> we lack a unified plan of action. Others, who've wrote books, like james mason, had the strategy for laying out a plan without needing to be organized. The basic premise is this 1. the formulation of a broader strategy 2. widely distributed through some medium 3. people read it, some agree with it 4. a critical mass of people form 5. the strategy is pursued by either a distributed ideological network, or by a broad coalition of people. James mason did it with books. (and I hate to make this comparison), Bannon did it with the internet and the precinct strategy. The future branches into two potential outcomes, as people across the world realize normal politics is captured and doesn't work: 1. Ideological radicalism 2. Mass Politics Mason represents the first, while anything politics *related* (but *not* strictly politics itself), represents the second. The second option is all the cultural super-structures, practices, organizations, coalition formation trends, and motivational doctrines that drive politics-in-aggregate, the politics of society, rather than the minutiae involved with the 'explicit politics' of voting for parties or campaigning. It's about the transformation of citizens at a *fundamental* level, into citizen-as-political-animal. The first option, ideological radicalism, is about the transformation of citizens into citizen-as-religious-animal. The lack of meaning in modern lives will likely lead either to political nihilism (authoritarianism of some flavor), through option 2, or barbarity in the form of totalitarianism, religious (islam) or otherwise (marxism, national socialism, even if the outcome doesn't share these actual names), through option 1, as nations the world over respond to manufactured energy crises and oil shocks. The third option, isn't a real option, but more of a compromise and a fallback that will fail and elide into the first two: civic nationalism, the new grift. The reason it will fail to options one or two, because the two options presented represent a political environment without real rules, or one with *asymmetric* rules, so that it will in practice, be only possible to steer, and not possible to *prevent* the change. Think of these options as a social *arms race* between national factions, and likewise between factions on the interntional stage. The question then is not *which option*. The question is actually two fold: 1. which is least bad in the long run? i.e. What are we more likely to emerge out of, stronger. 2. What do we have a better chance of co-opting and steering. The grip of religion is steered by outside parties more readily than we can. We see that in the spread of islam, the *judaic* variety of christian fundamentalism, marxism, and post-siege national socialism. Any approach either lacks teeth, or is co-opted. Leaderless resistances aren't. And major powers have really solid playbooks de-escalating, and *taming* these movements into irrelevance. Option 2 has been persued widely by all the major power, and has up until this point, 1. innovated 2. seen widespread success 3. has low overheads 4. is easily distributed 5. is difficult to co-opt because it is distributed 6. is reliant on "politics of the moment", meaning as the situation changes, the movements are able to adapt 7. is enhanced by both passive (print) and active (internet) mediums 8. has seen success even where the constituent supporters are ineffective, stupid, mostly useless, or disaffected. Low-quality people have nevertheless, with support, been able to sustain many campaigns on the regime-left with success, and tenacity. In short mass politics represents a rich field of possibilities, that has barely been innovated on, and has many low-hanging fruit in terms of tactics, strategies, and coalition dynamics. Out of the two approaches, unless we see a flood of ideologically driven radicalism, the future I see is one where mass politics comes to dominate. And the best approach for preventing non-supporters of the nation and international regime from holding or using power, is to push us into option 1 radicalism, or to co-opt any push to option 2 mass politics. Maybe this is a little handy-wavy and abstract but theres a lot of important distinctions to draw. tl;dr description of the possible directions I see western politics going: 1. ideological radicalism: the politics of the extreme, think islams jihad, both violent, and non-violent or marxism and its "revolutions", or the idea of civil war on the right even. Or even just large scale marches in the streets. 2. mass politics: civic nationalism (co-opted), the tea party (before co-option), coalition building, the oath keepers (militarism and volunteerism), people who support 'america first', etc. Even pursuing option two as the only viable course, there is still a lot of work to do. Innovating to prevent being co-opted. Building better coalitions. Improving defenses against legal, political, and social attacks against the movements, etc. Lots of work there, and a lot of possibilities. So before we can think about plans, the overall strategy has to be considered. I'm an option 2 guy, and I don't care to discuss option 1, lord knows enough people probably already have.