【文章】Jon Guerin - Foundations of a Free Society (2/N)

原文及個人翻譯

Government / 政府

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. … In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison51

Government in a free society is a secondary means to apply minimal coercion and force to protect society, protect individual rights, and resolve conflicts all in accordance with Common Sense Realism. It’s important to stress that government is secondary, and people work things out on their own when possible. This also includes people using force on their own, for example in cases of self-defense. Government is secondary due to the immense power it wields and history of governmental tyranny and corruption as well as the basic moral value of individual agency over the use of force or coercion. After all, government officials force other people to do things, and the officials don’t directly bear the consequences of their own decisions. Government officials can be incentivized against solving problems such as bureaucratic experts in poverty and homelessness whose career and livelihood depend on there being poverty and homelessness. However, individuals and unpopular groups also have a history of being tyrannized by the majority or powerful. Over time, various forms of government and practices have been discovered to help prevent government from becoming tyrannical. It’s important to reiterate that the aim and limit of government is to help align society with Common Sense Realism and not to impose arbitrary power.

「如果人們都是天使，就不需要政府……在建立一個由人管理人的政府時，最大的難點在於：你必須首先賦予政府控制被統治者的能力；其次，你必須迫使它控制自己。」——詹姆斯·麥迪遜

在自由社會中，政府是一種次要手段，用於以最小限度的強制和武力來保護社會、保護個人權利以及解決衝突，所有這些都符合常識現實主義的原則。 重要的是要強調的是，政府是次要的，當人們能夠自行解決問題時，他們會自己處理事情。 這也包括人們在必要時使用武力，例如在自衛的情況下。 政府是次要的，因為它掌握著巨大的權力，並且歷史上存在政府專制和腐敗的現象，以及個人自主性優於使用武力或脅迫的基本道德價值。 畢竟，政府官員會強制其他人做某事，而這些官員並未直接承擔他們自己決定的後果。 政府官員可能會受到各種誘因影響，例如在貧困和無家可歸問題方面有專業知識的官僚專家，他們的職業和生計取決於貧困和無家可歸現象的存在。 然而，個人和不受歡迎的群體也經常受到多數派或強勢群體的壓迫。 隨著時間的推移，已經發現了各種政府形式和實踐，以幫助防止政府變成專制。 重要的是要重申，政府的目標和限制是幫助社會與常識現實主義相協調，而不是施加任意權力。

The Magna Carta, which subjected the King to law in 1215, began a series of discoveries and advancements including individual rights, trial by jury, due process, and equal treatment under the law.52 The peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the concept of sovereign nations with territorial regional borders for political control.53 The Revolution Settlement of 1689 established parliament as the sovereign instead of the King.54 In 1789, United States founder James Wilson argued for popular sovereignty where the citizens determine the form of their own government, lend authority to it, and are free to change their government as needed.55 The United States formed a constitutional republic with a limited government, an illustration of a free society based on Common Sense Realism that respects individual rights. The United States Bill of Rights made some of these individual rights and limits on government explicit. A mixed form of government was chosen to guard against tyranny,56 including separation of powers along with checks and balances on power. Governmental power is separated across federal, state, and local governments as well as functions of government separated into different branches. The general idea being power is neither too centralized nor too isolated to prevent a single faction from abusing power.

《大憲章》，於1215年使國王受到法律約束，開創了一系列發現和進展，包括個人權利、陪審團制度、正當程式以及在法律面前人人平等。1648年的威斯特伐里亞和平條約確立了主權國家和領土區域邊界的概念，用於政治控制。1689年的革命協定確立了議會作為主權者，取代了國王。1789年，美國建國元勳詹姆斯·威爾遜倡導人民主權，即公民決定自己政府的形式，賦予其權威，並在必要時可以改變自己的政府。美國成立了一個有限制的憲法共和制，這是一個基於常識現實主義、尊重個人權利的自由社會的典範。 《美國權利法案》明確了一些個人權利以及對政府的限制。 選擇了一種混合政府形式，以防止專制統治，包括三權分立以及對權力的制衡。 政府權力在聯邦、州和地方政府之間進行分割，並且政府的功能也分為不同的部門。 一般的想法是，權力既不能過於集中，也不能過於分散，以防止任何一個派系濫用權力。

Government in a free society serves in a defensive role to protect individual rights as well as a role in resolving conflicts. Government is a steward for a free society to help align it with nature and objective morality as opposed to a ruthless ruler that unjustly applies coercion and force. There are areas of life where government is simply not involved at all. For example, government in a free society protects private property; it does not redistribute property. When government has the power to redistribute property, to pick winners and losers, then contentious factions develop to control the government for the benefit of their own faction at the expense of others.57

Over time, the United States has moved further away from a free society and towards authoritarianism. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson rejected Common Sense Realism and limited government by calling for a central government to manage the evolution of society. He viewed society as a whole, as an organism.58 He held a collective controlled by authoritarians is more important than the individual. He helped establish the income tax, the federal reserve, the federal trade commission, and the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations). In the 1930’s, Franklin Roosevelt helped pass the New Deal which included federal jobs programs, social security, insurance, and more.59 In the 1960’s, Lyndon Johnson help pass reforms for a “Great Society” including: medicare, environmental protection, and a war on poverty.60 In the 1980’s, Marxists lead by Henry Giroux worked to politicize US education, so schools emphasize training teachers and educating children to adopt authoritarian concepts and practices.61 In 2001, the Patriot Act passed and formalized mass surveillance. In the United States, the role of government has increased in ways detrimental to freedom. Many reforms are needed to correct this.

在自由社會中，政府扮演著防禦的角色，以保護個人權利，同時也在解決衝突方面發揮作用。 政府是自由社會的管理者，旨在幫助它與自然和客觀道德相協調，而不是一個殘酷的統治者，不公正地使用脅迫和武力。 在某些生活領域，政府根本不涉及。 例如，在自由社會中，政府保護私有財產；它不會重新分配財產。 當政府擁有重新分配財產的權力時，就可以挑選勝者和敗者，這會導致爭端派系為了控制政府而努力，以換取他們自己派系的利益，而不顧他人的利益。

隨著時間的推移，美國越來越遠離自由社會，走向專制主義。 1913年，伍德羅·威爾遜拒絕了常識現實主義和有限政府，呼籲建立一個中央政府來管理社會的發展。 他將整個社會視為一個有機體。他認為由專制者控制的集體比個人更重要。 他幫助建立了所得稅、聯邦儲備銀行、聯邦貿易委員會以及國際聯盟（聯合國的前身）。 20世紀30年代，富蘭克林·羅斯福推出了「新政」，其中包括聯邦就業項目、社會保障、保險等等。20世紀60年代，林登·約翰遜推出了「偉大社會」改革，包括醫療保健、環境保護以及反貧困戰爭。20世紀80年代，由亨利·吉魯領導的馬克思主義者努力將美國教育政治化，因此學校強調培訓教師和教育兒童，以採用專制概念和實踐。2001年，《愛國者法案》通過，並正式確立了大規模監控。 在美國，政府的角色在許多對自由有害的方式上有所增加。 需要進行許多改革來糾正這一問題。

The practice of separating religion (in the broadest sense of the term) from government helps prevent a government from becoming tyrannical.63 Additionally, this helps to strengthen religious practices by having voluntary, un-coerced participation as well as helping to prevent the corruption of religious institutions.64 For example, this allows for a non-coercive Christianity because social order is maintained by appeals to the basic morality of Common Sense Realism. Otherwise, people can only appeal to their own specific denomination of Christianity to maintain any social order which in turn would also coerce their specific religious belief on to society. Of course, government coerces and imposes Common Sense Realism on to society, but it is not a complete religion or worldview. Moreover, government coercion and force is done with the consent of the people. Even in this case, individuals can appeal to human nature and morality that everyone can understand. For example, trial by jury allows for people to appeal to the common sense of their fellow citizens to help resolve conflicts. By contrast, in an authoritarian society, be it theocratic, socialist, communist, fascist, etc., individuals can only appeal to the experts approved by the authorities. For example, communists held show trials. Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of secret police, is attributed with the famous saying “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”.

將宗教（廣義而言）與政府分離的實踐有助於防止政府變成專制統治。此外，這也有助於加強宗教實踐，因為它可以通過自願、非脅迫性的參與來實現，並且有助於防止宗教機構受到腐敗。例如，這可以實現一種非脅迫性的基督教，因為社會秩序是通過訴諸常識現實主義的基本道德觀念來維護的。 否則，人們只能訴諸他們自己特定的基督教教派來維持任何社會秩序，這反過來也會將他們的特定宗教信仰強加於社會。 當然，政府會脅迫和強制整個社會遵守常識現實主義，但它並不是一個完整的宗教或世界觀。 此外，政府的脅迫和武力是經過人民同意的。 即使在這種情況下，個人仍然可以訴諸人類本性和所有人都能夠理解的道德觀念。 例如，陪審團制度允許人們訴諸他們同胞的常識來幫助解決衝突。 與之相反，在一個專制社會中，無論是神權、社會主義、共產主義還是法西斯主義等等，個人只能訴諸由當局批準的專家。 例如，共產黨舉行了政治審判。 斯大林的秘密警察首腦拉夫連季·貝利亞相傳說過一句名言：「先給我一個人，我就能找到罪名」。

Transparency helps prevent government tyranny by showing what is does and holding people to account when they act unjustly. If people are going to be forced and coerced, even justly so, then it must be clearly shown how and why it is happening. Governments in a free society strive to clearly and effectively communicate all of their ongoings. There is not a need for special procedures or permission to know what the government does. Ideally, the people know everything about their government, and the government hardly know anything about them. A high standard is met by the government to clearly justify the actions it takes. This is why, figuratively speaking, it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be condemned by the government.65

Authoritarians sometimes argue that specific factions must rule society. Everyday people are not to be trusted, and popular sovereignty is a mistake. There are arguments across the spectrum including expert rule, technocratic rule, Sharia law, Christian rulers, global government, and more. The general idea being that individuals are not fit to govern themselves and individuals are not fit to be free since they may make the wrong choices according to the authoritarians.66

透明度有助於防止政府專制統治，因為它可以展示政府的行為並在他們不公正行事時追究他們的責任。 如果人們要受到脅迫和強制，即使是正當的，也必須清楚地說明它是如何以及為什麼發生的。 自由社會中的政府努力清晰有效地傳達其所有活動。 沒有必要使用特殊程式或許可才能瞭解政府所做的事情。 理想情況下，人民應該知道他們政府的一切，而政府幾乎不應該知道關於他們的任何事情。 政府必須以高度的標準來明確證明其採取的行動。 這就是為什麼，從字面上來說，讓十個有罪的人逍遙法外，總比由政府冤枉一個無辜的人要好。

專制主義者有時會辯稱，某些派別必須統治社會。 普通人不可信任，並且人民主權是一個錯誤。 存在各種各樣的論點，包括專家統治、技術官僚統治、伊斯蘭教法、基督教統治、全球政府等等。 一般的想法是，個人不適合自我管理，而且由於他們可能會做出專制者認為錯誤的決定，因此個人也不適合擁有自由。

7. International Relations / 國際關係

While the exact borders and size of nations is not predetermined and develop organically, a global government can only result in tyranny. A global sovereign can not practically be a form of self-government created from popular sovereignty, and it is more aligned with the authoritarian collectivist view that humanity is a monolithic species-being. There are many variations on the details of a free society in practice, and it’s impossible for all individuals in the world to align politically under a single sovereign.67 A global government can only represent a small group of authoritarians that impose their will on the global population.

Furthermore, a free society does not force or coerce other societies from their authoritarian ways. For similar reasons as to why an individual are not forced or coerced into doing what’s best for themselves, a society is not forced or coerced to be free. Individuals within authoritarian societies develop their own understanding of common sense realism, individual rights, and government. They build a free society and form a government of their own accord. It is possible to do this without the need of any external influence as common sense realism is accessible to every human in any society. That said, free societies help to develop freedom in other societies through indirect support done in a moral way.68

雖然各國的邊界和規模並非預先設定，而是隨著時間自然發展，但全球政府只能導致暴政。一個全球主權實體實際上無法成為由人民主權建立的自我管理形式，它更符合專制集體主義觀點，即人類是一個單一的物種存在。在實踐中，自由社會的形式有很多種，不可能讓世界上所有個體在政治上統一在一個主權之下。一個全球政府只能代表少數專制的統治者，他們將自己的意志強加於全球人口。

此外，自由社會不會強制或脅迫其他社會改變其專制主義的道路。與其說不能強制個人做對自己最好的事情一樣，也不能強制社會成為自由的。在專制社會中的個體會發展出他們自己對於常識現實主義、個人權利和政府的理解。他們會建立一個自由社會，並自發地形成自己的政府。這可以在沒有任何外部影響的情況下實現，因為常識現實主義是每個社會中人類都能接觸到的。然而，自由社會通過道德的方式間接支持其他社會的發展，從而促進了這些社會的自由化。

A free society defends its existence. For example, the American colonies, while they preferred to remain separate, united in order to survive.69 This does not mean every society functions completely independent of all other societies where the world goes from nation states to a handful of super states. Instead, alliances are made between societies that support Common Sense Realism all with some form and degree of a free society. That said, as discussed earlier, inter-dependence is an issue to guard against. Furthermore, this does not mean there is an empire in the name of a free society that is an effective tyranny over other societies. For example, free societies do not engage in debt-trap diplomacy, covert influence campaigns, sponsoring terrorism, or sabotage operations. Free societies do not make alliances or trade with authoritarian societies. Free societies only engage morally and indirectly with authoritarian societies in so far as it supports their development into a free society with the support of their people. There are more alternatives than being completely isolationist or having a few societies with a dominant empire and tyrannical control over other societies. Generally speaking, there is an alliance of broadly free societies for self-defense and trade that indirectly advance the cause of freedom.70

自由社會會捍衛其自身的存在。例如，美國殖民地雖然更傾向於保持獨立，但為了生存而聯合起來。這並不意味著每個社會都完全獨立於所有其他社會，世界並非從國家轉變為少數超級大國。相反，支持常識現實主義的社會之間會建立聯盟，這些社會在一定程度上擁有自由社會的形式。然而，正如前面所討論的，相互依存是一個需要警惕的問題。此外，這並不意味著存在一個以自由社會之名而行專制統治的帝國，對其他社會施加暴政。例如，自由社會不會從事債務陷阱外交、秘密影響活動、資助恐怖主義或破壞行動。自由社會不會與專制社會建立聯盟或進行貿易。自由社會只會以道德和間接的方式與專制社會互動，前提是這有助於支持這些社會的發展，使其能夠在人民的支持下成為一個自由社會。世上存在比完全孤立主義或少數社會擁有主導地位、對其他社會施加暴政的控制模式更多的選擇。總體而言，存在一個廣泛的自由社會聯盟，用於自衛和貿易，從而間接地推動了自由事業。

There are lots of international associations, both public and private, that span across nations such as the United Nations, non-profit foundations, corporations, secret societies, non-governmental organizations, and more. Even when corporations are headquartered in one country, they may have a larger presence outside of their home country and hold most of their assets around the world. Moreover, some countries have developed deep states (a.k.a. dual state, administrative state, or shadow government), which are permanent bureaucracies and/or affiliated organizations that pursue their own agendas with high amounts cooperation and low amounts constraint from elected officials.71 All of these associations mentioned above hold tremendous power and influence, even power above and beyond national governments in some respects. They act in their own interest and are not always aligned with a free society. All authoritarian international associations are treated by a free society as akin to a foreign society.

The primary tools a free society has to protect itself from authoritarian foreign societies, associations, and deep states are independence, transparency, and policy. Maintaining independence from authoritarians, including the use of force for self-defense, allows a free society to be uncompromising and not beholden to authoritarians. For any potentially nefarious associations operating within a free society, transparency requirements help to expose authoritarian elements which additional policy can then be used to hold them to account. In severe cases, authoritarian associations are shutdown or banned by a free society. For example, any deep state should be dismantled.

有很多跨國的國際組織，包括公共和私營機構，例如聯合國、非營利基金會、公司、秘密社團、非政府組織等等。即使公司總部設在一個國家，它們也可能在國內之外擁有更大的影響力，並且在全球範圍內持有大部分資產。此外，一些國家已經發展出「深層國家」（即行政國家或影子政府），這些是永久的官僚機構和/或相關組織，它們追求自己的目標，與民選官員之間的合作程度很高，但受到約束的程度很低。上述所有組織都擁有巨大的權力和影響力，在某些方面甚至超過了各國政府。它們以自身利益為導向，並不總是符合自由社會的原則。一個自由社會將專制主義的國際組織視為與外國社會無異。

一個自由社會保護自己免受專制主義的外國社會、組織和深層國家影響的主要手段是獨立性、透明度和政策。保持對專制主義者的獨立，包括使用武力進行自衛，可以使自由社會不妥協，並且不受專制主義者的約束。對於在自由社會中運營的任何潛在的惡意組織，透明度要求有助於揭露專制主義因素，而後續的政策可以用來追究它們的責任。在嚴重的情況下，自由社會會關閉或禁止專制主義組織。例如，任何深層國家都應該被瓦解。

Subversion / 顛覆

A free society guards against subversion, which is where a society is deliberately undermined or destroyed from within as opposed to having a direct conflict with other societies. Subversion is driven by people within a society or fostered with support from people in other societies. Several methods are used including propaganda, bribery, cultural revolution, crisis, armed revolution, and more. Subversive actions is taken over a short period of time or planned to commence over decades or longer. While every society must deal with subversion, the following sections are a brief discussion of subversion techniques most relevant to a free society.

自由社會會防範顛覆行為，即指一種從內部故意破壞或摧毀社會的方式，與直接與其他社會發生衝突不同。顛覆是由於社會內部的某些人所為，或者得到來自其他社會中某些人的支持而滋生的。常用的方法包括宣傳、賄賂、文化革命、危機製造以及武裝起義等等。顛覆行為可能在短時間內發生，也可能是經過數十年甚至更長時間的計劃。雖然每個社會都必須應對顛覆，但以下部分簡要討論了與自由社會最相關的顛覆技術。

8.1 Propaganda / 宣傳

A free society holds to freedom of speech which allows for subversive actors to use propaganda. This lets them promote authoritarianism including the deceptive use of language and statistics such as logical fallacies, redefining words, removing words, using thought terminating cliches, revising history, gaslighting, and more.72 The Delphi Method is one common propaganda technique applied throughout society to get people to accept a fake consensus. It is used with algorithms to curate the information people see to give the impression of a consensus that is fake. It is also used in meetings, public forums, academic journals, and training sessions as a way to control the information and agenda to form a pre-determined and fake consensus while making people think a legitimate debate and exchange of information occurred.73 Another propaganda technique used on society is Mao Zedong’s formula of unity-criticism-unity. First, a general desire is created in the population for unity. Second, those who oppose the subversive agenda are criticized as the cause of disunity and holding society back. People can also be put through struggle sessions and coerced to self-criticize. Third, unity is established by having the society at large agree to the subversive agenda.74

自由社會保障言論自由，這使得顛覆勢力可以使用宣傳。他們可以利用這種自由來推廣專制主義，包括使用欺騙性的語言和統計數據，例如邏輯謬誤、重新定義詞語、刪除詞語、使用扼殺思考的陳詞濫調、篡改歷史、煤氣燈效應等等。德爾菲法是一種常見的宣傳技巧，被廣泛應用於整個社會，目的是讓人們接受一種虛假的共識。它利用演算法來篩選人們所看到的資訊，以營造一種虛假的共識印象。它也被用於會議、公共論壇、學術期刊和培訓課程中，作為一種控制資訊和議程的方式，旨在形成預先確定的虛假共識，同時讓人們認為發生了合法的辯論和資訊交流。另一個在社會上使用的宣傳技巧是毛澤東的「統一-批判-統一」公式。首先，在人口中創造一種對統一的一般渴望。其次，那些反對顛覆議程的人會被批評為造成不團結的原因，並阻礙社會進步。人們也可能被迫參加鬥爭大會，並受到脅迫進行自我批評。第三，通過讓整個社會同意顛覆議程來建立統一。

A free society guards against this by allowing for more speech to promote integrity when using language and statistics. Moreover, a free society supports the individual right to choose which information to receive information. People are not compelled to be re-educated or consume propaganda. Education is another safeguard where people teach the foundation of a free society along with the threats it faces. This includes teaching about current propaganda along with techniques to guard against it.75 For example, individuals can recognize a struggle session and refuse to participate in it. Finally, propaganda is commonly promoted by associations or governments whose actions go beyond freedom of speech and general discussion. In a free society, any seditious organization and its leaders are exposed, dismantled, and harshly dealt with.

自由社會通過允許更多言論來促進語言和統計數據的誠實性，從而防範這種情況。此外，自由社會支援個人選擇接收資訊的權利。人們不被強制接受再教育或消費宣傳。教育是另一種保護措施，通過向人們傳授自由社會的基礎以及它所面臨的威脅。這包括教授關於當前宣傳的資訊，以及防範其技巧的方法。例如，個人可以識別出鬥爭大會並拒絕參與其中。最後，宣傳通常由協會或政府推廣，而它們的行為超出了言論自由和一般討論的範圍。在一個自由社會中，任何煽動組織及其領導人都要被曝光、瓦解，並受到嚴厲處罰。

8.2 Dialectics / 辯證法

Dialectics is the driving force behind Marxism and its reactionary ideologies.76 It also drives ideological descendants including Leninism, Maoism, Fascism, National Socialism, the current Chinese Communist Party, the current Progressive movement, and Stakeholder Capitalism. The essence of dialectics is a kind of divide and conquer strategy. People are divided into pairs of factions set into contradictory opposition with each other. The factions deliberately pushed into conflict in order to destroy something.77 The target for destruction can be something independent of the factions, or the target for destruction can be one or both of the factions themselves. After the destruction, subversives can look to put something of their choosing in place or be content with the ruins. With dialectics, change and progress are made through destruction.

辯證法是馬克思主義及其反動意識形態背後的驅動力。此外，它也推動了包括列寧主義、毛主義、 法西斯主義、民族社會主義、現任中國共產黨、現在的進步運動以及「利益相關者資本主義」等意識形態的後裔。辯證法的本質是一種「分而治之」策略。人們被劃分為成對的派系，這些派系之間存在矛盾對立。這些派系被故意推入衝突，目的是為了摧毀某事物。摧毀的目標可以是與這些派系無關的事物，或者摧毀的目標可以是這一個或兩個派系本身。在摧毀之後，顛覆者可以尋求取代某些東西，或者滿足於廢墟。通過辯證法，改變和進步是通過破壞來實現的。

Subversives can intentionally create a dialectic. This means creating a single pair of contradictory opposites to destroy something. The following is a general formula to create a dialectic. First, a target to destroy is selected with the option of having something else to put in its place. Second, any existing views related to the target are reviewed. Of all the nuanced views, two are selected based on the potential to create emotional support and based on how contradictory they can be made to each other. If needed, subversives create a brand new view as a polar opposite to complete the pair. Third, subversives work to build factions to support both views. Fourth, subversives work to push each faction to take a more extreme position and push any nuanced views into an extreme view. At the same time, they are also working to push both factions to appeal to emotion instead of objectivity. Fifth, subversives work to intentionally put the factions into conflict with each other. Having emotionally charged factions with polar opposite and contradictory views leads to division and destruction. Attempts at objectivity, nuanced views, or conflict resolution are drowned out by the overwhelming emotion and contradictory nature of the two factions setup in the dialectic. Objectivity is lost to emotion. Nuanced views are ignored or pushed to the one of the extreme views. Conflict resolution fails when factions hold polar opposite, irreconcilable views. Sixth, this process is repeated until the desired target is destroyed. At which point, the subversives optionally work to put something else in place.

顛覆者可以故意創造一種辯證法。這意味著創造一對矛盾的對立面，以摧毀某事物。以下是一個創建辯證法的通用公式：首先，選擇一個要摧毀的目標，並可選地選擇一些東西來取代它。其次，審查與該目標相關的所有現有觀點。在所有細微的觀點中，根據其潛力來創造情感支持以及可以使其彼此多大程度的對立性，選擇兩個觀點。如果需要，顛覆者會創建一種全新的觀點，作為一個極端對立面，以完成這對。第三，顛覆者努力建立派系來支持這兩種觀點。第四，顛覆者努力促使每個派系採取更極端的立場，並將任何細微的觀點轉化為極端觀點。同時，他們也在努力促使兩個派系都訴諸情感而不是客觀性。第五，顛覆者努力故意讓這些派系相互衝突。具有高度情緒化的派系，以及擁有極端對立和矛盾的觀點，會導致分裂和破壞。客觀性、細微的觀點或衝突解決的嘗試都會被兩種在辯證法中設置的派系的壓倒性的情感和矛盾性質所淹沒。客觀性會被情感所取代。細微的觀點會被忽略或推向其中一個極端觀點。當派系持有極端對立且不可調和的觀點時，衝突解決就會失敗。第六，這個過程會重複進行，直到達到所需的摧毀目標。此時，顛覆者可選地努力將其他事物放在原位。

Controlled opposition is a crucial aspect to dialectics. Subversives always attempt to control both polar opposite factions of a dialectical pair either directly or indirectly. This is done directly with their own people in place inside of a faction, or this is done indirectly by controlling the framing of the issue and intentionally provoking the desired polarized response from a faction they don’t directly control.78 Controlled opposition is important, because it is the clash of emotionally charged, contradictory factions that creates the energy and dynamic for the desired destruction. Moreover, controlling the opposition allows subversives to help ensure their desired outcome no matter the result of a potentially unpredictable dialectical conflict. First, when subversives want a particular faction of a dialectical pair to triumph, controlling the opposition makes the disfavored faction less effective and helps lead to their desired outcome. Second, if the faction subversives disfavor triumphs, controlling that faction as much as possible helps to minimize their loss and stall for more time. Third, when subversives are primarily focused on destroying a target, influencing both factions in the dialectical pair helps guide the conflict to destroy what they want regardless of which side triumphs.

受控的反對派是辯證法的一個關鍵方面。顛覆者總是試圖直接或間接地控制辯證對的一對極端對立的派系中的兩個派系。這可以直接通過在一個派系內部安排自己的成員來完成，或者通過控制問題的框架並故意激發他們不直接控制的派系所需的極化反應來完成。受控的反對派很重要，因為是充滿情感、相互矛盾的派系之間的衝突創造了所需的破壞能量和動力。此外，控制反對派使顛覆者能夠幫助確保他們期望的結果，無論潛在不可預測的辯證衝突的結果如何。首先，當顛覆者希望辯證對的一方派系獲勝時，控制反對派可以使不受歡迎的派系效率降低，並有助於實現他們期望的結果。其次，如果顛覆者不喜歡的派系獲勝，那麼盡可能地控制該派系，可以幫助最大限度地減少他們的損失並爭取更多時間。第三，當顛覆者主要關注摧毀某個目標時，影響辯證對中的兩個派系都有助於引導衝突，以摧毀他們想要的東西，無論哪一方獲勝。

For example, say the target subversives wish to destroy is hiring based on merit. Subversives create a dialectic between one faction that wants hiring completely based on quotas and another faction that wants hiring based on merit. Every hiring decision is used by subversives to spark a debate, organize protests, get media coverage, and put the factions into conflict. With every new controversial hire, subversives push the conflict to appeal to tribal emotional responses and away from attempts to objectively analyze the specific individual hired. Subversives continual push to move law and policy towards their goal, such as getting organizations to adopt hiring practices that allow for minorities (e.g. based on on race or gender) to be a factor in hiring. Over time, the merit faction becomes suspicious that any minority hired is unqualified, while the quota faction becomes suspicious that any non-minority hired is unqualified. Subversives push the extreme views of both factions along with more radical policies to eliminate merit from hiring decision. The conflict between factions creates the dynamic needed to increase division and destroy merit based hiring.

A target can also be indirectly attacked. For example, say the target to destroy is the US Constitution and individual rights. Subversives create a dialectic to claim the US was founded on slavery by racists where one faction claims the US is systemically racist and the other faction claims it is not. They push both factions to get into repeated emotional arguments over systemic racism. The goal of the repeated discussions is to broadly de-emphasize the US Constitution and implicitly call into question the value of anything created by slaveholders.79

例如，假設顛覆者想要摧毀的目標是基於能力進行招聘。顛覆者在一個完全根據配額進行招聘的派系和一個基於能力進行招聘的派系之間創造了一種辯證法。每個招聘決定都會被顛覆者利用來引發爭論、組織抗議活動、獲得媒體報導，並使這些派系發生衝突。隨著每一次新的有爭議的招聘，顛覆者會推動衝突，使其訴諸部落的情感反應，而不是嘗試客觀地分析所聘用的特定個人。顛覆者不斷努力將政策和法律推向他們的目標，例如促使組織採用允許少數族裔（例如，基於種族或性別）成為招聘因素的招聘實踐。隨著時間的推移，能力派系會懷疑任何被聘用的少數族裔都不夠格，而配額派系則會懷疑任何被聘用的非少數族裔都不夠格。顛覆者會推動兩個派系的極端觀點以及更激進的政策，以消除基於能力的招聘決策。派系之間的衝突創造了增加分裂和摧毀基於能力的招聘所需的動力。

目標也可以間接地受到攻擊。例如，假設要摧毀的目標是美國憲法和個人權利。顛覆者創建了一種辯證法，聲稱美國是由種族主義者建立在奴隸制上的國家，其中一個派系聲稱美國存在系統性種族主義，而另一個派系則聲稱不存在。他們會促使兩個派系就系統性種族主義進行重複的情感爭論。重複討論的目標是廣泛地淡化美國憲法，並暗示質疑任何由奴隸主創建的事物的價值。

Critical Theory is a Marxist framework that was first developed by the Frankfurt School in the 1930’s. It is specifically designed to repeatedly apply dialectics to destroy all aspects of Western Civilization.80 It has been further developed and continually adopted by subversives. Critical Theory calls to ruthlessly criticize everything in the West by over-exaggerating issues and making up artificial issues. Moreover, subversives don’t need to posit feasible alternatives to what they criticize. Vague hope and ruthless criticism will suffice. Endless division and destruction in order to destroy Western Civilization is the point of the Critical Theory framework.

The problem-reaction-solution paradigm is a specific kind of dialectic used by subversives to advance their agenda. Subversives have a pre-determined solution they want to put in place. They then proceed to create a dialectic with a problem and corresponding reaction that will eventually lead to the acceptance of their pre-determined solution. For example, say subversives want to put mass surveillance in place. If they went ahead and tried put it in place, there would be a public outcry. So they create a create a problem by removing law enforcement and easing punishment for crime. This leads to an increase in crime, the media runs sensation stories about crime, and the public reacts with anger wanting the crime to stop. This continues for awhile to make the public desperate to accept any solution to help stop the crime. At this point, instead of enforcing law and order as before, the subversives propose instituting mass surveillance to solve the crime issue. Instead of a public outcry, the public accepts mass surveillance.

批判理論是一種馬克思主義框架，最初由法蘭克福學派在 20 世紀 30 年代開發。它專門設計用於重複應用辯證法來摧毀西方文明的各個方面。它已被顛覆者進一步發展和不斷採用。批判理論呼籲不加情節地批評西方的所有事物，通過誇大問題並製造虛假問題。此外，顛覆者不需要對他們所批評的事物提出可行的替代方案。含糊的希望和無情的批評就足夠了。在西方文明中造成無盡的分裂和破壞是批判理論框架的目的。

問題-反應-解決方案範式是一種特定類型的辯證法，由顛覆者使用來推動其議程。顛覆者有一個預先確定的解決方案，他們想要實施。然後，他們會創建一種包含問題和相應反應的辯證法，該辯證法最終將導致接受他們的預先確定的解決方案。例如，假設顛覆者想要實施大規模監控。如果他們直接嘗試實施它，就會引起公眾的反對。因此，他們通過撤銷執法力量並放寬犯罪處罰來製造一個問題。這導致犯罪增加，媒體報導關於犯罪的聳人聽聞的新聞，公眾因希望犯罪停止而感到憤怒。這種情況持續一段時間，以使公眾渴望接受任何解決方案來幫助阻止犯罪。此時，與之前執法和維護秩序不同，顛覆者建議實施大規模監控來解決犯罪問題。與之前的公眾反對不同，公眾接受了大規模監控。

The United States two party political system is an example of where dialectics have been applied on a large scale. Marxist subversives have worked to infiltrate the two major political parties going back to at least the 1930’s.81 A two party system does not have to be used for dialectics; however, it is a convenient setup for Marxist subversives to create a dialectical pair of polar opposites. Currently, Marxist subversives are working on advancing their agenda through the Democratic party as their favored faction while using the Republican party as controlled opposition.82 The Marxist subversives create multiple dialectical pairs on a range of issues and push Republicans and Democrats into contradictory polar opposite views. Again, infiltration occurs in both parties in order to help ensure their subversion efforts are effective. Dialectics used by Marxist subversives is one way the United States moves towards authoritarianism.

美國兩黨政治體系是一個例子，說明辯證法是如何在大規模上運用的。自 20 世紀 30 年代以來，馬克思主義顛覆者一直努力滲透到兩個主要政黨中。雖然不需要使用兩黨制來進行辯證法，但它為馬克思主義顛覆者創造了一種方便的環境，可以形成一對極端對立的派系。目前，馬克思主義顛覆者正在通過民主黨作為他們偏愛的派系來推動他們的議程，同時利用共和黨作為受控的反對派。馬克思主義顛覆者在各種問題上創造了多個辯證法，並將共和黨和民主黨推向相互矛盾的極端觀點。同樣，為了確保他們的顛覆努力有效，他們會在兩個政黨中進行滲透。馬克思主義顛覆者使用的辯證法是美國走向威權主義的一種方式。

A free society guards against dialectics in the following ways. The first thing is identifying and calling out when a dialectic is being used. Any parts of a dialectic that are recognizable are identified: subversives involved, the polar opposite views, factions involved, the target for destruction, and any agenda to be advanced. This is especially useful for an indirect dialectic when the target for destruction is not directly one of the polar opposite views or factions. Second, delaying action is useful when a situation doesn’t require a quick response. The dialectic thrives on building tension between factions to get an emotional response. Delaying a response may reduce tension and allow for an objective response. Third, call out the affordance trap that the only options are the two polar opposite views in a dialectic. Ask for more details and explore other options. Reject a dialectical framing which attempts to control the terms of discussion. For example, reject the idea of a political spectrum going from the Left to the Right. Instead, a more detailed view to classify politics is the horseshoe theory. This places political views around a horseshoe. The two toes of the horseshoe represent the authoritarian collectivist extremes, one toe for Fascism and the other toe for Communism. At the heel of the horseshoe is the individualist view of Common Sense Realism. Fourth, ensure the response to a dialectic is not under-inclusive. Identifying a dialectic is not enough. Effective action must be taken which includes actions against those funding and organizing dialectics. Finally, similar to propaganda, dialectics are commonly used by associations or governments whose actions can be treasonous or unlawful. In a free society, any seditious organization and its leaders are exposed, dismantled, and harshly dealt with.

一個自由社會會透過以下方式來防範辯證法：

第一，識別並揭露當辯證法被使用時。 任何可以辨識的辯證法部分都應該被指出：包括參與其中的顛覆者、對立的觀點、相關派系、被攻擊目標以及想要推動的議程。 這對於間接辯證法尤其有用，因為在這種情況下，被攻擊的目標可能並非直接對立的觀點或派系之一。

第二，當情況不需要立即反應時，延遲行動是有用的。 辯證法會利用派系之間的緊張關係來引發情緒反應。 延遲回應可以降低緊張局勢，並允許更客觀的回應。

第三，揭露「只有兩種對立觀點」的「直觀陷阱」，這是一種常見的辯證法策略。 要求更多細節，並探索其他選項。 拒絕任何試圖控制討論內容的辯證框架。 例如，拒絕將政治視為從左到右的單一譜系。 相反，一種更詳細的分類方法是「馬蹄理論」。 這個理論將各種政治觀點放置在一個馬蹄形上。 馬蹄形的兩個末端代表極端的集權主義，一端是法西斯主義，另一端是共產主義。 而馬蹄形的鞋跟則代表個人主義的現實主義觀點。

第四，確保對辯證法的回應不能過於簡化。 僅僅識別出辯證法是不夠的。 必須採取有效的行動，包括針對那些資助和組織辯證法的人和團體的行動。

最後，與宣傳類似，辯證法通常被協會或政府使用，而這些機構的行為可能構成叛國或違法。 在一個自由社會中，任何煽動性的組織及其領導人都應該被曝光、瓦解，並受到嚴厲處罰。

8.3 Machiavellians / 馬基維利主義者

Machiavellian subversives claim to have an advantage because they value power above all else whereas adherents to a free society abide by objective morality. Machiavellians argue that, in the long run, the side that cheats and violates any and all morality to achieve power will inevitably end up winning. So they reason everyone should join the winning side ahead of time. This claim of the Machiavellians is misguided for the following reasons.

馬基維利主義的顛覆者聲稱自己擁有優勢，因為他們將權力置於一切之上，而自由社會的信奉者則遵守客觀道德。 馬基維利主義者認為，從長遠來看，那些為了獲得權力而不惜一切代價、違反任何道德準則的一方最終必然會獲勝。 因此，他們認為每個人都應該提前加入勝利的一方。 然而，馬基維利主義者的這種主張是錯誤的，原因如下：

First, in a Machiavellian society, everyone is subject to arbitrary power of authoritarians. Suppose a Machiavellian side promises to do whatever it takes to gain power in order create a free society. Further suppose the Machiavellians win the day and take control. Once in power, the Machiavellians continue to violate objective morality, coerce citizens unjustly, and use all manner force in order to retain power and satisfy their every caprice. Any promise of a free society is left unfulfilled. Those who value power above all will not implement a free society aligned with nature and based on objective morality. The Machiavellians have no reason to stop being immoral, and now they have even more power to do so. People in this society are then subject to the most pernicious kind of arbitrary Machiavellian power.

首先，在一個馬基維利主義社會中，每個人都受到專制權力的支配。 假設一個馬基維利主義者聲稱為了獲得權力，他們會不惜一切代價來建立一個自由社會。 此外，假設這些馬基維利主義者最終獲勝並掌握了權力。 一旦掌權，這些馬基維利主義者仍然繼續違反客觀道德，不公正地脅迫公民，並使用各種手段來維持權力和滿足他們的所有私慾。 對於自由社會的任何承諾都無法實現。 那些將權力置於一切之上的人不會建立一個與自然相符、以客觀道德為基礎的自由社會。 馬基維利主義者沒有理由停止他們的行為，而且現在他們擁有更多的權力來這樣做。 因此，在這個社會中，人們會受到最惡劣的一種專制馬基維利主義權力的支配。

Second, there’s no guarantee the Machiavellian side will win eventually win the day due to their immorality. In fact, their immorality makes it easier to guard against. When Machiavellians act immorally, this is identified and used to hold them to account.

Third, the cynical Machiavellian tactic of “make the enemy live up to their own book of rules”,83 is meant to force society to focus pedantically on procedure while ignoring the intent and reason behind a rule. For example, the Cloward-Piven strategy84 works to overwhelm institutions by having them mindlessly follow procedure in order to have a detrimental impact on society. In response to unforeseen abuse, a free society focuses on the intent behind a procedure, responds accordingly, and makes any formal revisions as needed.

其次，由於他們的道德淪喪，並不能保證馬基維利主義者最終會獲勝。 實際上，他們的道德淪喪反而更容易被防範。 當馬基維利主義者行不道德之事時，這就會被識別出來，並用於追究他們的責任。

第三，一種犬儒的馬基維利主義策略是「要求敵人遵守他們自己的規則」。這旨在迫使社會過分關注程序細節，而忽略了規則背後的意圖和原因。 例如，克勞德-皮文策略通過讓機構盲目地遵循程序來達到目的，從而對社會產生有害的影響。 為了應對未預見的濫用行為，一個自由社會會關注程序的意圖，並相應地做出回應，如有必要，還可以進行任何正式的修改。

8.4 Ideological Subversion / 意識形態顛覆

A free society relies on people in the society having a common understanding of reality and basic morality (life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty). Ideological subversion targets the citizens of a free society. It is designed to incrementally undermine belief in a free society, undermine an understanding of the foundational ideas of free society found in Common Sense Realism, and eventually lead to overt action to overthrow society. Ideological subversion is not done by presenting clear facts and straight forward arguments against a free society and Common Sense Realism. Instead, ideological subversion attempts to go undetected, denies that it is occurring, and seeks to avoid a direct examination and exchange of ideas. In debates, subversives are not aimed at the truth but use rhetoric designed to obfuscate, make people look bad, and appeal to emotions.

一個自由社會依賴於社會中的人們對現實和基本道德（生命、個人自主性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任）擁有共同的理解。 意識形態顛覆是針對自由社會公民的。 它旨在逐步削弱人們對自由社會的信念，削弱對自由社會的基本理念（如「常識現實主義」）的理解，並最終導致公然行動來推翻社會。意識形態顛覆不是通過提出清晰的事實和直接的反對自由社會和「常識現實主義」的論點來實現的。 相反，意識形態顛覆試圖不被發現，否認其正在發生，並且避免直接的探討和觀點交流。 在辯論中，顛覆者並非追求真理，而是使用旨在混淆、讓他人看起來很差，以及訴諸情感的修辭手法。

Ideological subversion can work slowly across decades or longer and is designed to imperceptibly make progress. For example, the soviet process to completely subvert a free society had four stages: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization.85 Demoralization attacks Common Sense Realism and any sense of purpose by removing an understanding of reality and instilling hopelessness. Destabilization makes society worse through increased crime, economic issues, and increased identity politics. Since this stage is drawn out over years, it’s hard for some to fathom that destabilization to intentionally make society worse is purposefully done. Destabilization culminates in a period of crisis where a free society collapses. This leads to the final step of normalization where authoritarians take control, stabilize society, and normalize their rule with authoritarian measures.

意識形態顛覆可以緩慢地持續數十年或更長時間，並且旨在以不易察覺的方式取得進展。 例如，蘇聯完全顛覆一個自由社會的過程分為四個階段：道德淪喪、 動盪、危機和常態化。道德淪喪攻擊「常識現實主義」以及任何目標感，通過消除對現實的理解並灌輸絕望感來實現。 動盪使社會變得更糟，原因包括犯罪增加、經濟問題以及身份政治加劇。 由於這個階段持續了數年，因此有些人很難想像出故意讓社會變得更糟是蓄意的行為。 動盪最終導致一個危機時期，自由社會崩潰。 這導致最後一步：常態化，專制者控制社會，穩定社會，並通過專制措施使他們的統治正常化。

Another example of ideological subversion is the United States Central Intelligence Agency 1983 manual Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare.86 The general process is to infiltrate covertly across society and key organizations, spread ideological propaganda to shift public consciousness, conduct mass protests driven by subversives with the appearance of popular support, and finally build enough momentum to where subversives direct a mass protest to overthrow the government and society.87 Subversives brainwash recruits and parts of the general population to adopt their ideology through the use of group discussion for indoctrination and self-criticism of not doing enough for the cause.88 Protests are organized by subversives who get the general population to participate through emotional appeals and to support simple slogans for justice. The general population is unknowingly participating in a revolution to overthrow their government and society. Their participation makes the protests appear spontaneous and organic.89 Additionally, subversives infiltrate organizations and recruit their leaders in the name of social justice in order to slowly bring them in. When the time is right, they reveal to the recruit the true revolutionary purpose to overthrow the government and society.90 Another aspect of this ideological subversion is to make the general population feel they are under the constant threat of violence and that the police are ineffective and unable to enforce the law.91 This helps the subversives weaken support for the existing government. As more protests are held, subversives mix in shock troops to intentionally turn protests violent.92 All the while, protests conceal the goal of revolution and are done to support banal notions of justice the local population can relate to. Finally, once the subversives have enough organizations captured, enough support in society, weakened support for the existing government, the subversives then direct a mass violent protest into open revolution and government overthrow.93

意識形態顛覆的另一個例子是美國中央情報局 1983 年發布的《游擊戰爭中的心理作戰》手冊。一般過程是秘密滲透到社會和關鍵組織中，傳播意識形態宣傳以改變公眾意識，由顛覆者發起的群眾抗議活動，表面上受到廣泛支援，最後積累足夠的勢頭，以便顛覆者可以引導一次大規模抗議活動來推翻政府和社會。顛覆者通過鼓吹團體討論進行灌輸，並對未盡力為事業感到自責，從而洗腦招募人員和普通民眾，使他們接受自己的意識形態。抗議活動由顛覆者組織，他們通過情感訴求讓普通民眾參與其中，並支援簡單的關於正義的口號。 普通民眾在不知情的情況下參與了一場革命，目的是推翻他們的政府和社會。 他們的參與使得抗議活動看起來自發和自然。此外，顛覆者會滲透到組織中，以「社會正義」的名義招募領導人，以便逐漸將他們拉入其中。 當時機成熟時，他們會向招募者揭示推翻政府和社會的真正革命目的。這種意識形態顛覆的另一個方面是讓普通民眾感到他們始終面臨暴力威脅，並且警察無效且無法執行法律。這有助於顛覆者削弱對現有政府的支援。 隨著抗議活動的進行，顛覆者會混入衝擊部隊，以故意將抗議活動變成暴力事件。在此期間，抗議活動掩蓋了革命的目標，並被用於支援當地民眾可以理解的關於正義的平庸觀念。 最後，一旦顛覆者控制了足夠的組織，獲得了社會中的足夠支援，削弱了對現有政府的支援，顛覆者就會引導一次大規模暴力抗議活動，從而引發公開的革命和政府推翻。

Ideological subversion is organized by combining aspects of a cult religion, an intelligence agency, and a mafia. Broadly speaking, a basic cult hierarchy is established of an inner circle, inner school, and outer school.94 The inner circle remains protected behind the scenes and sets the overall philosophy, plans, strategy, and funding priorities. The inner school works to learn the philosophy, implement the strategy, and execute plans. The inner circle and inner school are driven by their ideology in order to have moral authority or at least they go along with the ideology. While the outer school has not completely adopted the subversive ideology, they tolerate subversive action they personally oppose and adopt some of the subversive plans. They slowly start to identify with the ideology, lend more support, and gradually get sucked in to the cult. Similar to an intelligence agency, subversives are loosely organized and covertly operate throughout society in government, business, education, religion, media, and entertainment.95 Instead of a purely top down structure with direct connections between all people and organizations, subversives operate in more isolated groups within organizations they control or they operate as parasites within organizations they don’t control. Instead of direct communication, smaller subversive groups and individuals take their cues indirectly from the latest propaganda put out by the inner school and larger, more powerful subversive groups. In addition to covert direct orders from the inner circle, subversives organize by mimicking behavior and looking for indirect cues in propaganda. Finally, as ideological subversion takes hold in a community or institution, they employ mafia tactics of coercion and/or overt force to strengthen their power with the aim of taking over or destroying it.

意識形態顛覆通常通過結合邪教宗教、情報機構和黑手黨的各個方面來組織。 廣泛來說，會建立一個基本的邪教等級結構，包括內圈、內部學派和外部學派。內圈在幕後保持被保護，負責制定總體哲學、計劃、策略以及資金優先順序。 內部學派致力於學習哲學、實施策略並執行計劃。 內圈和內部學派都受到其意識形態的驅動，以獲得道德權威，或者至少他們遵循該意識形態。 而外部學派雖然尚未完全接受顛覆性的意識形態，但他們容忍自己個人反對的顛覆性行動，並採納一些顛覆性計劃。 他們逐漸開始認同這種意識形態，提供更多的支持，並逐漸被吸入邪教。 類似於情報機構，顛覆者鬆散地組織起來，並在政府、商業、教育、宗教、媒體和娛樂等領域的社會各個角落秘密運作。與純粹自上而下的結構不同，這種結構沒有所有個人和組織之間的直接聯繫，而是顛覆者在他們控制的組織中以更孤立的小組形式運作，或者作為寄生蟲存在於他們不控制的組織中。 與直接溝通不同，較小的顛覆小組和個人會間接地從內部學派以及更大、更有影響力的顛覆小組發布的最新宣傳中獲取信息。 除了來自內圈的秘密直接命令外，顛覆者還通過模仿行為並尋找宣傳中的間接線索來組織自己。 最後，當意識形態顛覆在一個社區或機構中紮根時，他們會採用黑手黨的脅迫和/或公開武力手段，以加強其力量，旨在控制或摧毀該社區或機構。

Ideological subversion employs propaganda techniques, dialectics, and more.96 Subversive visions, programs, and tactical instructions may be openly published and available to everyone. In part, this is used as predictive programming which prepares the public for what is coming to minimize shock and resistance. Additionally, the public information communicates to subversives exactly what to do when the right time comes.97 Subversive activities do not always have a precise plan or timeline. For example, the Fabians discussed operating in secret and taking advantage of crisis as they arose in order to slowly convert the United States into a socialist country.98 Subversives engage in a range of activities including waiting for events to take advantage of, recruiting leaders from events, opening new front organizations when old ones are exposed, trying out various propaganda messaging, and more. Ideological subversion is a relentless assault.

意識形態顛覆使用宣傳技巧、辯證法等等。顛覆性的願景、計劃和戰術指示可能會公開發布，並向所有人提供。 其中一部分是用於預測性編程，這可以為公眾做好準備，以減少震驚和抵抗。 此外，公開信息會明確地告訴顛覆者在正確的時候該做什麼。顛覆活動並不總是有一份精確的計劃或時間表。 例如，費邊主義者討論如何在秘密中運作，並利用出現的危機，以便逐漸將美國轉變為一個社會主義國家。顛覆者從事各種活動，包括等待事件以抓住機會、在事件中招募領導人、當舊組織被曝光時開設新的前沿組織、嘗試各種宣傳信息等等。 意識形態顛覆是一種無情的攻擊。

A free society guards against ideological subversion by exposing subversive ideas, plans, strategies, and holding any factions and people behind them to account. Again this requires education in subversion techniques, how subversives organize, and how to guard against them.99 Additionally, this requires a strong grounding in the foundations of a free society: Common Sense Realism, individual rights, conflict resolution, and governance. Taking effective action against subversion is also paramount. Holding people to account must not be an overreaction, e.g. chopping off hands for theft, or an under-reaction, e.g. a slap on the wrist. Holding people to account doesn’t always involve the government or legal action. Individuals in society uphold Common Sense Realism on their own with the assistance of government only as needed. For example, subversive actors are exposed, disgraced, and permanently removed from positions of power and influence in society. Most importantly, the seditious coordination of people in the inner circle and inner school of various organizations are identified and harshly dealt with. This includes shutting down organizations, imprisoning organizers, and banishing people as needed. It is not enough to deal solely with combating low-level provocateurs and actors such as rioters posing as protestors, propagandists posing as media, social experimenters posing as educators, and the like. These are not isolated actions of individuals. The co-ordinated plan and high level organizers must be exposed and destroyed.

一個自由的社會通過揭露顛覆性的思想、計劃和策略，並追究任何與之相關的派系和個人的責任，來防禦意識形態顛覆。 這再次需要對顛覆技術、顛覆者如何組織以及如何防禦他們進行教育。此外，這還需要堅定地掌握自由社會的基礎：常識現實主義、個人權利、衝突解決和治理。 採取有效的措施來反擊顛覆至關重要。 追究責任不應是過激反應（例如，盜竊就砍手），也不應是輕描淡寫（例如，只是訓誡）。 追究責任並不總是需要政府或法律行動。 社會中的個人會獨立地維護常識現實主義，政府只在必要時提供協助。 例如，顛覆者被曝光、受到譴責，並永久地從社會上的權力和影響地位中移除。 最重要的是，要識別和嚴厲處理各種組織內圈和內部學派中人們的煽動性協調。 這包括關閉組織、監禁組織者以及必要時驅逐人員。 僅處理低級挑釁者和演員（例如，冒充抗議者的暴徒、冒充媒體的宣傳員、冒充教育家的社會實驗者等）是不夠的。 這些不是個人的孤立行為。 協調計劃和高級組織者必須被曝光並摧毀。

8.5 Compromising Individual Rights / 損害個人權利

Another subversive technique is to get a society to trade freedom for safety or convenience. However, no such tradeoff is needed. A free society protects individual rights while also providing safety and convenience. This applies to both government and associations. For example, authoritarians want people to give up privacy to use the latest technology or to accept government surveillance for perceived safety. Technology can and should be designed to ensure privacy, and security does not require surveillance. A government in a free society is not there to exchange or take away freedoms but to facilitate their protection.

另一種顛覆性的技術是讓社會為了安全或便利而犧牲自由。 然而，不需要做出這樣的妥協。 一個自由的社會既保護個人權利，也提供安全和便利。 這適用於政府和協會。 例如，獨裁者希望人們放棄私隱以使用最新的技術，或者接受政府監控以換取所謂的安全。 技術可以並且應該被設計成確保私隱，而且安全不需要監控。 在一個自由的社會中，政府的目的不是交換或剝奪自由，而是促進其保護。

8.6 Technocracy / 技術官僚主義

A free society is susceptible to turning into a technocracy where most of the people become dependent on technology controlled by the government and large associations.100 In the worst case, society loses all its freedom. First, people are not effectively represented by their government. Second, politicians and bureaucrats spend their entire careers in civil service. Third, most everyday people aren’t able to pushback in a meaningful way. This leads to all of the choices people have determined by technocrats in government and large associations. People are coerced by authoritarians with rewards for compliance and punishment for disobedience. A society of dependent individuals with highly centralized institutions and power becomes more and more authoritarian since people loose their agency. They can’t effectively stand up for their individual rights, the government doesn’t protect their rights, and popular sovereignty is lost.

A free society guards against technocracy by empowering individuals, by protecting privacy, by not centralizing power, by ensuring technology for convenience also protects individual rights and individual agency, by supporting measures for independence over dependence, by using technology to enhance the human experience instead of controlling or degrading it, and by ensuring government is representative and accountable.101

一個自由的社會容易轉變為技術官僚主義，其中大多數人依賴政府和大型協會控制的技術。 100 在最壞的情況下，社會會失去所有自由。 首先，人們無法有效地由他們自己的政府代表。 第二，政治家和官員將其整個職業生涯都奉獻給公務。 第三，大多數普通人無法以有意義的方式提出異議。 這導致了所有選擇都由政府和大型協會中的技術官僚決定。 人們受到獨裁者的脅迫，對服從者獎勵，對不服從者處罰。 一個依賴性個體的社會，擁有高度集中的機構和權力，會變得越來越專制，因為人們失去了自主性。 他們無法有效地捍衛自己的個人權利，政府沒有保護他們的權利，並且失去了人民主權。

一個自由的社會通過賦予個人權力、保護私隱、不集中權力、確保為便利而設計的技術也能保護個人權利和個人自主性、支持獨立而非依賴的措施、使用技術來增強人類體驗而不是控制或貶低它，以及確保政府具有代表性和問責制，來防範技術官僚主義。

9. Eternal Vigilance / 永恆的警惕

“But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.” – Andrew Jackson102

「但各位公民，你們必須記住，人民永遠的警惕是自由的代價，而且如果你們希望獲得這份恩賜，就必須付出這個代價。」——安德魯·傑克遜

While institutions, checks and balances, and other processes are important to have and to refine, ultimately, a free society can not be mechanized. There is no guarantee or surefire guard against subversion or direct attack. Individuals must study the foundations of a free society: common sense realism (external reality, objective knowledge, human fallibility), basic morality (life, individual agency, family, private property, honesty, and duty), individual rights (privacy, self-defense, association, communication, and more), and self-government (limited scope, consent from the people, checks and balances). Individuals must exercise their freedoms to pursue a moral life, participate in society and self-government, learn about propaganda and psychological warfare, take effective action against subverters, and build stronger institutions and practices. All of this and more is the eternal vigilance required of individuals to maintain a free society.

雖然建立健全制度、制衡機制和其他流程非常重要，但歸根結底，一個自由的社會不能被機械化。 沒有任何保證或萬無一失的方法來防範顛覆或直接攻擊。 個人必須學習自由社會的基礎：常識現實主義（外部現實、客觀知識、人類的局限性）、基本道德（生命、個人自主性、家庭、私有財產、誠實和責任）、個人權利（私隱、自衛、結社、溝通等）以及自治（有限範圍、人民同意、制衡）。 個人必須行使他們的自由，追求道德的生活，參與社會和自治，了解宣傳和心理戰，採取有效的措施來反擊顛覆者，並建立更強大的制度和實踐。 所有這些以及更多的是個人維持自由社會所要求的永恆警惕。

（參考文獻太多不貼，去原文看）