A New Paradigm: Institutionalists vs Populists

[Falco Knotwise]

The only way i see it possible to regain institutional standing is the way they did it: infiltration. Our numbers must increase in the institutions slowly, gradually, imperceptibly. We must first weaken their grip on the institutions.

Who is the "we" who wants this institutional standing, and why do "we" want it?

My comments were intended to be from a merely human perspective. Whether it would be possible or even desirable is another question. I don't think so myself.

[temporal1]

The only way i see it possible to regain institutional standing is the way they did it: infiltration.
Our numbers must increase in the institutions slowly, gradually, imperceptibly.
We must first weaken their grip on the institutions.

Who is the "we" who wants this institutional standing, and why do "we" want it?

i fully want to read Falco’s response.
oj, i’d like to add a brief response to your specific question, my view.

(i hope) the “we” intended is the large numbers of ALL description NON-organized law-abiding citizens, who envision balanced facts, perspective, appreciation+hope for others; seeking equality, not creating specially protected+funded “super citizens.”

i’m not sold on the idea of fighting fire with fire.
i could not be more disgusted with “the bullying behaviors,” 2016-2021+, the railroading of a pretty good president.
i have no stomach for more, even if the goal seems to be one i prefer. (i say, “seems to be,” because this is the temptation, the trap.)

Jesus does not lead “the end justifies the means” approach. “2 wrongs do not make 1 right.”

i believe this is somewhere near Aaron Kindsvatter’s pov.
and, i believe, it is a call for ALL, all means all, to step away from this new-ish habit of organizing self-serving political blocs+cults for the express purpose of special rights+protections, which ultimately creates super citizens.

this is a big goal, now that the vast majority of U.S. public ed is highly focused on creating+supporting organized political blocs+cults. it’s not new. it’s late in the day.

God is greater. “We” must turn to the one who is greater. and repent.

[Falco Knotwise]

The only way i see it possible to regain institutional standing is the way they did it: infiltration.
Our numbers must increase in the institutions slowly, gradually, imperceptibly.
We must first weaken their grip on the institutions.

Who is the "we" who wants this institutional standing, and why do "we" want it?

i fully want to read Falco’s response.
oj, i’d like to add a brief response to your specific question, my view.

(i hope) the “we” intended is the large numbers of ALL description NON-organized law-abiding citizens, who envision balanced facts, perspective, appreciation+hope for others; seeking equality, not creating specially protected+funded “super citizens.”

i’m not sold on the idea of fighting fire with fire.


i could not be more disgusted with “the bullying behaviors,” 2016-2021+, the railroading of a pretty good president.
i have no stomach for more, even if the goal seems to be one i prefer. (i say, “seems to be,” because this is the temptation, the trap.)

Jesus does not lead “the end justifies the means” approach. “2 wrongs do not make 1 right.”

i believe this is somewhere near Aaron Kindsvatter’s pov.
and, i believe, it is a call for ALL, all means all, to step away from this new-ish habit of organizing self-serving political blocs+cults for the express purpose of special rights+protections, which ultimately creates super citizens.

this is a big goal, now that the vast majority of U.S. public ed is highly focused on creating+supporting organized political blocs+cults. it’s not new. it’s late in the day.

God is greater. “We” must turn to the one who is greater. and repent.

Yes, the object "we" would have in mind is just assuring the government policies and school curriculums are supportive of biblical principles and rule of law. Today, however, that attitude in itself would be considered revolutionary -- by the revolutionaries.

[Bootstrap]

Donald Trump ran as an America First conservative Republican, not as a populist. There's currently no official Populist Party or platform.

Donald Trump ran on populism and division:

1. They are out to get you
2. They are lying to you
3. They don't respect you
4. I am one of you, I am the only one who can save you from them, you need a powerful person like me to take them down

He did not run on conservative Republican policies like:

1. Limited power of the Executive
2. Balanced budgets
3. Judicial independence
4. Independence of the Justice Department
5. Rule of Law - and nobody is above the law
6. Avoiding potential conflicts of interests, e.g. by putting any investments or corporations into a blind trust

He did run on a few political wedge issues like:

1. Guns
2. Abortion

[temporal1]

The only way i see it possible to regain institutional standing is the way they did it: infiltration. Our numbers must increase in the institutions slowly, gradually, imperceptibly. We must first weaken their grip on the institutions.

Who is the "we" who wants this institutional standing, and why do "we" want it?

My comments were intended to be from a merely human perspective. Whether it would be possible or even desirable is another question. I don't think so myself.

Falco, i appreciate you read my posts. i generally presume no one reads my posts.
and i do not blame them.

Something that puzzled me about the 2016-2021+ railroading of a pretty good president was,
IF he was “so bad,” and “so wrong,” why wouldn’t his opponents simply stand aside and let him+his awful policies fail???

The only conclusion i could come to was that “they” knew/feared he+his policies would not fail.
He did not achieve perfection. None do.

Using this math, “non-left Americans” can rest assured, failure is imminent. It’s not in question, it’s in process.
It’s sad so many have to be so harmed in the process. But, God uses pain - to draw “us” (all of us) CLOSER TO HIM.

Revisit Gomer. wow. scriptures paint a clear picture. i know it’s OT. but, what are “we” if not OT?
And this sacred text:

2 Peter 3:9 / https://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-9.htm

8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

9The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief.
The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare.…

.. prayers for the deluded. ALL us deluded ones.

[Bootstrap]

Here is the unmentionable problem: if a bloc of voters exists large enough to present an existential threat TO the institutional establishment it's likely because they're sensing an existential threat FROM the institutional establishment. Its likely the threat is real even if it's written off as conspiracy theory, the ravings of mad lunatics. The real question that needs to be addressed is not why are there so many conspiracy theorists -- but rather why are there so many people willing to believe them? To consider that question with the seriousness it deserves (and not just brush them all off as "nuts") means you just might have to consider that there really is something rotten in the state of Denmark. And some bloc of the establishment fears to face that question or to let it be faced.

Are you saying accusations are true if they are loud or if there are a lot of them? I think one reason there are so many conspiracy theories is that they make some people rich and make other people powerful and they can often be a helpful distraction if you are caught doing something wrong.

We need ways to know if an accusation is true or false. That requires evidence and hearings or trials that we can agree to trust. The populist insists that noise and emotion is evidence, but it is not. The populist may insist that all accusations against the people he likes are outrageously false and insulting, and that all accusations against the people he dislikes are true. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card for the populist leader who gets caught doing something wrong. "How dare they accuse me, anyone who is out to get me is out to get you!"

Consider the last election. There are only two possibilities: either Biden won, or Trump is using populist emotional rhetoric for truly despicable, self-serving aims. And the evidence is the only way we can distinguish them. Institutions like courts and hearings and investigative journalism are the ways this evidence gets heard.

And let's face it, it's a whole lot easier to insist that people who disagree are deluded or stupid or wrong, get all worked up against the other side, and stew in outrage and hostility and fear. That's not peacemaking. It doesn't bring righteousness. It doesn't make us smarter. Weighing through the evidence over time is long, slow work.

[Falco Knotwise]

Are you saying accusations are true if they are loud or if there are a lot of them?

Sorry, I only read that one line of your post and then quit. I don't think I said that anywhere, so I'm not going to waste my time defending it. The rest of your post is Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

[temporal1]

It’s getting harder+harder to locate this image.
but, loads of rhetoric about why it’s inherently wrong/evil. Jesus was not surprised.

God have mercy.

[Bootstrap]

Are you saying accusations are true if they are loud or if there are a lot of them?

Sorry, I only read that one line of your post and then quit. I don't think I said that anywhere, so I'm not going to waste my time defending it. The rest of your post is Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Here's what I was responding to, once again:

Here is the unmentionable problem: if a bloc of voters exists large enough to present an existential threat TO the institutional establishment it's likely because they're sensing an existential threat FROM the institutional establishment. Its likely the threat is real even if it's written off as conspiracy theory, the ravings of mad lunatics. The real question that needs to be addressed is not why are there so many conspiracy theorists -- but rather why are there so many people willing to believe them? To consider that question with the seriousness it deserves (and not just brush them all off as "nuts") means you just might have to consider that there really is something rotten in the state of Denmark. And some bloc of the establishment fears to face that question or to let it be faced.

Why are so many people willing to believe them? I don't know, but a lot of people are willing to believe a lot of things that are not true. If we want a stable society, we need ways to evaluate accusations and decide what the evidence says. And we need ways to do this with the seriousness that it deserves. That means hearings and court trials. Social media doesn't cut it. Youtube videos don't cut it. Political rhetoric doesn't cut it. And right now, those things are often drowning out every venue that can actually evaluate these claims with the seriousness they deserve.

Dominion Voting Machines sued Sydney Powell, and her claims about voting are now being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

Her lawyer's defense is quite literally that no reasonable person would believe her claims about the voting machines. They say that a reasonable person should have seen that her claims were "wild accusations", "outlandish claims". As Powell's lawyers tell us, "reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes ... is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.”Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.”Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.”Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Ironic, isn't it? Her defense lawyers tell us we should not have taken her claims so seriously, that we should wait for the courts to evaluate them. Her defense lawyers tell us that people who put great faith in these claims are not reasonable people.

So perhaps reasonable people should trust courts and election boards more than they trust this kind of claim.

[temporal1]

It’s getting harder+harder to locate this image.
but, loads of rhetoric about why it’s inherently wrong/evil. Jesus was not surprised.

God have mercy.

The image disappeared.
It still appears on whatever icloud page i found it on.

i can think of no words or image less controversial (to Christians) than, “I did this .. because all lives matter.”
The image is portrayal of Jesus under the weight of and carrying His cross.

i believe it’s blasphemy for any Christian on any continent to deny it. i really do.
Palm Sunday, Easter Sunday are in front of us.

Can anyone explain? i would appreciate understanding. the overall situation is unnerving.