisal of the body/orgs members/employees/customers/owners in light of their historical opposition marks them as having been violent oppressers all along.  Repudiation is insufficient - serious amends must be made.  (See: {2} SJWs always double down)

Mentally / morally ascribing to SJW ideas, whilst simultaneously opposing them


All encompassing, all defining anger
Ruthlessness in relation to individual rights.  Expectation to work long hours, sacrifice family time, etc.  Employees for organisations fighting for rights have no rights themselves.  Proliferation of unpaid intern positions at fair pay proponents.  Low employment of women / minorities in orgs promoting feminism / racial equality, etc.
Able to recruit from a diverse range of competences.  Policies do not yet prevent elitist recruitment.
Decisiveness heavily impaired due to conflicting narratives, giving the loudest individuals the advantage.
SJW Virtue signalling by pointing and shrieking, labelling, chanting slogans.
Preferred discipline = Separation (Act on idea(s) without remorse, or the need to justify actions)

SJW Attack Strategy

Minor things such as actual oppression are subjugated to suppression of badthink
Physical & moral relegation of the body/orgs founding values and members & productive apparatus to the status of exploitative oppressors.  Elevation of the "downtrodden" to the status of rightful inheritors.

SJW Attack Tactics

Lots of obstructive busywork.  Insistence on risk assessments, disparate impact analysis, accessibility studies, health and safety, where they may not be required.
RANK UP (+1) - Principle over Proportionality.  Promote a principled opposition to outdated, traditionalist defences against the SJW incursion.  Minimise any perceived associations of protective influence from the traditional attitudes against negative outcomes.
FLIP SUPPORT (+2) - Proportionality over Principle.  Build on the established principle by asserting that support for the idea will result in mostly positive outcomes by minimising associations of the idea with potential negative outcomes.
FLIP SUPPORT (+2) - "Outing" opponents as secret supporters is the fast track from rejection, to denial, to celebration.  SJWs are known to feign both attitudes in order to give the illusion of the opposition having a veneer of truth that has since been repudiated.


Never apologise.  Ever.  Easier said than done however, as those in the darkness of denial are often too dim to see any possibility of light.
Mutual moral support.  By this stage, the chances of having to defend the indefensible are practically zero.  Any genuine (non SJW compliant) bigotry has likely already been purged.
Assume any outrages to be false flag / staged / agitprop until proven otherwise
HOLD SUPPORT - Disown any pretence of objectivity on the part of those staged conversions.  Dig into their past to show evidence of historical SJW posturing.  This kind of thing doesn't come out of the blue.
CONVERSION (-3) - "Purge".  Do not show compassion to erstwhile comrades who defect.  It is highly likely that their repudiation of bigotry will turn out to be a sham repudiation of genuine bigotry, making them a liability for the other side.  Kick them out and call them out, simultaneously purging your own ranks and discrediting the SJW narrative.



The likelihood of modern organisations over a certain size to be accepting of the more easily digestible parts of the SJW canon is probably as high as the improbability of them being able to navigate their many internal contradictions (and remain accepting of opposing views) and resist their more objectionable goals (and thereby slide into supporting them).  At this stage:

In principled (mental/moral) agreement with the idea(s) as a position worthy of equal consideration, whilst not actively or knowingly engaged in behaviour that supports or opposes.


Founding values will at least be on a par with SJW values in all policies, visions, constitutions, etc.
Analagous to the red giant phase in stellar evolution, organisations in this phase may still be able to attract elite talent through sheer size, but will eventually collapse under their own gravity.
Decisiveness varies according to who is in charge.  Strong leaders may be able to carry large numbers of people with them
SJW Virtue signalling by competitive hand-wringing, pearl-clutching and generally spouting stop-word laced platitudes. Slogan wearing common.
Preferred discipline = Assertion (Acting insistently & openly expressing the idea(s) freely)

SJW Attack Strategy

Emphasise structural oppressive disadvantages that need addressing
Subjugation of the body/org's intended purpose to promotion of SJW values

SJW Attack Tactics

RANK UP (+1) - Capitalise on established belief in the idea(s) by reframing the targets acheivements as having been built on the back of unfair advantage.
RANK UP (+1) - Promote the idea of "Privilege" leveraging individual guilt to galvanise action.
RANK UP (+1) - Promote "microaggression" as a thing that needs dealing with


RANK DOWN (-1) - Quarantine.  Physical, economic, social, whatever.
RANK DOWN (-1) - Targeting of individuals / actions under the Alinsky model.
RANK DOWN (-1) - Orchestrated prank capitulations to SJW demands work best at this stage, having sufficient credibility & seeming to be on the cusp of support.
CONVERSION (-3) - point to evidence that the idea(s) have negative effects.
GAME OVER.  INSERT COIN - Escape. Start again, build your own platforms.  Fight back.



Can simply be described as:

Belief in the cause, plus active support


Endless successions of scandals and internal purges.
Directionless "charismatic" leaders
Heavily propagandised promotion by MSM, Public sector, NGOs
Talent pool restricted to SJWs
SJW Virtue signalling by competitive offence taking, usually on somebody else's behalf, typically over imperceptible, imagined or manufactured wrongdoings.  Slogan wearing pervasive, complemented by competitive wierdness, particularly in physical appearance culminating in highly conformist anti conformity tribal markings.
Preferred discipline = Domination (Act on the idea(s) defiantly, trespass on the privacy and natural rights of others)

SJW Attack Strategy

Attack is complete.  SJWs now search for other hosts to infect before the present one dies.
Identify external sources of subsidy via government / media lobbying and campaigns.

SJW Attack Tactics

WIN - Exclusively employ persons whose histories are sufficiently tainted as to assure their SJW conformity and compliance.
HOLD - Lobby for the necessity for public funding by maintaining a high media profile based on perpetual outrage
HOLD - Lobby for corporate sponsorship by attacking every public utterance as being an offence, not just to the "injured" party, but to all mankind.
WIN - Attack life support systems (revenue streams, memberships, etc.) of entities showing the least signs of resistance.
WIN - Judicial and legislative activism to codify support for the position for all peoples, for all time.  Preferably before any negative effects are noticed.


FAIL - Accept your martyrdom with dignity in the hope it may serve as an inspiration to the remnants of humanity (FAIL/WIN)
RANK DOWN (-1) - pressure corporate sponsors to remove support.  Mobilise employees/members/customers to look for alternatives.
FLIP SUPPORT (-2) - "Black Knighting".  Support those poor souls who happen to be actual members of whichever group SJWs are coming to the rescue of.  Many will be caught in the crossfire, having "internalised the oppresive narrative" (see: {2} SJWs always project.  In this case projecting their projection...)
CONVERSION (-3) - Smackdown.  Meet every ludicrous assertion with a wall of ridicule, making it painful to promulgate the idea.  Rhetorical suppression of oxygen to express the idea(s) creates space for dialectical demonstration of their falsehood.  Fast track goes from celebration -> submission -> rejection
WIN - identify and shut down public sources of funding by highlighting conflicts of interest, nepotism, abuse of charitable status, macabre grotesqueness and behaviour / attitudes generally offensive to public morals.

In a followup post, I will try to explain how all this relates to differences in information speed in society, who benefits from those differences & how the system can be

Learn Russian in 1 Year using free internet resources

About a year ago, I thinks to myself why not learn Russian.  I mean - why not, I sez.  It isn't exactly as though I can stop the #ImminentFinancialCollapse or anything & whilst property ownership is great 'n that, strikes me that considering Von Mises knew that the imposition of a zero rate of interest heralds the consumption / destruction of the production structure about 160,000,000 years ago, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the next step will be widespread confiscation of everything that is nailed down by progressive governmentals, and of loosely nailed down stuff that can be prised off by the ever swelling legions of unemployables.  In other words, accumulation of physical capital is not just going to lead to disappointment following its eventual confiscation, but will also likely mark you apart as a member of the oppressor class.  This leaves accumulation of mental and spiritual capital as the only choice for the sensible investor.

OK children, now that we are all settled down, it's time to learn Russian.  No talking at the back...

I'm absolutely serious.  With a bit of creative thinking and by using a variety of free internet resources, you can pick up a good command of the Russian language in 1-2 years without breaking too much of a sweat, or ever parting company with a single pound note, or entering a classroom of any kind.


 - functioning brain.  

Chances are that if you are able to read this far without glazing over and needing to check FB, it is up to the task.  Mensa IQ not required.  Don't worry, if you are starting to glaze and are reaching for the youtubes - they have lolcats in Russia too, you will be relieved to hear!

 - ability to memorise stuff.

Rote.  Learning.  Works.  Sorry.  Look, this is a prerequisite, I'm afraid.  That doesn't mean that if you don't have it you should stop.  It will likely just add a couple of years, during which time you'll learn something even more awesome - the ability to remember stuff!  Chances are you can already remember your name, the words to God Save The Queen, any number of dreadful pop songs, half a dozen film quotes, Monty Python Sketches, jokes (OK, they are hard to remember...), football players names, and so on.  All the techniques I list here can be used to learn things in your own native language.  You just need to be bothered to do it...

 - commitment. 

 You have to want to do it.  If you just want to impress hot Russian chicks with a few phrases and then let your bodies do the talking, be honest with yourself and do just that.  A Google search for "common Russian phrases" will get you everything you need - this post isn't for you. OTOH, if you have reached the end of the Internet and need some other internets to read, then Russian internets might provide a pleasant diversion from the endless pointing and shrieking in the Anglosphere.  If you can commit to an hour or two most days, either during work breaks or evenings, doing all of the things you would normally do - listening to music, watching films, reading books, poems, etc, but in Russian, you will be amazed at how quickly a garbled stream of interminable consonants and alien looking letters becomes vaguely recognisable words, which then become almost comprehensible.  Don't expect too much, allow your subconscious to do the work...

- interest

It could be that you already have an interest, business or personal, that you want to pursue.  Or could be that, like me, you just have a vague interest in the music and culture that you wish to explore.  Regardless, there are plenty of things that will no doubt grab your attention if you have any interests in anything at all

- good lateral thinking / boredom avoidance strategies.

Chances are that modern life has already prepared you for this, with the thin gruel of aesthetic, intellectual, moral, mental and spiritual pablum that it attempts to force feed you on a daily basis.  Unless, that is, you have decided to join the various hierarchies and classes of the perpetually outraged and embrace SJW-hood, in which case chances are you don't value a thing as bourgeois as genuine intellectual pursuits anyway...

In case you haven't guessed, this isn't an all inclusive, comprehensive education system that places a high value on things like diversity or inclusiveness, but rather an elite pursuit based on rather antiquated values of dedication and hard work.  The good news is that simply knowing that it is possible to immerse yourself in a progressively more understandable series of works of various kinds will probably be enough to inspire a good number of people put off by the previous paucity of material between the empty promises of the simplistic "learn to speak Russian (I.e. order a beer) in 21 days" type courses and the dry as bones course books that typically would have to be accompanied by classroom hand-holding by a tutor to maintain the will to live.

Truth is, you have already learned one language already, so the apparatus is there.  The difficulty comes in adapting those tools to learning an entire new language.  I have disproved the commonly held assumption that you need to "immerse" yourself in a culture to learn its language - going to live there, by learning the Russian language in around 18 months in my spare time.  The other commonly held myth is that children, or adolescents learn faster.  For example, whilst I was amazed at how quickly my two year old learned to sing the periodic table of elements song by Tom Lehrer, but then again, it wasn't quicker than me!  She undoubtedly has superior recall memory, but I had visual help, being able to read the text on a piece of paper, over and over.  She has a much more creative imagination, but I have better associative memory functions.

The point I'm trying to across is that children learn language in a different way - by taking advantage of the evolutionary mechanism that has us classify certain types of behaviour "cute" when done by children that would otherwise be annoying or insulting when done by an adult; behaviours such as mimicking and endlessly repetition, for example.  Once you accept that you will likely not have any rewarding interaction in your chosen language with another person for a year or so, you will be able to get on with the enjoyable task of learning without the need for all the attention seeking clowning about or preening that you would likely end up doing if you were to try to learning by the same methods children use.

Hopefully this inspires a few people to realise that it can be done.  I will publish posts periodically on tips for learning foreign languages, with an emphasis on Russian.

(By the way - I lied.  I have a total plan to stop the #ImminentFinancialCollapse.  Watch this space for details; I will probably need some help along the way...)

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

The TL;DR Manifesto

Big thanks to everybody who has taken time to peruse my posts & offered support.  I'm hoping to update this blog several times a week, which will obviously have an impact on the other vital trolling / blurking / anonymous posting that I carry out on behalf of mankind periodically; I thought it about time to put my money where my mouth is...

So yesterdays post has already put me into several hundreds of hits (too modest to say quite how many - does two count as "several"...?) which is far more than I had hoped for, in large part thanks to retweets from @VoxDay, @DickDelingpole and @HDHammer865 plus a commendation from @Jonathan_Drake.

However, no comment...

Please do give your feedback to the posts - you can be sure that I will eagerly read and cherish every single one.  Not sure if the Blog layout is too bleak, text too small, etc.  Whether the content is just way off & I should stick to tweeting pictures of animals, or just TL;DR.  I do have a tendency to go off on one & recognise that my prose needs work.  Break it up a bit, perhaps...?  Perhaps people just need time to understand that when I go off on a ramble, I will always make it back again.

So, a bit about me - office jockey of 20 year - man and boy - Austrian Economics, Ludwig V-M, Ayn Rand, Jesus Christ, Breitbart, Delingpoles, TakiMag, A.T., Voxday, English, French, German, Russian languages, Opera singer in training (for which I have been ejected from many a so-called-boozer...) Dutch Barges, Mycology, Culture Wars, New found Sci-Fi aficionado (where do I sign up for the Hugo awards...?)  Crusader for Radical Libertarianism.  Secretly quite like to own a really nice gun (W.W.J.D...?  W.G.W.J.O...?) not into drugs, or libertarians obsessed with legalisation either for that matter, but would quite like to watch Peter Hitchens do some acid.  Leader of #GamerGate though I now treat games / consoles with the same reverent fear as the dark things from a John C Wright novel, for their ability to suck away my soul.

I plan to blog about the farts of stupidity that the MSM still manage to somehow waft under our noses.  Signs and portents of the coming cataclysm.  I have been developing a number of consciousness altering ideas which collectively will create a structure that will sit on top of our existing corporate model without touching it.  This is an essential part of the strategy - leave any one piece in place for too long without support & regardless of how brilliant the idea, it will soon be assimilated into the corporate structure.

A list of upcoming blogposts planned to this end:

 - New pay as you go internet protocol.  (to break corporate monopoly, can co-exist with current infrastructure)
 - P2P land mail / freighting system.  This one is bulletproof & will increase societal resilience to economic and terrorist attacks.  Can also co-exist with current infrastructure.
 - The historical origins and imperatives of the corporate structure.
 - The internal contradictions of Socialism / Communism
 - The internal contradictions of Democratic Capitalism / Corporatism
 - Anatomy of societal decline.
 - Traditional Market indicators are Fear & Greed, Supply & Demand.  What about Intelligent Trust & Love?  These are also big motivating factors behind human behaviours.  Discuss whether these are somehow just vectors of the trad four, or separate transcendental values in their own right.
 - Replacement for copyright (government mandate to derive a monopoly from a "creative" work.  I will assert that fear of state violence is the foundations of the distributist ideologies that dominate popular media)  Greed / Love based alternative requiring no violent revolution.  You guessed it - can coexist, just like those bumper stickers.
 - Simple adversarial online heuristic tree system to replace the dominance of the Encyclopaedistes in the culture wars.  Aims to reduce the dominance of SJW / Left / Liberal bias in systems like Wikipedia. (but also the MSM in general).  HT Voxday for introducing me to the concept of the 18th century movement which probably has some resonance in contemporary culture.  Need to research this before doing the post.
 - Ways to hasten the decline of tired MSM tropes.  Previous two subjects should cover the technical aspects.  Discuss the cultural angle & activism.
 - Discussions of free market labour migration theories &
 - Alternative to the current legal system - ways to re-popularise the concept of voluntarism & common law.  Alternatives to & discussions of the outdated courts / jury systems.
 - Technical solutions to assist with the privatisation of public roads.  Discussion of legal safeguards to ensure rights of way, maintenance responsibilities, etc are upheld.
 - General discussion about the tragedy of the commons / anticommons & how technology fills the gap, whilst regulation hinders the emergency of technologies to do so.  (probably went too fast there jumping straight in with privatising public roads...)
 - Privatisation of the Police force & prison services.  Yep - for real.  (Oh - you mean to say that a police force that relies on having a spotless reputation, to be able to secure convictions, in order to stay in business is an unquestionable evil...?  As opposed to what, pray tell...?)
 - Replacement of outdated Governmental / Parliamentary systems.  I hope to popularise the term "Horse and Cart" democracy to describe the level of technology available when the current systems were implemented.  You got into your horse and cart once every four years & trundled down to the voting office to put your cross onto the ballot slip (a cross to show you were a good Christian...)  Regardless on whether you are of a dirigiste or libertarian persuasion, we can all agree that the speed of information exchange in our regulatory institutions has massively lagged behind the speed of exchange in other marketplaces.  Cui bono?  (go on - have a guess...)

Quite a lot to cover there then.  As touched upon briefly, if any one of these lovely ideas were to be introduced on its own it would inevitably be either subsumed by the corporate / government owned & driven monopolies, or could only be introduced in the absence of the others by force, or at the cost of enormous bloodshed.  Hopefully I havent missed out too many major parts.  Power / energy, most manufacturing industries, armed forces, etc.  should adapt pretty well & even gain advantage by diversifying & gaining an edge in 4GW scenarios.

Dont believe me?  Take the internet as a great example.  Whilst freedom has certainly flourished & it has overwhelmingly been a force for good, it has highlighted an inability in mainstream culture to combat threats from intolerant ideologies.  It has simultaneously been subsumed into the mire of monopolistic corporatism who now own all teh datas, all teh highways, all the infrastructure.  The decentralised system designed to protect our military infrastructure from a nuclear strike has become the cradle in which our civilian infrastructure now sits - the fine mesh holding us from falling back into dog eat dog barbarism & chaos.  It could probably be taken down by a few hundred determined fanatics armed with diesel, fertiliser, pneumatic drills, cutting tools and the right knowledge.