A right cannot depend for its existence on the approval of the authority it was designed to restrain. The person is already there. The right is already his. Government encounters both. My new essay: The Creator Is Load-Bearing #NaturalRights #Technocracy

Great share Andrew and imho Lewis really nails the ‘ordinary-ness’ of tyranny here because it’s very easy to presume ‘well, I’m not one of those ‘Conditioners’, I’m not brutal or scheming or even overtly political etc. I’m just a regular person, trying to do my best, going about my job in order to support my family’. Lewis illustrates how the tyrannical operation doesn’t require most participants to think of themselves ‘as’ Conditioners. It requires ordinary people to perform conditioning functions as what they’ve been educationally formed and professionally trained in ‘ordinary professional duties’. The teacher applies the approved pedagogical framework. The HR officer implements the inclusion protocol. The physician follows the clinical pathway. The administrator applies the eligibility criteria. The lawyer works within the accepted jurisprudential framework. The civil servant implements policy and on it goes…….standards frameworks, protocols, policies, procedures, institutional/organizational authority…..etc. Each employee can truthfully say; ‘I was doing my job’ and not even recognize that they were only ‘following orders’ because they had no foundational constitutive understanding of their obligated duty - only to institutionally and organizationally imposed procedure and process. In operation - usurpation, reinforcing itself in subsidiary fashion right down to the smallest scale. That is precisely what makes the operation scalable!!!! If the desire of tyranny is ‘to remake man’, an institution adopts ‘policy’. Professional standards ‘require this practice’ and you go along with it saying ‘it’s simply correct procedure’ and ‘I am obliged to perform it’. In your ‘professional capacity’ you have willingly given over your own agency and if you’re a clever sort (the Head), you’ll probably even rationalize that to defend yourself. If you’re less aware, you’ll maybe more easily default to ‘just following orders’ and the many Media narratives running cover for that as defence - better still - no defence needed when you can demonize anyone who points out that utter abdication of conscience, courage and agency (failure of the Chest). So when Power wants to redefine and remake man in its own image and for its own ends, it ensures that negation of man’s created nature, negation of equality before the rule of law and usurpation of constitutive governance all arrives at your individual employee level (across sectors, Fields/domains) as an ‘apparently neutral’ job requirement. Just doing my job. Do you see how and why Lewis’s ‘few lucky people in one lucky generation’ is not about cat stroking Bond villains and is much more disturbing and more powerful. The ‘few’ do not have to perform all the shaping (man as clay) themselves. They need institutions capable of translating the desired shape into; curricula, standards, protocols, competencies, regulations, professional obligations and routine administrative acts - with you sufficiently (mal)formed and ‘well’ trained to regard compliance with those instruments (of mediation) as ‘responsible conduct’ for which you are rewarded (and often esteemed). The ‘Conditioner’ was installed as institutional workflow. It’s been increasingly digitized further outside the managed perimeters of what you’ve been (malformed) to (not) see and what you’re institutionally (and socially) rewarded for (not) saying. Ordinary tyranny (by far the most successful and long term sustaining) is operationalized through you - by your own hand - unless you hold the line of But Not Through Me.

Rousseau famously sent his five kids to die in an orphanage, where only 10-20% made it to adulthood, and to this day he is considered one of the main theorists in the field of raising kids. It's insane how much people can get away with when they are in the good graces of the "intellectuals".

No principled conservative can support the woke right. Nor can any principled libertarian. Racist socialists belong with the Democrats. If you agree with the socialists taking over the Democrat party…then you are not a Republican, not America First & not a conservative.

There are very grave consequences to rejecting the American Founders’ ontological understanding of man. As a ‘non-believer’ your faith cannot be coerced in a Constitutional Republic - but your ‘freedom’ in adopting specific intellectual ‘theories’ about human nature will have you sawing off the very branch your own liberty and defence as a human being rests on. open.substack.com/pub/thepal…

“The aesthetics are opposed. The destination is not.” I wrote that on March 11 in Part I of my America at 250 series, discussing Trump’s agenda alongside Boston Global Forum and AIWS. My argument was operational alignment despite political differences. In Part IV, published July 8, I examined the AIWS trust standards, ratings, certification mechanisms, and proposed Constitution for Humanity. I asked how a framework could gain institutional influence through procurement, accreditation, and certification rather than constitutional replacement. Now there are new documents to examine. On September 19, Trump announced plans for an “AI Force,” without providing implementation details. On September 20, Boston Global Forum publicly supported the proposal. In the same statement, it promoted the constitutional framework it is developing with AIWS and invited leaders to commit before the text is complete. Its instruction to those leaders: “Then begin governing by these principles at home.” BGF’s proposal is public. Whether Washington adopts any part of it remains a separate question. Part V will compare these September statements with the argument already developed across the series: operational alignment, the role of certification, and the distinction between proposing authority and acquiring it. Who would set the standards? Who would administer them? What would adopting them actually require? America at 250, Part V. Coming soon. Read Parts I & IV, and source links in the reply below. ↓

🪄🐍☠️ Van’s article (pic 1) for you to read in full is here: blogodidact.blogspot.com/202… The epistemological warfare tactic covered is this; replace judging ideas against reality - with working between competing ideas. It serves ideological and political warfare tactics directly. Criticize A, criticize B, ‘resolve’ the tension 🪄produce C. Now - even if A is true - truth does not settle the matter; it becomes material for further🐍processing. The (controlling) trick is to treat the limits that define what something IS as merely inherited ‘ideas about’ it. Then destroying a limit can be presented as ‘developing’ the thing. That ‘sounds’ like (marketed as) ‘creativity and progress’ - until the thing being ‘developed’ is the human being, the individual person, man, woman, child, equality before the law, due process, property, the limits of public office, or the Rule of Law itself. Intellectual warfare (academic idea laundering) has long been training generations to treat every limit as ‘material’ for ‘criticism, reinterpretation and synthesis’, because it trains generations to dismantle the very limits they depend on to protect them from State and Corporate overreach and tyranny. The strategic warfare deploys this method used to dissolve ‘yesterday’s’ limits as it contains no principle requiring it to preserve your limits tomorrow. That is the revolutionary capability hidden inside (Hegel’s) ‘Higher Order Thinking’. The perpetual destruction of all that IS, with the built in capacity to make people willing participants in replacing what IS - while experiencing that replacement as ‘intellectual progress’, consensus, creativity, dialogue….etc….churn….churn…churn☠️ It is revolutionary political warfare in operation.