What's with all this "he said/she said" bullshit? We're all big boys and can handle harsh criticism without the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. I know the members here have a naturally high opinion of themselves (and not without just cause - most of the folks here are united by similar veins of interest and a penchant for truth and meaning), but if anything, threads like this exemplify the fact that emotions tend to get the best of us at times (not sure who has the humility to admit this, but you know who you are). Let's be clear here: this shows our common tendency towards proledom even with the intent to speak with oodles of wisdom, but also highlights the fact that we all care a great deal about our common human dilemma.
We already know our action plan because it is generalized enough to be put into practice. We know we're not going to form paramilitary attack squads and bomb public areas because we're noble hessian warriors of death. We know that any "revolution" will result in mass dissent and is thus unstable. But we also cannot sit idly by while everything goes on. This means we must not be too aggressive and simultaneously not too complacent. And oddly enough, that's outlined right here:
As parallelists, we believe that we can establish a handful of principles that modify our current liberal democratic capitalist society, and that these will "organically" grow into a whole concept:
1.Localization. We do not need to live in big cities, and are happier in small communities. These can manage their own affairs, and an overlapping hierarchy of county, state and national governments can address bigger issues.
2.Culture before commerce. If we change our outlook to think in terms of cultural demands which commerce should serve, instead of the other way around, our society will have more consensus.
3.Organic, whole society. In everything that we do, we consider whole factors. It may benefit a few factors to have another McDonald's on a busy street corner, but we must think of all factors and make decisions accordingly.
4.We have a clear consensus and everything else is permitted. We can approach values two ways:
a)use negative logic and try to avoid evil, which implies that everything else is good, leading to lack of direction;
b)use positive logic and try to achieve good, which implies that all not leading to that goal is not useful.
We should approach values through method (b), as it means that more things are permitted.
5.Direct our resources toward constructive goals. We can spend our time, money and effort on fears, or we can build up the best hopes we have. We should do the latter.
These attitudinal changes alone will produce a parallelist society from what we have. They are easy to implement and require only the agreement of minority of people in society who are leaders in their communities.
How do we bring these ideas to the forefront?
This occurs in three steps:
I.Identify, brand and promote an ideology via the internet.
II.Bring the discussion of this ideology to mainstream media.
III.Unite the people who find it meaningful to aggressively push it to others.
We've got I down and are on to II. The last step doesn't necessitate II to be in full effect because in attempting I and II, we are accomplishing III to some degree.
This doesn't alienate idiots and hits a broad enough target audience. It's the equivalent of asking people if they want the modern landscape of art or social attitudes to change. It's like asking people "Do you want culture?". If you approach it this broadly, you fare a much better chance at uniting something like the third of the distribution, though realistically we can expect that about 1-5% will be brave enough to take on the challenge. 1% of America is somewhere over 3 million people. Not too bad.
The point is you can't really be thinking too far ahead. We're still in the stage of mass denial and thus can only expect a certain amount of "progress" (and if people here see progress as narrowly as direct results, then they won't see any of the behind-the-scenes progress that can potentially be made/has been made). We don't know the full extent of the ideological application insofar as how everything will physically appear, but if we work broadly enough by understanding what we want generally, it can grow into something more realized.
I probably sound like some sort of broken-record idealist here, but has any of this been attempted to any greater degree?
-Anyone in a university/college starting a Conservative group based on the generalized ANUS principles without any direct affiliation with ANUS. Correspondence with various other groups (ie. ethnic rights groups, religious groups, student unions, etc.)
-Handing out pamphlets with said generalized information at university/college setting, public squares, community billboards, word-of-mouth, town-hall-type meetings with recruits.
-Youtube video presence for those generalized ideas. T-shirts and other anal merchandise (sounds ridiculous, but why not adopt the methodology of the left? It's popular for a reason)
-List of popular sites to infobomb. Emphasis on simply getting the platform known instead of "trolling" or engaging in pointless argument. Focus on what we are for rather than against.
-Once the above snowballs into something even vaguely sizable in a local setting, write to local politicians, writers, newspapers, professors, family members, friends' family members, co-workers, etc. in order to get recognition. Any public talks, events, media time could potentially occur.
-In order for the above to work, exercise your hidden extrovert and network the shit out of everything. The purpose isn't to make good friends - it's to establish a network of people who agree culture is worth fighting for and want to be part of something.
Package the ideas in a friendly/accessible enough manner and things COULD start happening. Yes, the above might sound silly/retarded/been attempted before and failed/not attempted before due to impracticality, but it could work for a few reasons:
Tribal mentality, intelligence and the desire to be part of something meaningful could motivate the right folks to join if you have a platform that seems friendly enough that it wouldn't alienate too many. Looking at the bell curve, we know that there are enough above 120 - it's just a matter of reaching them in the right manner. I simply refuse to believe that those 1-5% actually WANT to sit idly by and pretend like they're useless which is why it's quite possible that the right combination of ideas packaged in a particular way could trigger the desire.
Feel free to offer sensible critique.