Great work - every bit as beautifully written as thought provoking as I'd expect from you.
In my opinion, there does have to be some sort of thinning of the dissident herd at some point. Numbers are valuable up to a certain point and there will come a time where in-fighting will become a problem. I always return to the parable of Gideon's army when this topic arises; in the end, it's better to have a small but united number of principled individuals than an undisciplined, panicky horde. Another piece of advice I was given pertaining to this very topic of "punching right" or "finding allies" is that any team that openly invites any old gaggle of losers should expect to lose. You're only ever as strong as your weakest link.
Agreed, YA. That's another reason why I think something like a new knighthood is necessary. With the proper lines in place, the order will police itself towards competence, strength and earned loyalty.
I would never join a club that would have me as a member. - Groucho Marx.
My favorite bit of your epic post is the poke at influencers/followers. I am still amazed that influencer is considered a profession by the women in my life. They describe it as a higher calling than an engineer or accountant.
The whole influencer/follower dynamic is a weird development in one sense, but also very familiar. I think what's primarily changed is the ease and risk modeling. Uncle Screwtape had some things to say about it at his graduation toast.
Good writing Mark. Thank you. But…I am an old guy, 73. I have raised three children, and now have four grandchildren. I have started and run businesses. I have built things. And helped many people get better from illnesses in my alternative health practice. I don’t think for one minute my life has been as you describe. Is it like that for people under 50? Is that really so? Are they ‘influenced’ by Tik Tok stars? I am not challenging you. I am really trying to understand. My youngest son and I have a business. He has two kids. Great friendships. A beautiful wife. They are tired with two children born 18 months apart, but overall it is meaningful and good. Most of his friends are the same. Most. Not all. How prevalent is what you describe?
There is an unquestioned assumption in there that needs to be looked at. 'You're only ever as strong as your weakest link' assumes that we are a chain which fails as soon as a single link fails, this is known as a 'weak link problem' in which culling the weakest from the chain is de rigeur. Chains are the only thing that the Regime knows how to build.(thank you thank you that is my money quote)
But a distributed system such as Mark describes, is a strong link situation, better described by something link, 'You are only as weak as your strongest link.' This situation misses out on the economies of scale, the socialization of risk, etc. of the Weak Link Regime but also skips many of the disadvantages.
I won't claim any expertise on which system has what utility or feasibility, but I will say that in the interests of Purity, the form should match the essence. It is possible to set men free using chains as your tool, but we know what chains are for...
Dec 14, 2023·edited Dec 15, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
That is a better way to look at it. I had like this distributed individualistic picture which I was unsatisfied with.
A multistranded rope is the way to share the load though isn't it? As a friend likes to put it, 'multiply our joys and divide our sorrows'. Pool our strengths together and split up our weaknesses
Or hammer out terms for After ahead of time…once we get rid of the bastards, you Christian types let the rest of us go our own way instead of demanding we forever take a backseat to the lot of you 👁
Re: unity, I think this is less important than some people want to believe. If the project in your eyes is "rebuild the American empire" (or whatever dead empire whose ruins you live among) this is the wrong way of thinking about it.
We don't all need to be on the same page and have the same story. It's not that we have been homogenized into the wrong set of beliefs. Homogeneity *is* the problem. Empire is not a desirable end-goal. It's what got us here in the first place, and they're unstable by nature. Where we're going there will be no empires, at least not for a while.
I love Kruptos' ideas about faith-based communities. I want him to succeed. But if he's successful there is no place for me there, because I don't believe, at least not the way he does. I could pretend - lie - and probably pass. But then I'd have lost my integrity, and isn't integrity one of the pillars we're trying to rebuild here?
But this is fine. The world is a very, very big place. And it's a tiny nothing compared to what's beyond it, if we can figure out how to get there. I have my doubts about that, but if it doesn't work out the world we've got is plenty big enough.
There's enough space for tens of thousands of cultures with their own faiths and values and visions, with plenty of neutral territory in between, if they're scaled appropriately. The way they have been for most of history and all of prehistory. The whole map of human space-time is tribes countries and kingdoms, with a few highly visible smoking craters left behind by failed empires. Hundreds of billions have lived the former way, and a few billion at most the latter way. Empire is an aberration.
So may be a dozen or a hundred knightly orders, not one. Until our shared enemy is broken, scattered and ground to dust, we are allies. After that we go our separate ways in peace and mutual respect. Our descendants, maybe not long after, will end up in conflict. This is fine. This is historically normal.
"We don't all need to be on the same page and have the same story. It's not that we have been homogenized into the wrong set of beliefs. Homogeneity *is* the problem. Empire is not a desirable end-goal. It's what got us here in the first place, and they're unstable by nature. Where we're going there will be no empires, at least not for a while."
Embedded in concept of knighthood I will propose is the establishment of houses. Each house will indeed have its own version of the page and a unique lineage. The story I told is about how the knighthood itself came to be. And I do think we should basically agree on that central mythos.
That said, it *is* mythical, and so is subject to various stylistic changes in retellings. I'm sure there are more talented authors than me out there who weave their own version of the knighthood's founding, and I would encourage them to do so. Each house would include such a retelling as part of its foundation (or they can just borrow mine, or someone else's if they want).
A central myth about the necessity of founding knightly orders and a picture of what they stand against could be good. As a sort of standard protocol. You know that you're on the same team and fighting for the same cause if the mythic pretext is compatible.
Yes, that's what I mean. It isn't exactly a "shibboleth", but functions in a somewhat similar fashion. Maybe this first telling of mine could serve as backup key, in case alignment is in doubt.
By the way I really liked your line elsewhere ‘as if Sloth and Wrath had a child’. It so perfectly describes the Antifa culty activists I see. They march at noon or later only because no one gets up earlier. They have no energy. Their energy is simply rage.
Seems like—as you mention in your post—finding and agreeing (within the House) core, foundational values are key to the viability of any House. For me, on first blush that would be: Liberty, Integrity and Respect. Regarding Religion, or Spirituality, that is quite likely THE most personal and therefore PRIVATE matter that exists. It is utterly a matter for the individual, and not for the individual to press on another.
Ok good…some sanity where others are free to build their own things without marauding crusaders immediately attacking us
(though we will certainly be ready…not worried that you yourself would do this, but some of the “men” in your comments here 🥶🥶🥶…best I will give that sort is a reluctant truce during the main battle here with complete no contact after)
No rest for the wicked is a given…but no rest for the different, for the oddballs, for those of us who DO want to be left alone either
"We don't all need to be on the same page and have the same story. It's not that we have been homogenized into the wrong set of beliefs. Homogeneity *is* the problem. Empire is not a desirable end-goal." I totally agree with you on this!
Free people will have different projects they care about, different stories they are nourished by, different ways to relate to spirit, different relationships with different gods, angels and guiding spirits. Let there be a glorious dissensus, and may each person motivated to build or create, or protect or preserve, or invent or design, go and do that thing and be blessed!
Much to think on, much to muse on, much to get inspired by... :)
"Our quest is nothing less than to save the world."
May I suggest that what I could more resonantly get on board with would be: "Our quest is nothing less than to build the world"
You eloquently point out all the ways in which what you call "the evil spell" of modernity* aims at turning us into destroyers, and ultimately self-destroyers. But that is because what we potentially are, and what the powers that be do not wish us to become, are builders and makers. If the world we are trying to "save" is the same world as the one made by those who wish us to become destroyers, are we in danger of entering a recursive vicious cycle of strengthening what we abhor?
What if we give the most serious and high quality parts of our attention and care into what we wish to build, what we wish to create? Let THEM try to resist US, then... ;)
* John Michael Greer has written numerous posts about this "evil spell" (which he calls a "malign enchantment"), that may interest you. One of the many is here: https://www.ecosophia.net/the-mask-of-disenchantment/
The way I see the world at the moment is that those who create what they want run the risk of losing their jobs. Not everyone can have a successful Substack if they are let go/ fired. May be it is possible if the end products are anonymous, but then one runs the risk of being doxed.
Dec 15, 2023·edited Dec 15, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
To act as a free person is a risky enterprise, for sure. To act as a free person is to willingly face and undertake risk, because what one faces are the consequences of acting. Consequences which have always offered themselves to us as the learning side of acting in freedom.
I agree with you generally. Timing is crucial though. It is not always the time to act like that.
I can think of one person, authoring the current festive season, who did not act bravely at all times. I am sure there are stories from other traditions that can provide such examples.
It is also possible that most are not brave simply because we have lived for too long in a hedonistic culture.
Reading the Codex Oera Linda, a history of the Frisians, we learn that a free society cannot tolerate the presence of slaves, or their slavers, the magi. It is the priestcraft (mind control) of the magi that is the truest enemy of humanity. At this point, we free people are surrounded by slave minded automatons. Slaves cannot live in a free society. A slave believes he is unable to persist without the slaver. The magi uses superstitious fear to take control of the mind-controlled victim. The priest uses ritualism to debase the slaves reasoning faculty, and the shade of mystery is pulled over his head. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40986/40986-h/40986-h.htm
The best book I have found on the reality of the Oera Linda Book is “Chronicles from pre-Celtic Europe: (Survivors of the Great Tsunami)” by Alewyn J. Raubenheimer
It is a factual account of European and Asian pre-history. The old chronicles tell of an advanced European civilisation that existed more than 4000 years ago; a civilisation unknown to or denied by historians to this day.
I would recommend everyone here read the Oera Linda Book. It is Our history starting in 2,193 BC and includes ancient warnings about the very things We are dealing with today.
That is why you only allow voting or control to net contributors. On the dole, single mothers, drug addicts, prisoners etc. Universal suffrage just lets people control us when they themselves cannot get their act together. A handy proxy for a slave mentality.
You definitely need some qualifier. Plus the move towards making it a right in the modern sense is dangerous. It is a privilege that comes with serious responsibilities.
Dec 14, 2023·edited Dec 14, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
Well, a few things there:
1) this is so radical a change it's not happening unless a total overhaul is on the table, so:
2) why does the wife have to own half the house? And if she does, why not one one house one vote, owner decides how to allocate it. It's not like there won't be any arrangements where the wife effectively makes the decisions regardless of who's casting the ballot anyway. And also, probably only grant a vote to a primary residence, not any other form of land ownership, leading to:
3) guest/resident foreign nationals may also be required to pay taxes in any regime where taxes are levied (as opposed to other methods of revenue generation like tariffs). They definitionally don't have skin in the game, or at least divided loyalties, so any system that may give them a vote is counterproductive. So I think this is a deal breaker.
My gut tells me that Property = Vote is a thin-ice scenario. E.g., If I rent a house (I don’t) I am by definition contributing to society. If I am contributing to society I get a vote. Tell me I am wrong.
Just a note here about exclusions and definitions and probably the importance of shared values.
I am totally against milking the system, but with respect to single moms not everyone is living on the backs of others.
I know women who choose to have a child as a single mom. I am not sure of their ultimate motive(s). May be they want to be able to give love to someone AND to provide for themselves a caretaker when they are old. As I grow older I realize (and wonder if I am late to the party) that children/families are the in-built caretakers in old age, and that is basically all we have at the moment. In the religious communities I know, families reign supreme regardless of any dysfunctions.
I can definitely ask a friend to pick me up from a hospital after certain preventative procedures, but if I were to have a major surgery or an accident that requires someone to be in my home while I am semi-conscious, I will be in a bind. Even if a family decides to outsource the caretaking, they are, at least to some extent, watching over the entire situation.
May be the single parent is eventually less of a societal burden than an aging childless person.
I wish for a utopian world where caring for others and trustworthiness are the norm.
That is where Charity comes into play. Along with Faith and Hope, it is the Christian completion of the Roman Virtus. It is why Kruptos suspects a resistance must be a Christian project at its heart. There is no such thing as a Christian who would turn his back on someone in your situation.
In the same sense, I don't think there could exist a knight of high rank who would do the same. Both the heartless utilitarians and the brainless communists have already found their most suitable faction (or are making their way to it, at least).
I don't think they should be punished. But restricting voting to those who contribute makes sense. If you are a net recipient of taxes there is nothing stopping you voting to increase them. That's the issue.
Maybe said women wanted a child but didn’t want the baggage of some of the “men” in the comments who want to deprive them of agency and citizenship, and threaten “jokingly” to replace them with artificial wombs and sexbots.
This brings out the occasional primordially ancient feminine urge to drown them all in the river.
Or, maybe, a single mother (or widow) who lives her life in such a way that she is also ‘provided for’ by caring / admiring members in her community. Not sure how that would get her ‘voting points’, but it should.
This has been more or less my own theory of the case so far, which is why I tend towards Kruptos' side of the argument. That's why I include parallel systems development as a format of knightly project. A critically important one, in my opinion.
And yes, I think The Bad Guys vs. The Worse Guys is a pretty good framing. In fact, I think that explains much of the chaos we're seeing right now.
What are your thoughts on choosing what we decide to cede and build in parallel?
Hypothetically, we might just opt out of a CBDC (that’s going to fail anyway) and go to Gold-backed Crypto.
However, we might stand firm locally and say, “fuck you and your kind if you think you can run our schools with your evil ideology!” And take it over with good old fashioned local politics.
Dec 12, 2023·edited Dec 12, 2023Liked by Mark Bisone
Nicely done. Some random thoughts on knighthood:
1 - Traditionally, *only* a knight could make a knight, BUT the corollary is that *any* knight could make a knight. Worth keeping in mind re: membership.
2A - "Deeds, not words" is a common motto among knights, but we'll need "words" as well as "deeds."
2B - As you note, there may be "deeds" to be done with words for the scriveners among us. (The law itself recognizes 'verbal acts,' probably better phrased as 'communicative acts' like hitting the horn in your car or putting on the blinker).
3 - Prior to being knighted, there were frequently lessor statuses for those trying but not quite there. Everyone thinks "squire", but there were also "men-at-arms" and/or "knight-aspirants". IOW, sure, you could squire for a knight if chosen - a high honor in its day depending upon the knight - but there were also men-not-knighted who would gladly fight alongside as "men-at-arms". Then there were "knight aspirants" who hadn't yet earned their spurs, but were on that journey and just hadn't quite obtained sufficient "XP" or cred necessary to have a knight tell them to "Kneel in the dirt" to be dubbed, so that they could stand up once and forever as a knight.
All great points, thank you. I have given a lot of thought to #1 in particular, which establishes a new and improved form of lineage. That's part of what I mean by "Build a House." Knights-make-knights was always true, but I think we can improve and expand on the original methods.
I agree completely. Making it blockchain would make it so everyone knows everyone else's lineage - the Good and the Bad of one's deeds and knightings. Probably no one bats 1.000, but it would be public record whose House had short- and/or long-term success, deeds of honor, and deeds of "oof".
I don't think a blockchain is necessary or sufficient for this purpose, but it's a tool if you want to use it. The tradition is more important than the technological implementation, which is only as good as its users and implementors. A sacred stick with notches carved into it would do the same job if employed by people with honor, and nothing at all is immune to subversion by the wicked.
I'm open to other implementations. To be fair, I'm still thinking through my own proposal (which was very, *very* rough and vague). It might even be incredibly worthwhile to run multiple simultaneous implementations, for added redundancy/security.
Agree - Blockchain is just a new version of a sacred scroll or House/Unit history: Useful to the extent that members of the distributed network would want to be able to track such information.
This is much the way I see it too (though I wouldn't sacralize the tech itself, obviously). The backbone (or, as I said above, multiple backbones branching from a spinal root) wouldn't merely be used for project management and scoring, but also to securely trace lineage and history.
Nothing particularly wrong with sacralizing the technology. Scrolls are a technology too. As are oaths and initiation rituals. Can even be a good thing if people take it seriously. I'm just saying I don't see any particular value in blockchains. They're a very expensive database that is only as reliable as the people responsible for maintaining it, like all other databases. A good solution if total cost is not an issue and you anticipate many stakeholders in a low-trust environment. It solves prisoner's dilemma style problems well enough. Otherwise it's expensive and redundant.
Some things I have been thinking about, a series I am working on. I am fine fighting under a banner of Christ, as long as there is a place for me. We have quite a bit of work to do, clarifying that vision.
You too. Glad to be welcome. I am already mulling a response to you and Grant and Kruptos. In the main, if the change is lead by Christians, for broader support it would have to be about the fundamental principles of the Constitution too.
It is influenced by Christianity, but is like an amalgamation of the thinking of the West, the enlightenment, reason, logic, rationality. As for monarchy being more stable, that depends on the stability of the monarch, and if history has taught us anything it is that monarchs are not always stable.
Monarchs are not always stable, but democracies always devolve into corrupt oligarchies. Worst case scenario a corrupt monarch can be deposed in a bottom-up action. Note the difficulty we're having with a corrupt oligarchy from the bottom up, which historically has only been cured by ... a monarch.
I pretty much agree that oligarchy is democracy's typical path to Hell, if not its inevitable final form. OTOH maybe there is no "final form" per se but rather a constantly mutating form that shifts from democracy to oligarchy to monarchy in circular fashion. Some think the way to break the cycle is anarchy, but that's a very loaded word. But there is at least some usefulness in the archetype of The Anarch (which is not to be confused with the dumb Sex Pistols model)
True enough. But if we know democracies always devolve, then surely we can reset and start over. The founders were fairly clear about that. Obviously that is not easy, but necessity is a harsh teacher. A lot of conservatives talk about tradition, but throwing out the constitution and Bill of rights in favor of a king seems a lot like the death of the promise of America out of desperation.
You are far more eloquent when speaking of chivalry and knighthood than I am in my essays or in my poetry and novels.
Kudos to you, I think that what we need is to go to older forms of education such as those that were present in France, Britain, Japan & the US at the start of the 20th century and throughout the 19th century, to read older works, to aspire after them (those of us who are artists) and to build stronger, and better but not necessarily faster. We must also remember to help fellow knights and not pull up the ladder when they ask for help.
But anyways, you worded everything far better, really liked this essay kudos to you and cheers mon ami.
This is beautiful and inspiring. As you expand this vision, I hope you do, please make room for women; for those with disabilities; for the elderly. There has to be a balance between the ages when one is physically and mentally strong and the latter part in life when the decline of the body and mental faculties take over. Develop also how to build communities. I read in several posts the idea of supporting our local communities, but in my case I wonder where they are. I hope they extend beyond the family since not everyone is lucky in that department.
I suspect there will be room for many different kinds of roles in the general model, T02. And I think a knight who abandons the weak is no knight at all.
This is the greatest proposal for a solution I have ever read! It nicely bridges the gap of believes between different groups of the distant right, and lets them both coordinate against their common enemy, while also competing amongst eachother in order to prove who's ideas are, in reality, the most effective at fighting the "Cthulu".
There is however one flaw in this proposed solution, but I think it could easily be fixed. That flaw is: who determines from the beginning how much "blockchain tokens" a project is worth, when no one has gotten a rank yet? And what happens if two knights of the highest rank disagrees about the value of any individual project?
The medieval era also brings a solution to this problem: knightly orders! Any individual knight might create a "knightly order" and can arbitraly define how much the projects within the order is worth. If the knight overvalues projects (for any reason) in the eyes of the knights outside the order, then his knightly order should gain a bad reputation and be viewed as low status to join, even if the "blockchain tokens" there are in abundance. That way, we can also more easily create competition between groups within the distant right.
Perhaps the tokens genererated within each order can be named after the order, to more easily demonstrate the value of the "blockchain tokens".
For example, having 1000 tokens from a low status group will not bring more prestige and status in the distant right sphere than 10 tokens from a highly prestigeous order. Thus we can also have a dynamic "exchange rates" between each different token, depending on how much any knight is willing to trade their tokens for tokens within another order. I hope I make myself clear.
That being said, to join an existing order should be an initiation, and not a "free to join any order". The "order master" should have the power to determine who is in the order, and who stays out. And of course, a knight are not limited to a single order, as long as he can manage to get himself initiated.
Systems implementation(s) is TBD. I am exploring solutions on other channels, but an exchange is more or less what I had in mind as well.
Your version of "knightly orders" is essentially what I meant by "Build a House." I'll provide detail in a future post, but I think you'll be happy with my proposal.
I am thrilled to find so many moving beyond identifying the problem and thinking along the same lines as to what to do. One “rule” that I have come up with is that whoever joins must participate. Also, I see it as one of the jobs of leadership is to provide structure including clear expectations, both what to expect and what is expected. A couple examples of structure is the Navy Surface Warfare qualification process and the Scouting badges and advancement system. I have been reading an old Boy Scouts handbook and it talks about a lot of the things we are. If you remove the labels and lay out the ingredients you have a framework for a system. Another great resource is military manuals.
I’m saving up to buy land where I will build a castle, farm, mead hall, library and other basic infrastructure. I have studied history and construction of fortifications and timber framing. Being the landowner puts me in charge and makes me responsible for the success of the project. By requiring everyone to participate lets people sort themselves. By providing the land and infrastructure we can move beyond the keyboard and get dirty.
Also I recommend researching how to start a cult and how to start a business. I just finished watching a couple shows on cults on Max; “Love Has Won: The cult of mother god”, and “The Garden: commune or cult”. The Garden is especially pertinent to establishing an IRL community. Many valuable lessons to be learned.
Thanks, Dee. I generally agree that we need strong incentive structures for deep participation and meeting expectations. On the other hand, if "saving the bloody world" isn't enough of an incentive, I'm not sure what would be. The kernel of my idea (which could change) is that depth of participation is what bolsters rank, which also is a measure of trust that allows for broader access to information and resources systemwide. I'm still working out the model, though.
"I’m saving up to buy land where I will build a castle, farm, mead hall, library and other basic infrastructure. I have studied history and construction of fortifications and timber framing. Being the landowner puts me in charge and makes me responsible for the success of the project. By requiring everyone to participate lets people sort themselves. By providing the land and infrastructure we can move beyond the keyboard and get dirty."
That sounds like an amazing project. I assume many knights would follow a similar path, while others will be wanderers and nomads. That's all for the best, I think. "Diversity is our strength" is a stupid slogan, but in our case I think it points to a truth. Or at least, we can mine the truth out of any lie, partially due to our training. Ironies abound.
"Each knight designs his projects with specific and measurable goals in mind"
At what point does this play into the Machine's mania for quantification? I understand the need for effectiveness, so you can point to something substantial and say "I did that." But if this is a war for the soul, then there are going to be fights where the results are simply not quantifiable.
"At what point does this play into the Machine's mania for quantification?"
It hopefully doesn't. I agree with Fukitol below that "falsifiable" was more what I was going for. You need to say you'll do something, do it, and prove you've done it.
Such pieces about what is to be done are so important! There’s a Machiavelli quote: When evils “are allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no longer any remedy to be found.” It makes me wonder if it’s a bad sign the way some normies are recognizing that things are going very wrong. In other words, it’s not like “Yay, they’re getting it, and there will be more people standing up now.” It may actually be a sign that time is growing short for a remedy.
Also, wanted to comment on the pictures of the assorted prominent weirdos you posted. This may sound out there, but I’ve come to believe the appearance on the world stage of these strange people is a sign that we’re living in a mythical time, as opposed to just an important moment in history. It feels like at some point, we stepped into myth.
Thanks, Akiko. I'm sort of in the middle on the phenomena: optimistic about the growth surge, but also feeling some pressure to giddy up. I guess you could say the latter was the impetus for this article, and maybe my blog more generally.
(Also, thank you so much for your generous subscription.)
So we are here now, broken beliefs in a world filled with kind people looking to take care of each other. Buried in a shattered reality that was sold to us by the highest bidder. A spell indeed, that we have broken out of as we watch in horror, others not unlike us, still being held under it’s magic.
We have found a place with others that appreciate our predicament here and to you, I am most grateful for.
If we choose to fight, we run the risk of warring against those like us who are still under the magician’s spell who will be summoned to stand against us.
We have won the battle against the magician, but are in the war to attain independence from the reality he wants to impose upon us.
Having ascribed to the cut and run option, you entice me with the joining of forces to create our own version of reality. Intuition and imagination seem to be viable weapons.
I wouldn't go as far as to say we've defeated the magician. But the first spell (invisibility) seems to have fizzled out for a great many of us. And both intuition and imagination are *valuable* weapons. In fact, I daresay they are the most valuable of all. With those intact, even a naked knight remains a threat. Think MacGyver, but with an even cooler mullet.
Deep in the ravine gouged from decades of erosion, you've pointed to the tired and wounded Knight his unquenchable thirst for Truth and Love, a spark of purpose kindled stirring his memory, regenerating his weary bones. Thank you, brother.
Great work - every bit as beautifully written as thought provoking as I'd expect from you.
In my opinion, there does have to be some sort of thinning of the dissident herd at some point. Numbers are valuable up to a certain point and there will come a time where in-fighting will become a problem. I always return to the parable of Gideon's army when this topic arises; in the end, it's better to have a small but united number of principled individuals than an undisciplined, panicky horde. Another piece of advice I was given pertaining to this very topic of "punching right" or "finding allies" is that any team that openly invites any old gaggle of losers should expect to lose. You're only ever as strong as your weakest link.
Agreed, YA. That's another reason why I think something like a new knighthood is necessary. With the proper lines in place, the order will police itself towards competence, strength and earned loyalty.
I would never join a club that would have me as a member. - Groucho Marx.
My favorite bit of your epic post is the poke at influencers/followers. I am still amazed that influencer is considered a profession by the women in my life. They describe it as a higher calling than an engineer or accountant.
They also brag about who they are following.
Be hilarious. Love it.
The whole influencer/follower dynamic is a weird development in one sense, but also very familiar. I think what's primarily changed is the ease and risk modeling. Uncle Screwtape had some things to say about it at his graduation toast.
https://markbisone.substack.com/p/the-screwtape-stratagem
Just finished the post from your link. So perfect. My soul thanks you.
Good writing Mark. Thank you. But…I am an old guy, 73. I have raised three children, and now have four grandchildren. I have started and run businesses. I have built things. And helped many people get better from illnesses in my alternative health practice. I don’t think for one minute my life has been as you describe. Is it like that for people under 50? Is that really so? Are they ‘influenced’ by Tik Tok stars? I am not challenging you. I am really trying to understand. My youngest son and I have a business. He has two kids. Great friendships. A beautiful wife. They are tired with two children born 18 months apart, but overall it is meaningful and good. Most of his friends are the same. Most. Not all. How prevalent is what you describe?
There is an unquestioned assumption in there that needs to be looked at. 'You're only ever as strong as your weakest link' assumes that we are a chain which fails as soon as a single link fails, this is known as a 'weak link problem' in which culling the weakest from the chain is de rigeur. Chains are the only thing that the Regime knows how to build.(thank you thank you that is my money quote)
But a distributed system such as Mark describes, is a strong link situation, better described by something link, 'You are only as weak as your strongest link.' This situation misses out on the economies of scale, the socialization of risk, etc. of the Weak Link Regime but also skips many of the disadvantages.
I won't claim any expertise on which system has what utility or feasibility, but I will say that in the interests of Purity, the form should match the essence. It is possible to set men free using chains as your tool, but we know what chains are for...
Good point on chains. Better to be a multi-stranded rope; which happens to be the biblical analogy.
Agreed. We aren't looking for one rope/chain, but so many threads/heads that the enemy becomes demoralized and bewildered.
That is a better way to look at it. I had like this distributed individualistic picture which I was unsatisfied with.
A multistranded rope is the way to share the load though isn't it? As a friend likes to put it, 'multiply our joys and divide our sorrows'. Pool our strengths together and split up our weaknesses
I agree that is a danger. I think my strategy way to avoid such atomization will become clearer once I finish describing all the knightly traits.
A rope is dependent on all the fibers but not dependent on one fiber. It is the image of a village, though not of Hillary's village.
Or hammer out terms for After ahead of time…once we get rid of the bastards, you Christian types let the rest of us go our own way instead of demanding we forever take a backseat to the lot of you 👁
We are Christians not Imams. Do whatever you want. I might think you are wrong but so?
Love it.
Re: unity, I think this is less important than some people want to believe. If the project in your eyes is "rebuild the American empire" (or whatever dead empire whose ruins you live among) this is the wrong way of thinking about it.
We don't all need to be on the same page and have the same story. It's not that we have been homogenized into the wrong set of beliefs. Homogeneity *is* the problem. Empire is not a desirable end-goal. It's what got us here in the first place, and they're unstable by nature. Where we're going there will be no empires, at least not for a while.
I love Kruptos' ideas about faith-based communities. I want him to succeed. But if he's successful there is no place for me there, because I don't believe, at least not the way he does. I could pretend - lie - and probably pass. But then I'd have lost my integrity, and isn't integrity one of the pillars we're trying to rebuild here?
But this is fine. The world is a very, very big place. And it's a tiny nothing compared to what's beyond it, if we can figure out how to get there. I have my doubts about that, but if it doesn't work out the world we've got is plenty big enough.
There's enough space for tens of thousands of cultures with their own faiths and values and visions, with plenty of neutral territory in between, if they're scaled appropriately. The way they have been for most of history and all of prehistory. The whole map of human space-time is tribes countries and kingdoms, with a few highly visible smoking craters left behind by failed empires. Hundreds of billions have lived the former way, and a few billion at most the latter way. Empire is an aberration.
So may be a dozen or a hundred knightly orders, not one. Until our shared enemy is broken, scattered and ground to dust, we are allies. After that we go our separate ways in peace and mutual respect. Our descendants, maybe not long after, will end up in conflict. This is fine. This is historically normal.
"We don't all need to be on the same page and have the same story. It's not that we have been homogenized into the wrong set of beliefs. Homogeneity *is* the problem. Empire is not a desirable end-goal. It's what got us here in the first place, and they're unstable by nature. Where we're going there will be no empires, at least not for a while."
Embedded in concept of knighthood I will propose is the establishment of houses. Each house will indeed have its own version of the page and a unique lineage. The story I told is about how the knighthood itself came to be. And I do think we should basically agree on that central mythos.
That said, it *is* mythical, and so is subject to various stylistic changes in retellings. I'm sure there are more talented authors than me out there who weave their own version of the knighthood's founding, and I would encourage them to do so. Each house would include such a retelling as part of its foundation (or they can just borrow mine, or someone else's if they want).
A central myth about the necessity of founding knightly orders and a picture of what they stand against could be good. As a sort of standard protocol. You know that you're on the same team and fighting for the same cause if the mythic pretext is compatible.
Yes, that's what I mean. It isn't exactly a "shibboleth", but functions in a somewhat similar fashion. Maybe this first telling of mine could serve as backup key, in case alignment is in doubt.
As long as it isn’t a ‘she/hebolleth’.
By the way I really liked your line elsewhere ‘as if Sloth and Wrath had a child’. It so perfectly describes the Antifa culty activists I see. They march at noon or later only because no one gets up earlier. They have no energy. Their energy is simply rage.
LMAO!
Seems like—as you mention in your post—finding and agreeing (within the House) core, foundational values are key to the viability of any House. For me, on first blush that would be: Liberty, Integrity and Respect. Regarding Religion, or Spirituality, that is quite likely THE most personal and therefore PRIVATE matter that exists. It is utterly a matter for the individual, and not for the individual to press on another.
Ok good…some sanity where others are free to build their own things without marauding crusaders immediately attacking us
(though we will certainly be ready…not worried that you yourself would do this, but some of the “men” in your comments here 🥶🥶🥶…best I will give that sort is a reluctant truce during the main battle here with complete no contact after)
No rest for the wicked is a given…but no rest for the different, for the oddballs, for those of us who DO want to be left alone either
Joy
"We don't all need to be on the same page and have the same story. It's not that we have been homogenized into the wrong set of beliefs. Homogeneity *is* the problem. Empire is not a desirable end-goal." I totally agree with you on this!
Free people will have different projects they care about, different stories they are nourished by, different ways to relate to spirit, different relationships with different gods, angels and guiding spirits. Let there be a glorious dissensus, and may each person motivated to build or create, or protect or preserve, or invent or design, go and do that thing and be blessed!
Nicely said.
Much to think on, much to muse on, much to get inspired by... :)
"Our quest is nothing less than to save the world."
May I suggest that what I could more resonantly get on board with would be: "Our quest is nothing less than to build the world"
You eloquently point out all the ways in which what you call "the evil spell" of modernity* aims at turning us into destroyers, and ultimately self-destroyers. But that is because what we potentially are, and what the powers that be do not wish us to become, are builders and makers. If the world we are trying to "save" is the same world as the one made by those who wish us to become destroyers, are we in danger of entering a recursive vicious cycle of strengthening what we abhor?
What if we give the most serious and high quality parts of our attention and care into what we wish to build, what we wish to create? Let THEM try to resist US, then... ;)
* John Michael Greer has written numerous posts about this "evil spell" (which he calls a "malign enchantment"), that may interest you. One of the many is here: https://www.ecosophia.net/the-mask-of-disenchantment/
The way I see the world at the moment is that those who create what they want run the risk of losing their jobs. Not everyone can have a successful Substack if they are let go/ fired. May be it is possible if the end products are anonymous, but then one runs the risk of being doxed.
To act as a free person is a risky enterprise, for sure. To act as a free person is to willingly face and undertake risk, because what one faces are the consequences of acting. Consequences which have always offered themselves to us as the learning side of acting in freedom.
I agree with you generally. Timing is crucial though. It is not always the time to act like that.
I can think of one person, authoring the current festive season, who did not act bravely at all times. I am sure there are stories from other traditions that can provide such examples.
It is also possible that most are not brave simply because we have lived for too long in a hedonistic culture.
Timing, like acting, is the prerogative of the free person.
Bravery? That is for others to judge.
Be well, stay free! :)
Reading the Codex Oera Linda, a history of the Frisians, we learn that a free society cannot tolerate the presence of slaves, or their slavers, the magi. It is the priestcraft (mind control) of the magi that is the truest enemy of humanity. At this point, we free people are surrounded by slave minded automatons. Slaves cannot live in a free society. A slave believes he is unable to persist without the slaver. The magi uses superstitious fear to take control of the mind-controlled victim. The priest uses ritualism to debase the slaves reasoning faculty, and the shade of mystery is pulled over his head. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40986/40986-h/40986-h.htm
Some spells (with God's help) can be broken, and some slaves can still be freed. In doing so, we may be able to generate more knights.
The best book I have found on the reality of the Oera Linda Book is “Chronicles from pre-Celtic Europe: (Survivors of the Great Tsunami)” by Alewyn J. Raubenheimer
It is a factual account of European and Asian pre-history. The old chronicles tell of an advanced European civilisation that existed more than 4000 years ago; a civilisation unknown to or denied by historians to this day.
I would recommend everyone here read the Oera Linda Book. It is Our history starting in 2,193 BC and includes ancient warnings about the very things We are dealing with today.
Never heard of that one. Sounds at least like an interesting read.
Great. The Kolbrin is also very valuable in this line of research.
That is why you only allow voting or control to net contributors. On the dole, single mothers, drug addicts, prisoners etc. Universal suffrage just lets people control us when they themselves cannot get their act together. A handy proxy for a slave mentality.
The Founders almost got it right, there was a move to require ownership of land to vote.
You definitely need some qualifier. Plus the move towards making it a right in the modern sense is dangerous. It is a privilege that comes with serious responsibilities.
Having skin in the game is important. Property is a good reliable proxy for that though, and I don't see a need to reinvent this wheel.
Not today. That means a wife who does not contribute but owns half the house can vote.
I'd argue taxation is the measure. If you pay some arbitrary amount, you get a vote.
Well, a few things there:
1) this is so radical a change it's not happening unless a total overhaul is on the table, so:
2) why does the wife have to own half the house? And if she does, why not one one house one vote, owner decides how to allocate it. It's not like there won't be any arrangements where the wife effectively makes the decisions regardless of who's casting the ballot anyway. And also, probably only grant a vote to a primary residence, not any other form of land ownership, leading to:
3) guest/resident foreign nationals may also be required to pay taxes in any regime where taxes are levied (as opposed to other methods of revenue generation like tariffs). They definitionally don't have skin in the game, or at least divided loyalties, so any system that may give them a vote is counterproductive. So I think this is a deal breaker.
Oh nooooo
Women voting and being full people is dooooom
Yeah, very compelling, tell me more about how I should fight to the death for this outcome LMAO
Rather than go off on my own somewhere and watch the show
You forget it was MEN gifted us the federal reserve, income tax, Marxism…it was Karl, not Karla Marx
Bang up job you’ve all done, but sure, it’s all women’s fault and we should be grateful to get a kitchen to be barefoot and pregnant in ♾️🙄
My gut tells me that Property = Vote is a thin-ice scenario. E.g., If I rent a house (I don’t) I am by definition contributing to society. If I am contributing to society I get a vote. Tell me I am wrong.
The real issue is ownership, home rent vs own is a proxy for the attitude needed to be a good citizen; a producer vs a taker.
Just a note here about exclusions and definitions and probably the importance of shared values.
I am totally against milking the system, but with respect to single moms not everyone is living on the backs of others.
I know women who choose to have a child as a single mom. I am not sure of their ultimate motive(s). May be they want to be able to give love to someone AND to provide for themselves a caretaker when they are old. As I grow older I realize (and wonder if I am late to the party) that children/families are the in-built caretakers in old age, and that is basically all we have at the moment. In the religious communities I know, families reign supreme regardless of any dysfunctions.
I can definitely ask a friend to pick me up from a hospital after certain preventative procedures, but if I were to have a major surgery or an accident that requires someone to be in my home while I am semi-conscious, I will be in a bind. Even if a family decides to outsource the caretaking, they are, at least to some extent, watching over the entire situation.
May be the single parent is eventually less of a societal burden than an aging childless person.
I wish for a utopian world where caring for others and trustworthiness are the norm.
That is where Charity comes into play. Along with Faith and Hope, it is the Christian completion of the Roman Virtus. It is why Kruptos suspects a resistance must be a Christian project at its heart. There is no such thing as a Christian who would turn his back on someone in your situation.
In the same sense, I don't think there could exist a knight of high rank who would do the same. Both the heartless utilitarians and the brainless communists have already found their most suitable faction (or are making their way to it, at least).
Exactly.
I don't think they should be punished. But restricting voting to those who contribute makes sense. If you are a net recipient of taxes there is nothing stopping you voting to increase them. That's the issue.
Maybe said women wanted a child but didn’t want the baggage of some of the “men” in the comments who want to deprive them of agency and citizenship, and threaten “jokingly” to replace them with artificial wombs and sexbots.
This brings out the occasional primordially ancient feminine urge to drown them all in the river.
Oh shit, that’s FUNNY! Thank you, I needed that tonight! Seriously.
By single mothers, do you mean Widows as well?
Technically yes. But the focus is who contributes. Net contribution would be the focus. So a single mother with a job would qualify.
Or, maybe, a single mother (or widow) who lives her life in such a way that she is also ‘provided for’ by caring / admiring members in her community. Not sure how that would get her ‘voting points’, but it should.
Okay thanks.
I’m starting to get my mind organized around this. And it’s not mutually exclusive to anything you’ve posited.
* we are definitely in a spiritual war.
* there will be a hellacious battle between Evil Incarnate and Slightly Less Evil (all are elite insiders).
* our job is to keep our heads down and powder dry during the heat of it.
* meanwhile we must organize locally and protect our communities.
* eventually one side will win out and be severely diminished in power and resources but still dangerous.
* at this point allies of Evil Incarnate and Slightly Less Evil must find it impossible to live in our communities.
This could take decades. The flywheel is ginormous.
This has been more or less my own theory of the case so far, which is why I tend towards Kruptos' side of the argument. That's why I include parallel systems development as a format of knightly project. A critically important one, in my opinion.
And yes, I think The Bad Guys vs. The Worse Guys is a pretty good framing. In fact, I think that explains much of the chaos we're seeing right now.
What are your thoughts on choosing what we decide to cede and build in parallel?
Hypothetically, we might just opt out of a CBDC (that’s going to fail anyway) and go to Gold-backed Crypto.
However, we might stand firm locally and say, “fuck you and your kind if you think you can run our schools with your evil ideology!” And take it over with good old fashioned local politics.
I have a bunch of thoughts on this. Too many for a comment, but I will bear this in mind when I write my followup. Thanks.
The ox is slow, but the Earth is patient.
Which culture does this come from? I don’t recall it.
Tibetan / Buddhist. Some attribute it to Confucius. It was quoted in the movie, “High Road to China”.
In any case, I love the quote.
Nicely done. Some random thoughts on knighthood:
1 - Traditionally, *only* a knight could make a knight, BUT the corollary is that *any* knight could make a knight. Worth keeping in mind re: membership.
2A - "Deeds, not words" is a common motto among knights, but we'll need "words" as well as "deeds."
2B - As you note, there may be "deeds" to be done with words for the scriveners among us. (The law itself recognizes 'verbal acts,' probably better phrased as 'communicative acts' like hitting the horn in your car or putting on the blinker).
3 - Prior to being knighted, there were frequently lessor statuses for those trying but not quite there. Everyone thinks "squire", but there were also "men-at-arms" and/or "knight-aspirants". IOW, sure, you could squire for a knight if chosen - a high honor in its day depending upon the knight - but there were also men-not-knighted who would gladly fight alongside as "men-at-arms". Then there were "knight aspirants" who hadn't yet earned their spurs, but were on that journey and just hadn't quite obtained sufficient "XP" or cred necessary to have a knight tell them to "Kneel in the dirt" to be dubbed, so that they could stand up once and forever as a knight.
All great points, thank you. I have given a lot of thought to #1 in particular, which establishes a new and improved form of lineage. That's part of what I mean by "Build a House." Knights-make-knights was always true, but I think we can improve and expand on the original methods.
I agree completely. Making it blockchain would make it so everyone knows everyone else's lineage - the Good and the Bad of one's deeds and knightings. Probably no one bats 1.000, but it would be public record whose House had short- and/or long-term success, deeds of honor, and deeds of "oof".
EXACTLY.
I don't think a blockchain is necessary or sufficient for this purpose, but it's a tool if you want to use it. The tradition is more important than the technological implementation, which is only as good as its users and implementors. A sacred stick with notches carved into it would do the same job if employed by people with honor, and nothing at all is immune to subversion by the wicked.
I'm open to other implementations. To be fair, I'm still thinking through my own proposal (which was very, *very* rough and vague). It might even be incredibly worthwhile to run multiple simultaneous implementations, for added redundancy/security.
Agree - Blockchain is just a new version of a sacred scroll or House/Unit history: Useful to the extent that members of the distributed network would want to be able to track such information.
This is much the way I see it too (though I wouldn't sacralize the tech itself, obviously). The backbone (or, as I said above, multiple backbones branching from a spinal root) wouldn't merely be used for project management and scoring, but also to securely trace lineage and history.
Nothing particularly wrong with sacralizing the technology. Scrolls are a technology too. As are oaths and initiation rituals. Can even be a good thing if people take it seriously. I'm just saying I don't see any particular value in blockchains. They're a very expensive database that is only as reliable as the people responsible for maintaining it, like all other databases. A good solution if total cost is not an issue and you anticipate many stakeholders in a low-trust environment. It solves prisoner's dilemma style problems well enough. Otherwise it's expensive and redundant.
Clearly there is a shift in the stream.
Some things I have been thinking about, a series I am working on. I am fine fighting under a banner of Christ, as long as there is a place for me. We have quite a bit of work to do, clarifying that vision.
https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/the-people-have-to-eat
https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/the-people-have-to-believe
See you on the line, brother.
You too. Glad to be welcome. I am already mulling a response to you and Grant and Kruptos. In the main, if the change is lead by Christians, for broader support it would have to be about the fundamental principles of the Constitution too.
What is not Christian about the Constitution?
OTH, monarchy is a far stronger form of government, and less volatile; at least in the abstract.
It is influenced by Christianity, but is like an amalgamation of the thinking of the West, the enlightenment, reason, logic, rationality. As for monarchy being more stable, that depends on the stability of the monarch, and if history has taught us anything it is that monarchs are not always stable.
Monarchs are not always stable, but democracies always devolve into corrupt oligarchies. Worst case scenario a corrupt monarch can be deposed in a bottom-up action. Note the difficulty we're having with a corrupt oligarchy from the bottom up, which historically has only been cured by ... a monarch.
I pretty much agree that oligarchy is democracy's typical path to Hell, if not its inevitable final form. OTOH maybe there is no "final form" per se but rather a constantly mutating form that shifts from democracy to oligarchy to monarchy in circular fashion. Some think the way to break the cycle is anarchy, but that's a very loaded word. But there is at least some usefulness in the archetype of The Anarch (which is not to be confused with the dumb Sex Pistols model)
LoC had some thoughts on this recently:
https://librarianofcelaeno.substack.com/p/the-bildungsroman-of-an-anarch
True enough. But if we know democracies always devolve, then surely we can reset and start over. The founders were fairly clear about that. Obviously that is not easy, but necessity is a harsh teacher. A lot of conservatives talk about tradition, but throwing out the constitution and Bill of rights in favor of a king seems a lot like the death of the promise of America out of desperation.
This is my stance as well.
You are far more eloquent when speaking of chivalry and knighthood than I am in my essays or in my poetry and novels.
Kudos to you, I think that what we need is to go to older forms of education such as those that were present in France, Britain, Japan & the US at the start of the 20th century and throughout the 19th century, to read older works, to aspire after them (those of us who are artists) and to build stronger, and better but not necessarily faster. We must also remember to help fellow knights and not pull up the ladder when they ask for help.
But anyways, you worded everything far better, really liked this essay kudos to you and cheers mon ami.
Thank you. I did enjoy your recent essay on King Conan, by the way.
This is beautiful and inspiring. As you expand this vision, I hope you do, please make room for women; for those with disabilities; for the elderly. There has to be a balance between the ages when one is physically and mentally strong and the latter part in life when the decline of the body and mental faculties take over. Develop also how to build communities. I read in several posts the idea of supporting our local communities, but in my case I wonder where they are. I hope they extend beyond the family since not everyone is lucky in that department.
I suspect there will be room for many different kinds of roles in the general model, T02. And I think a knight who abandons the weak is no knight at all.
May be we need a clearer understanding of the weak.
I am looking forward to your next posts!
This is the greatest proposal for a solution I have ever read! It nicely bridges the gap of believes between different groups of the distant right, and lets them both coordinate against their common enemy, while also competing amongst eachother in order to prove who's ideas are, in reality, the most effective at fighting the "Cthulu".
There is however one flaw in this proposed solution, but I think it could easily be fixed. That flaw is: who determines from the beginning how much "blockchain tokens" a project is worth, when no one has gotten a rank yet? And what happens if two knights of the highest rank disagrees about the value of any individual project?
The medieval era also brings a solution to this problem: knightly orders! Any individual knight might create a "knightly order" and can arbitraly define how much the projects within the order is worth. If the knight overvalues projects (for any reason) in the eyes of the knights outside the order, then his knightly order should gain a bad reputation and be viewed as low status to join, even if the "blockchain tokens" there are in abundance. That way, we can also more easily create competition between groups within the distant right.
Perhaps the tokens genererated within each order can be named after the order, to more easily demonstrate the value of the "blockchain tokens".
For example, having 1000 tokens from a low status group will not bring more prestige and status in the distant right sphere than 10 tokens from a highly prestigeous order. Thus we can also have a dynamic "exchange rates" between each different token, depending on how much any knight is willing to trade their tokens for tokens within another order. I hope I make myself clear.
That being said, to join an existing order should be an initiation, and not a "free to join any order". The "order master" should have the power to determine who is in the order, and who stays out. And of course, a knight are not limited to a single order, as long as he can manage to get himself initiated.
Anyone got any thoughts on this?
Thanks, NeoSwede.
Systems implementation(s) is TBD. I am exploring solutions on other channels, but an exchange is more or less what I had in mind as well.
Your version of "knightly orders" is essentially what I meant by "Build a House." I'll provide detail in a future post, but I think you'll be happy with my proposal.
I will be looking forward to it!
Good points sir. However, all this assumes electricity. :-)
Just saying.
I am thrilled to find so many moving beyond identifying the problem and thinking along the same lines as to what to do. One “rule” that I have come up with is that whoever joins must participate. Also, I see it as one of the jobs of leadership is to provide structure including clear expectations, both what to expect and what is expected. A couple examples of structure is the Navy Surface Warfare qualification process and the Scouting badges and advancement system. I have been reading an old Boy Scouts handbook and it talks about a lot of the things we are. If you remove the labels and lay out the ingredients you have a framework for a system. Another great resource is military manuals.
I’m saving up to buy land where I will build a castle, farm, mead hall, library and other basic infrastructure. I have studied history and construction of fortifications and timber framing. Being the landowner puts me in charge and makes me responsible for the success of the project. By requiring everyone to participate lets people sort themselves. By providing the land and infrastructure we can move beyond the keyboard and get dirty.
Also I recommend researching how to start a cult and how to start a business. I just finished watching a couple shows on cults on Max; “Love Has Won: The cult of mother god”, and “The Garden: commune or cult”. The Garden is especially pertinent to establishing an IRL community. Many valuable lessons to be learned.
Thanks, Dee. I generally agree that we need strong incentive structures for deep participation and meeting expectations. On the other hand, if "saving the bloody world" isn't enough of an incentive, I'm not sure what would be. The kernel of my idea (which could change) is that depth of participation is what bolsters rank, which also is a measure of trust that allows for broader access to information and resources systemwide. I'm still working out the model, though.
"I’m saving up to buy land where I will build a castle, farm, mead hall, library and other basic infrastructure. I have studied history and construction of fortifications and timber framing. Being the landowner puts me in charge and makes me responsible for the success of the project. By requiring everyone to participate lets people sort themselves. By providing the land and infrastructure we can move beyond the keyboard and get dirty."
That sounds like an amazing project. I assume many knights would follow a similar path, while others will be wanderers and nomads. That's all for the best, I think. "Diversity is our strength" is a stupid slogan, but in our case I think it points to a truth. Or at least, we can mine the truth out of any lie, partially due to our training. Ironies abound.
Please do it sooner, than later, brother. You will thank yourself daily. I promise.
I can make bows and play the mandolin; I would like to live in your castle...
"Each knight designs his projects with specific and measurable goals in mind"
At what point does this play into the Machine's mania for quantification? I understand the need for effectiveness, so you can point to something substantial and say "I did that." But if this is a war for the soul, then there are going to be fights where the results are simply not quantifiable.
"At what point does this play into the Machine's mania for quantification?"
It hopefully doesn't. I agree with Fukitol below that "falsifiable" was more what I was going for. You need to say you'll do something, do it, and prove you've done it.
That's a fair point. Maybe falsifiable rather than quantifiable is the thing.
Such pieces about what is to be done are so important! There’s a Machiavelli quote: When evils “are allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no longer any remedy to be found.” It makes me wonder if it’s a bad sign the way some normies are recognizing that things are going very wrong. In other words, it’s not like “Yay, they’re getting it, and there will be more people standing up now.” It may actually be a sign that time is growing short for a remedy.
Also, wanted to comment on the pictures of the assorted prominent weirdos you posted. This may sound out there, but I’ve come to believe the appearance on the world stage of these strange people is a sign that we’re living in a mythical time, as opposed to just an important moment in history. It feels like at some point, we stepped into myth.
Thanks, Akiko. I'm sort of in the middle on the phenomena: optimistic about the growth surge, but also feeling some pressure to giddy up. I guess you could say the latter was the impetus for this article, and maybe my blog more generally.
(Also, thank you so much for your generous subscription.)
I believe there is always Hope, Akko. Yeah, “hope is not a plan…”, but without Hope, any plan is by definition, hopeless. I chose not to be hopeless.
So we are here now, broken beliefs in a world filled with kind people looking to take care of each other. Buried in a shattered reality that was sold to us by the highest bidder. A spell indeed, that we have broken out of as we watch in horror, others not unlike us, still being held under it’s magic.
We have found a place with others that appreciate our predicament here and to you, I am most grateful for.
If we choose to fight, we run the risk of warring against those like us who are still under the magician’s spell who will be summoned to stand against us.
We have won the battle against the magician, but are in the war to attain independence from the reality he wants to impose upon us.
Having ascribed to the cut and run option, you entice me with the joining of forces to create our own version of reality. Intuition and imagination seem to be viable weapons.
Am at your service.
Thanks, Joan.
I wouldn't go as far as to say we've defeated the magician. But the first spell (invisibility) seems to have fizzled out for a great many of us. And both intuition and imagination are *valuable* weapons. In fact, I daresay they are the most valuable of all. With those intact, even a naked knight remains a threat. Think MacGyver, but with an even cooler mullet.
I see it as sort of a 12-step program. And we all know what Step 1 is…. :-)
Deep in the ravine gouged from decades of erosion, you've pointed to the tired and wounded Knight his unquenchable thirst for Truth and Love, a spark of purpose kindled stirring his memory, regenerating his weary bones. Thank you, brother.
You are welcome, Sir Navyo.
Excellent words.
Wow, that "story" part hit hard. Probably a little too close to home. Wonderful.
Thanks, man.