Sep 5·edited Sep 5Liked by Samara, Copernicean Kelly
I have a few observations with regard to this post. While I like the idea of what Ned is getting at, I think he misses on a few points.
The states are not semi-autonomous, the federal government is semi-autonomous, but mostly controlled by the sates. The states created the federal government via the constitution, and they never had plans to give up very much authority to the federal government. The two parties changed all that. We have government, not of, by, and for the people, but government of, by, and for the parties. No, that's not legitimate, but that's way it is, and that's how it will stay until enough people get pissed off enough to change it.
We should consider the Amish. They are doing and have been doing precisely as Ned has suggested.
Consider also, a construction site. Construction is how I spent most of my career. A commercial construction site is a confusing mess of independent contractors; plumbers, electricians, carpenters, drywallers, steel erectors, concrete contractors and on and on. Each is its own business looking to make its own money and profits. But there is an incredible amount of cooperation, along the lines of nobody wins unless everybody wins. Compare that to congress. 'Nuff said.
America has never had a monoculture, and probably never will. The civil war is just one obvious example of the clash of cultures in America. One book I read identified eleven distinct cultures in America, each with their own idea of how things should be.
It used to be easier to believe that we "all got along", when the media controlled everything we heard, read or watched. But with the internet, and in spite of the suppression efforts by government censors, it is abundantly clear that there is a wide range of interests and goals in the USA, and that many of them contradict each other. There is no curating the media as used to be done, such that we might believe that every day in America was just another episode of Father Knows Best.
Some people want to whitewash all of this, and present only a sanitized version of reality. For myself, I want to know and comprehend as much as possible. That doesn't make life easier. Being somebody's pet dog is easier, but I don't want to be somebody's pet dog. I'll face the challenges, and take pride in overcoming them, on those occasions when I do overcome them. Having a nice life laid out before me is my own personal idea of hell.
I have been on many a jobsite and I couldn't agree more. The bigger the project, the more issues with communication and application. Hell, even some small projects are a mess when egos get involved.
You could have left out the wicker man bs and kept it about Scotland and how clans and/or tribalism made anew will be necessary to form stronger communities consisting of people who are rooting for each other given that it does not become communist of course and is centered in natural law and does this exist in a statist system?
While I hold your position as being a noble one... without some kind of spiritual grounding to heritage these clans have a very difficult time surviving the corrosive effects of post-modernist culture. Friend groups are torn apart by the modern work environment (little time, long distances, loss of connection) while families_can_maintain strong bonds. The neo-clan needs to be closer-knit than mere mutual community support for it to structurally survive in a multigenerational sense.
Clan systems do not become communist, rather they will naturally tend toward an effective hierarchy. I recommend a feudal structure within the clans with a single patriarch representing the ultimate leader. In an llc sense, 60% of the shares belong to the various families while the leader (king) retains 40% of shares. He can make decisions for the group unless the entire group disagrees and forces a veto. Effectively a feudal system where the share-holders are lords of their households and the majority owner being a benevolent dictator.
One must presume that the current statist system will continue to attack clan-structures through cultural uniformity over time. Strong community bonds are simply put, a threat to consolidated central power either in the form of corporations or politicians.
Yes, it's why women should be very careful when observing the behavior and mannerisms of the men they are serious about because you want a Henry 7th not 3rd.
I have a few observations with regard to this post. While I like the idea of what Ned is getting at, I think he misses on a few points.
The states are not semi-autonomous, the federal government is semi-autonomous, but mostly controlled by the sates. The states created the federal government via the constitution, and they never had plans to give up very much authority to the federal government. The two parties changed all that. We have government, not of, by, and for the people, but government of, by, and for the parties. No, that's not legitimate, but that's way it is, and that's how it will stay until enough people get pissed off enough to change it.
We should consider the Amish. They are doing and have been doing precisely as Ned has suggested.
Consider also, a construction site. Construction is how I spent most of my career. A commercial construction site is a confusing mess of independent contractors; plumbers, electricians, carpenters, drywallers, steel erectors, concrete contractors and on and on. Each is its own business looking to make its own money and profits. But there is an incredible amount of cooperation, along the lines of nobody wins unless everybody wins. Compare that to congress. 'Nuff said.
America has never had a monoculture, and probably never will. The civil war is just one obvious example of the clash of cultures in America. One book I read identified eleven distinct cultures in America, each with their own idea of how things should be.
It used to be easier to believe that we "all got along", when the media controlled everything we heard, read or watched. But with the internet, and in spite of the suppression efforts by government censors, it is abundantly clear that there is a wide range of interests and goals in the USA, and that many of them contradict each other. There is no curating the media as used to be done, such that we might believe that every day in America was just another episode of Father Knows Best.
Some people want to whitewash all of this, and present only a sanitized version of reality. For myself, I want to know and comprehend as much as possible. That doesn't make life easier. Being somebody's pet dog is easier, but I don't want to be somebody's pet dog. I'll face the challenges, and take pride in overcoming them, on those occasions when I do overcome them. Having a nice life laid out before me is my own personal idea of hell.
Entirely accurate... the Amish are a structural model for what I think needs to happen.
I have been on many a jobsite and I couldn't agree more. The bigger the project, the more issues with communication and application. Hell, even some small projects are a mess when egos get involved.
You could have left out the wicker man bs and kept it about Scotland and how clans and/or tribalism made anew will be necessary to form stronger communities consisting of people who are rooting for each other given that it does not become communist of course and is centered in natural law and does this exist in a statist system?
While I hold your position as being a noble one... without some kind of spiritual grounding to heritage these clans have a very difficult time surviving the corrosive effects of post-modernist culture. Friend groups are torn apart by the modern work environment (little time, long distances, loss of connection) while families_can_maintain strong bonds. The neo-clan needs to be closer-knit than mere mutual community support for it to structurally survive in a multigenerational sense.
Clan systems do not become communist, rather they will naturally tend toward an effective hierarchy. I recommend a feudal structure within the clans with a single patriarch representing the ultimate leader. In an llc sense, 60% of the shares belong to the various families while the leader (king) retains 40% of shares. He can make decisions for the group unless the entire group disagrees and forces a veto. Effectively a feudal system where the share-holders are lords of their households and the majority owner being a benevolent dictator.
We need to reject materialism in governance. Article on that is located here: https://alwaysthehorizon.substack.com/p/a-reasoned-case-for-monarchy-return
One must presume that the current statist system will continue to attack clan-structures through cultural uniformity over time. Strong community bonds are simply put, a threat to consolidated central power either in the form of corporations or politicians.
Those situations are very tenous. It's hard to trust people. It's why families have usually done that. Feudal systems were communist in a way.
Inside the family, most families are communist.
Yes, it's why women should be very careful when observing the behavior and mannerisms of the men they are serious about because you want a Henry 7th not 3rd.