Yeah. What was it that Arthur C. Clarke said? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic? If you wanted to rule over a neofeudal society then posing as gods over the ignorant population would be the way to do it.
That said I'm not sure the elites quite have the ability to pull it off. What do they actually do with the 20% of the population who are immune to their brainwashing? Probably the same 20% that wouldn't take the kill shot?
One idea I have sort of been toying with for a time is that the elites are very fond of this notion of Hegelian synthesis - that the reaction to their agenda is predictable and as such peoples reaction to their agenda synthesises the outcome.
There are parts of the dissident right who think we should reject modernity. If you read uncle Teds ideas about technological slavery. Modlbug talks an awful lot about the benefits of pre-industrial Europe with feudalism and how people had a lot more freedom in their lives as long as they didn't try to foment rebellion against the monarch. The average medieval peasant in England could have a house you would need to be a millionaire to own today. You also got 150 days holiday a year and probably worked fewer hours. In dark age and medieval Europe usury was illegal and feudalism was partly about protecting people from the money changers.
You have to wonder if it really comes down to it the people who have no wish to live in this technological nightmare the elites have planned. Could we end up in a situation where the globalists execute their 90% population reduction agenda and you basically end up with two groups of people left? The more group selected religious types who lived more rural lifestyles and the globalists and their servants. Now we may despise each other but at the end of the day maybe its not the worst thing because all the middle men are the ones who die off. We all hate the brain dead normie dross, they eat our food, use our fuel and take up space and their idiocy is just absolutely insufferable. Us and the elites probably have similar feelings towards them.
Maybe we go our separate ways, the elites living in their luxury technological coastal enclaves with their slaves and servants and the more dissident minded folk choosing to live in the rural interior well beyond the borders of their domain. If there were no money changers or an endless stream of degeneracy and psychological warfare would it really be so bad to live on a remote farm with no mortgage, get 150 days holiday and make tribute in grain, vegetables and animal products a couple times a year?
Essentially artificially inducing a dark age through controlled and managed means. The process of "dark ages" has occurred several times in Eurasia in various different civilisations. If you look at dark age Europe we may call it the dark ages and it was a very hard time but skeleton sizes in Europe actually increased, I doubt it was as truly "dark" for those who lived through it as we may think. Rural peasants were actually better off without the yoke of the empire on their back. So may many people in the west. Good if you're a producer, bad if you're a parasite.
That said I'm not sure the elites quite have the ability to pull it off. What do they actually do with the 20% of the population who are immune to their brainwashing? Probably the same 20% that wouldn't take the kill shot?
Make it a 60 - 70%. But then the numbers DON'T MATTER if nothing is actually done.
You just need to go look at Soviet Russia. NOBODY SUPPORTS THE BOLSHEVIKS there. It hardly mattered, the Russians rolled over and died in front of Stalin.
There are parts of the dissident right who think we should reject modernity. If you read uncle Teds ideas about technological slavery. Modlbug talks an awful lot about the benefits of pre-industrial Europe with feudalism and how people had a lot more freedom in their lives as long as they didn't try to foment rebellion against the monarch. The average medieval peasant in England could have a house you would need to be a millionaire to own today. You also got 150 days holiday a year and probably worked fewer hours. In dark age and medieval Europe usury was illegal and feudalism was partly about protecting people from the money changers.
No they literally don't. The rich get richer, the serfs live in grass huts and were raised like cattle by landlords, the papacy is equal to God, Usury and money lenders are all over the place, people are starving to death like sardines and this retained for a millenia. Nowhere near as rosy as fairy tales were to paint them.
The doom stories most people believe about feudalism were sold by capitalists, socialists and money changers to scare people into accepting their ideologies. I wouldn't say it was perfect by any measure - partly due to certain scientific discoveries our ancestors were not aware of and the fact that we moderns have a different truth regime from our ancestors who's world view was very much dominated by Christianity. At the end of the day you were tied to the land, the bank couldn't take it off you or leverage debt against it. The lord was responsible for your well being and in turn had to make tribute of a certain amount to the king which meant he had to manage his holdings well in order to produce. The vast majority of the population were gainfully employed in agriculture and stewardship of the land. Unlike our current situation where we have mass unemployment and a large underclass which is literally left to rot and commit petty crime.
Just look at the state of agriculture in our current civilisation. It only survives on government subsidy and corporate farming is literally destroying the soils that support our crops and many farms are in debt and facing closure. The money changers who run our civilisation are literally killing the entire underpinning of human existence. Once our soils are destroyed it could take hundreds of years to restore them even with careful stewardship.
The only future for human survival is a return to the land and the cutting out of the money changers from our lives. Feudalism is the only known mechanism for doing that. The problem is the vast majority of the population has no conception of life outside of being a proletarian wage earner. The industrial civilisation that normalised that is but a temporary blip in the course of human history built on cheap availability of energy and pissing most of that into landfill. Someone has to start anew with something that can be sustained. We literally live in a civilisation that cannot even replace itself. Something is badly wrong and time and time and time again we loose because the elites at least have a will to power and a vision for the future - a vision that is horrifying and likely leads only to extinction. Feudalism sustained Europe during the middle ages, there is no reason it couldn't sustain us after the death of global industrial civilisation.
Yeah. What was it that Arthur C. Clarke said? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic? If you wanted to rule over a neofeudal society then posing as gods over the ignorant population would be the way to do it.
That said I'm not sure the elites quite have the ability to pull it off. What do they actually do with the 20% of the population who are immune to their brainwashing? Probably the same 20% that wouldn't take the kill shot?
One idea I have sort of been toying with for a time is that the elites are very fond of this notion of Hegelian synthesis - that the reaction to their agenda is predictable and as such peoples reaction to their agenda synthesises the outcome.
There are parts of the dissident right who think we should reject modernity. If you read uncle Teds ideas about technological slavery. Modlbug talks an awful lot about the benefits of pre-industrial Europe with feudalism and how people had a lot more freedom in their lives as long as they didn't try to foment rebellion against the monarch. The average medieval peasant in England could have a house you would need to be a millionaire to own today. You also got 150 days holiday a year and probably worked fewer hours. In dark age and medieval Europe usury was illegal and feudalism was partly about protecting people from the money changers.
You have to wonder if it really comes down to it the people who have no wish to live in this technological nightmare the elites have planned. Could we end up in a situation where the globalists execute their 90% population reduction agenda and you basically end up with two groups of people left? The more group selected religious types who lived more rural lifestyles and the globalists and their servants. Now we may despise each other but at the end of the day maybe its not the worst thing because all the middle men are the ones who die off. We all hate the brain dead normie dross, they eat our food, use our fuel and take up space and their idiocy is just absolutely insufferable. Us and the elites probably have similar feelings towards them.
Maybe we go our separate ways, the elites living in their luxury technological coastal enclaves with their slaves and servants and the more dissident minded folk choosing to live in the rural interior well beyond the borders of their domain. If there were no money changers or an endless stream of degeneracy and psychological warfare would it really be so bad to live on a remote farm with no mortgage, get 150 days holiday and make tribute in grain, vegetables and animal products a couple times a year?
Essentially artificially inducing a dark age through controlled and managed means. The process of "dark ages" has occurred several times in Eurasia in various different civilisations. If you look at dark age Europe we may call it the dark ages and it was a very hard time but skeleton sizes in Europe actually increased, I doubt it was as truly "dark" for those who lived through it as we may think. Rural peasants were actually better off without the yoke of the empire on their back. So may many people in the west. Good if you're a producer, bad if you're a parasite.
Make it a 60 - 70%. But then the numbers DON'T MATTER if nothing is actually done.
You just need to go look at Soviet Russia. NOBODY SUPPORTS THE BOLSHEVIKS there. It hardly mattered, the Russians rolled over and died in front of Stalin.
No they literally don't. The rich get richer, the serfs live in grass huts and were raised like cattle by landlords, the papacy is equal to God, Usury and money lenders are all over the place, people are starving to death like sardines and this retained for a millenia. Nowhere near as rosy as fairy tales were to paint them.
The doom stories most people believe about feudalism were sold by capitalists, socialists and money changers to scare people into accepting their ideologies. I wouldn't say it was perfect by any measure - partly due to certain scientific discoveries our ancestors were not aware of and the fact that we moderns have a different truth regime from our ancestors who's world view was very much dominated by Christianity. At the end of the day you were tied to the land, the bank couldn't take it off you or leverage debt against it. The lord was responsible for your well being and in turn had to make tribute of a certain amount to the king which meant he had to manage his holdings well in order to produce. The vast majority of the population were gainfully employed in agriculture and stewardship of the land. Unlike our current situation where we have mass unemployment and a large underclass which is literally left to rot and commit petty crime.
Just look at the state of agriculture in our current civilisation. It only survives on government subsidy and corporate farming is literally destroying the soils that support our crops and many farms are in debt and facing closure. The money changers who run our civilisation are literally killing the entire underpinning of human existence. Once our soils are destroyed it could take hundreds of years to restore them even with careful stewardship.
The only future for human survival is a return to the land and the cutting out of the money changers from our lives. Feudalism is the only known mechanism for doing that. The problem is the vast majority of the population has no conception of life outside of being a proletarian wage earner. The industrial civilisation that normalised that is but a temporary blip in the course of human history built on cheap availability of energy and pissing most of that into landfill. Someone has to start anew with something that can be sustained. We literally live in a civilisation that cannot even replace itself. Something is badly wrong and time and time and time again we loose because the elites at least have a will to power and a vision for the future - a vision that is horrifying and likely leads only to extinction. Feudalism sustained Europe during the middle ages, there is no reason it couldn't sustain us after the death of global industrial civilisation.