Over the years, I’ve been excessively careful at (a) avoiding hate speech – (violating FB policy), and (b) not crossing the line from educating, informing, and advocating, and developing a constitutional alternative in public – to planning or incentivizing action (violating the law). What I do is expressly legal in America and has a long time honored tradition back to Thomas Paine.
Over the past year we (John in particular) have experimented with directly addressing the coming revolution as deterministic, and imminently triggerable. And that we should be prepared for it with Arguments, Organization, and a Ready Constitutional Solution to the coming conflict.
However, I didn’t count on, or adequately react to, the escalation in shootings in New Zealand and the USA. In my view of the world I interpreted these events as the normal escalation to the civil war I’ve predicted for years. In other words, I viewed them as supporting data. My experience with these matters, which goes back to the tampering era, is that it’s the media that creates these events, and only media’s silence that can stop them.
Now, anyone who follows me for long enough knows my strategy and plan. And knows the difference between the King of the Hill game we’re playing to educate and inform.
But it was very easy to cast this information as providing incentive to individual actors. And we must understand that it is rational for social media platforms to do so. They should however, give us our PERSONAL data back when they close an account, meaning any image, video, or text that we upload.
There are legitimate liability reasons they may prefer not to, but we (meaning the political and legal ‘we’) have to choose between depriving people of their property (diary) and limiting the liability of the platform. And limiting the liability of the platform is the choice I advocate. Of the risks to us, the risk of loss of our property is greater.
In context, had I understood the change at FB – and had they announced this change – I should have taken down the potentially offensive content by careful search-and-delete, but honestly – as usual – I didn’t adequately interpret the neuro-commoner and cortico-normative interpretation of recent events.
So it’s not that I so much care about being dropped from the platform for what I consider reasonable reasons in the given social and political climate. It’s that I don’t have 90 days of work, and I am not sure what I composed during that 90 days. It’s that simple. I want my data.
So we want to repeat here again, that:
… (a) individual violent action is not helpful to a reform movement. Don’t do it. Stop anyone who might.
… (b) if we must act, we must act as one – en mass – not one by one; no matter how frustrated. And yes, I ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ the rage building up to that weekend, I just assumed it was me misinterpreting the flow in sentiments.
… (c) If we act as one – en masse – it must be to show up – en masse – and make our demands.
… (d) Those demands must be amenable to all but fringe actors – in other words the mainstream. And ours are pretty hard to argue with by any measure.
… (e) If our demands are not met, then we have cause for action – as a group.
… (f) But the problem is until those demands are made, and the threat is real, the state and the antifa-communist left have no incentive to compromise.
… (g) even if the compromise we present, give everyone but the left extremists what they want.
My provocative speech, provocative assertions and provocative questions, as well as my use of King of the Hill games – as those who follow me are aware – are for marketing, educational, and strategic purposes: to restore the discourse from the pseudo moral to that of natural law. To train men once again to debate in truth, duty and reciprocity, with immunity to ridicule, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, rally and disapproval as a substitute for argument – a substitute that does little more than obscure the underlying fraud: attempted theft by use of the coercive violence of the state.
… a) Demonstrating that men must be taught by the means they prefer (dominance play)
… b) That the rothbardian libertarian movement’s capture of the liberty movement had to be defeated through exposure of it’s failure so that we could return the discourse to one of sovereignty under the law, under rule of law, insured by every man acting as a soldier, warrior, sheriff and judge. I had to return ‘violence’ as did our founders, to the discourse on liberty.
… c) So that men were taught the reason for their traditions morals and institutions – that they were a strategy of natural law that is the optimum strategy for not only our people, but for all mankind.
… c) Restore confidence that if they chose to fight a civil war, that the rule of law (conservatives) would win. (Keep hope alive, and not regress in to desperate acts.)
And that I use the public and social media as a means of running experiments on what people currently think, did think, and how they interpret various arguments and prose. I use social media as my laboratory – and it is the best laboratory that I have found. People say what they feel in King of the Hill games. It’s the optimum research platform for political thought.
Unfortunately, as usual, I over-achieve, over work, and over-invest in over-precision, and take too long to do everything – and my understanding at present is that the Overton window has not only caught up to me and my work, but that it may be too late and I may not finish before what I see as a deterministic explosive conflict triggered by an as yet unpredictable but ever closer event.
All I know is that between immigration, the left’s gain influence because of it, and the news media’s influence because of the opportunity for capturing attention and therefore advertiser revenues, that seeking power on one end and seeking to prevent loss of sovereignty on the other – no society, nation, empire, or civilization has survived a mass migration like this in human history without collapse and civil war.
I am very good at what I do. I will not err in this matter.