Imagining Regime Change Without Tears

The problem with being a normie right now, that wants to drive a truck without a boatload of mandates, or buy gas to go shopping, or live in peace with your neighbors, is that the global educated elite has other plans for you, and you are not allowed to object.

Indeed, if you do object, as Little Justin made clear up in Canada, you will be obliterated. Oh, you won't be sent to a camp, at least not yet. But you will lose your bank account, your job, and anything else that the government can get its hands on. And anyone that objects to Little Justin and his just rule is a racist-sexist-homophobe.

Then there are the Bobbsey Twins, Soros and Schwab. I keep wondering what it is, deep down, that those two want. Here's George Soros waffling about Putin and Xi / And World War III. What is his point? I don't have a clue. And Klaus Schwab and his WEF and Build Back Better and ESG and his Young Global Leaders program? Question: What is word salad?

I suspect that, deep down, the Twins suffer from the same disease as the aspiring activists that want to make a difference in NGO-land.

If you really want to make a difference, why not invent a reusable rocket-ship system like Elon Musk? Will it work? Stay tuned, but Soros and Schwab and lefty activists need not apply, and 90 percent of tech startups fail.

So what percent of Open Society Foundation ideas fail, as in Soros prosecutors? What percent of Build Back Better ideas fail, as in Oops, no natural gas for you, Europe?

Then there's California, going full-steam ahead to a fossil-fuel-free future, where the state goals include:

  1. "getting 33% of our electricity from renewable resources by 2030."
  2. "achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045.”

Suppose these goals are a) impossible, and b) crash the California economy. Are you "Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Twitter, Google, Intel, and a host of other social media and technology companies," plus Hollywood plus the gubmint sector going to sacrifice your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor if it turns out that carbon neutrality is the cruelest and the stupidest idea since Stalin's Five-Year Plan that starved the Ukraine? Hello? I can't hear you, Zuck.

Ninety percent of tech startups fail, experts agree, even though they were financed by savvy guys and investors that really know their stuff.

Suppose that 90 percent of Soros prosecutors fail, Georgie boy?

Suppose that 90 percent of Build Back Better programs fail, Klausi baby?

Suppose 120 percent of RCMP's Battles of the Bouncy Castle only Make Things Worse, Justie honey?

What is going on? Behold: I tell you a mystery.

Back in the day, warrior rulers built feudal castles. The rulers barricaded themselves behind stone walls and mottes and baileys. They poured boiling oil from the battlements on any peasant who dared to snub his nose at the feudal lord. Meanwhile, the feudal lords and ladies amused themselves of an evening with medieval romances in which rude, crude medieval barons were represented as noble knights rescuing damsels riding on their white palfreys.

But the age of feudal castles crumbled before the might of gunpowder and cannons, and so came the age of ideological castles. The new rulers barricaded themselves behind ideological walls: constitutions, Communist Manifestos, Frankfurt Schools, and Great Purges, and they deployed a new weapon of domination: Reason. They poured ideological scorn on any peasant that dared to challenge their ideological might. Meanwhile the ideological lords and ladies amused themselves of an evening with activist romances, in which rude, crude political power addicts were represented as selfless Allies of Oppressed Peoples.

The age of ideological castles has begun to tremble before the organic power of the Commoner. But the new rulers will not really rule. They will rent Bouncy Castles to amuse the kids while they enact the culture foretold by Frankfurt Schoolkid Jürgen Habermas. In the Age of the Bouncy Castle that is to come, people will experience life in a Lebenswelt, the “life world” of Husserl and Heidegger and negotiate their common concerns over a couple of brewskis. As I wrote back in 2013,

Whereas domination is coded into the very definition of reason, the intersubjective lifeworld offers a possibility of discourse rather than domination, interchange rather than injunction, emancipation rather than subordination.

As I keep saying, the big thing about Commoners is that we are not that interested in power and domination. Or subordination.

Back in the feudal age the castellans ruled by military might. In the ideological age the castellans rule by ideological might. In the world that is to come, the bouncy castellans will not rule, but negotiate.

And we will change the world, because today's Science™ says that the world moves by self-creating "emergence," not the sword of the warrior or the top-down conceit of the administrator.

Could we get this regime change without tears and bloodshed? Who knows?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Image: Eugene Delacroix

If you experience technical problems, please write to