Factors Part 1c

iii. On Dissent:
The broadest meaning attributable to dissent would be disagreement with official views and policy. The U.S. Constitution supposedly guarantees this right, but only when it doesn't hamper or offend the power elite. The illusion must be maintained. Therefore, dissent becomes a matter of semantics. The degree allowed unhindered is proportional to its irrelevancy. A crackdown will always follow dissent beyond this allowed boundary. Certain viewpoints are dangerous to the official power structure and must be dealt accordingly. The reaction may be an actual indicator of systemic weakness, or utilized for a propaganda example. The two cases may not be easily discernable, or even separable. Tools have multiple uses. Actual force employed would signify actual decay.[2] A quantifiable approach could be developed over time, thereby minimizing error, to gauge the actual decline and consequent vulnerability. Direct action should not be considered until the appropriate parameters have been reached. The time scales involved, spanning decades, will ensure the minimization of a potential error. The proper moment will not be realized until a purge can no longer be a likely concern. The official power structure will have enough problems at that point.
Vanity should be discarded.

iv. Concerning Civil Disobedience:
Henry David Therou was a superb naturalist, but his theories on resistance are based upon 19th Century realities. Those days are over. The next step after mere dissent is seen as civil disobedience, but this assumes one actually cares (or indeed able) to change the system based upon technique. Energy might be better spent smashing lies to rubble. This requires an internal honesty that few possess. How many would actually admit to their own propagandizement? The enemies of individual determinism deserve their destruction with their machine. True social evolution will only otherwise wear a stagnant mask. How many are prepared for the lengths required? Morality is the result of the weak Christian mentality. It will need discarding for this work. The herd must die. Its motivations must be regarded meaningless and contemptuous. How many will buck their own socialization which each views themselves the exception? Lies are more comfortable. How many will restrain their vicarious impulsiveness? Instant gratification is the foundation of the media culture. How many will be strong enough to discard their decadent instincts? The isolated will die alongside their unknown fellows. The social and political needs elimination, not superficial change. How many can overcome their senses? The picture is always necessarily false. Subservience is the same, whether it be to feudal barons or the people. How many will understand, and admit their own peonage? Equality is the vilest lie. Followers are sheep for the slaughter; leaders are fatter sheep. How many will willingly wipe out their own herd? The answer: too few, therefore everyone deserves their doom.

[4] This assumes the decision was rationale and based upon reality (never certain).