Message from @Firefly
Discord ID: 453131819357831169
then at the very least as collectives with a shared understanding of society and its needs
we can't let others dictate our needs for us, as bernays dictated, and as focus groups dictated
Why not?
i mean not externally.
because if there is no shield against reprogramming, we will suffer a reinstantiation of the 20th century, which ended in defeat.
we can allow those who sympathize with us to guide, but only up to a certain point.
word of mouth would be best, advertizing, not so much
I think an authority may guide you completely. Your thoughts, feelings, words and actions.
i would prefer that authority to be entrusted to those close to me
People who are close to you do not have capabilities to guide you as much as a supreme authority.
but another supreme authority, one you don't have in mind, may intervene, even if i am to assume that the supreme authority of which you speak is infallible
Not true. Majorly only one supreme authority exists in psyche and others are disregarded. This is a main reason it is hard to bring people out of sects.
Affinity to one supreme authority may last ages.
Some sects made thousands of people kill themselves disregarding all other authorities completely.
Including governments, daddy and a psychotherapist
am i correct in assuming that the supreme authority is the ideal itself in that case?
if so, then i don't mind
I think it is more of a replacement of an I in general. Idealization is a main mechanic, yes.
Is complicated. I think affinity to a supreme authority reduces individuals. But also develops them when authority is making it so.
I think we can use both authority and self-determination.
At times we can use a devastating for individual supreme authority.
At another time we may use devastating to society individualism.
And sometimes we can balance.
More tools the better.
Limitations are spooks
How I see it. There are goals and tools.
And nothing in between.
the left is already communicating its ideals, and we are revizing and recommunicating it to create simulacra of leftist thought. how is this not what we're already doing?
in fact, i would say this is a main contributing factor in the rise of anarchism
Explain in depth
please
I'll go smoke some weed
leftist circles are already establishing guiding principles, even for non-leftists, and leftists and non-leftists are communicating their own interpretations, to the point that the ideals themselves form the democracy through communication. it was this communication that allows the left to guide the principles that the left on aggregate should follow.
we are already at the stage where our visceral attitudes have a say, it is unavoidable.
this aggregate of leftist thought is already the guide
people are also alerting each other to any presence of ideas that are incompatible with the left
(Racism Watchdog)
(Black Rose and the DSA)
(even /leftypol/)
there could never be any particular authority to guide, as individualism and anarchism have already put their foot in the door.
the only direct and convenient guide, or supreme authority, that could exist now, is decentralized, and non-descript
i can only be too pleased that reactionary circles are starting to fade.
both as a condition and a consequence of the spread of leftist thought.
the only ones who are truly immune are those who can manage to keep themselves oblivious to the things we say, and they are a living dodo
this all explains the rise of recent rise of the left on youtube and social media
in many ways, we have all become the de-facto analysts and the analyzed
the only question is how we may see that this isn't just a passing trend, like the skeptic communities, and anti-sjw's
0____0