Fixed Marcuse with 2 changes.

1 Gave ‘the Establishment’ its better name ‘the Cathedral’
2 Corrected Marcuse’s basic error of thinking the few hands in which wealth, power, and technology are concentrated are also (somehow) “the conservative majority.” Hogwash.
@ConceptualJames
@ConceptualJames At least this excerpt now says something that is true.
@ConceptualJames Now we reach the INDEFENSIBLE, the HEGELIAN notion that EVIL is magically transmuted into GOOD (even though it is admittedly EVIL) — if it serves “the right side of history.”

He defends the Guillotine and the Nazis' 12 million being worse than the Communists' 100+ millions.
@ConceptualJames And here is the πρῶτον ψεῦδος of Marcuse, the Ground Error from the start: the view “Leftward” is “good” because “liberating”—when in fact Leftward is decay, decline, decadence. It is the direction Cthulhu swims because of cultural entropy. It is DEATHWARD.
@ConceptualJames Once one understands THIS, that Cthulhu always swims left, no matter how slowly, one understands Marcuse as EXACTLY BACKWARDS.

The Right should be tolerated but not the Left, which is *always* traitorous, subversive, seditious, and blasphemous.
@ConceptualJames Once one has grasped that Cthulhu always swims left, one also recognizes that LIBERALISM, which would be a universal tolerance, only *delays* the leftward decline.

That is its basic problem.

It is not, and cannot be stable.

Liberalism is *always* being undermined by drift.
@ConceptualJames So I would say the truth is—and this is a rather bitter red pill, but not a black one—that the leftward swim of Cthulhu MUST BE ACTIVELY OPPOSED IN ALL CASES.

Marcuse mistakenly identifies Nazism as REACTIONARY instead of REVOLUTIONARY, which it was—just not his preferred brand.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

28 Jan
This presupposes the falsehood that falsifiability is a necessary condition for a proposition to be rationally held. It is not. Popper attempted to use falsifiability as a criterion for SCIENTIFIC statements, and failed. Midwits try to use it for ALL statements.
They are unaware how limited falsificationsism was AND that it failed at its limited task. If it can’t work as a test to make scientific statements acceptable, it certainly can’t be the test to make ANY statement acceptable.
Falsificationism is also famously self-defeating.

No coherent statement of the necessity of falsifiability can be made which is falsifiable.

Popper was okay because he was making a philosophical claim about science. The one who applies falsificationism to everything isn’t.
Read 6 tweets
28 Jan
“Ethnic Studies is about people whose cultures, hxrstories, and social positionalities are forever changing and evolving. Thus, Ethnic Studies also examines borders, borderlands, mixtures, hybridities, nepantlas, double consciousness, and reconfigured articulations. …”
TMW liberal Jews learn that Wokeness is NOT THEIR FRIEND. Image
Capitalism is a form of oppression, so the Communist atrocities must be excused as fighting oppression, but Anti-Semitism isn’t even a thing, so the Nazis did nothing ... ? Image
Read 5 tweets
27 Jan
Yes they do.

1 Reality is known to have a cause-effect structure.
2 There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
3 So there is a first cause.
4 This is what is called “God.”

3 validly follows from 1 & 2.
4 is just a term stipulation. If you want to admit there is God, but you personally won’t call God “God”, that’s changes nothing in reality. Not calling something by its proper designation doesn’t alter reality. So go nuts with *that* one.
If you deny 1, cause and effect, you undercut not just that argument, but all arguments, since you are implicitly denying any connection between reasons and evidence and what they show. If you want to deny reason, just to avoid God, good luck with that one.
Read 7 tweets
26 Jan
But your screenshots *didn’t* prove that. The fact you *think* they did is why you are in error. You mistakenly think you’ve made a successful case but you haven’t.
I don’t see any reason to doubt that someone on 4Chan had this idea in 2014 or whenever it was.

This is in no way proof than someone else putting forward the same or similar ideas is *also* trolling.

Let’s PROVE that point: ⬇︎
As most people know the idea to say the OK hand sign👌🏼is a white supremacy sign was also a 4Chan op. That doesn’t mean either (1) lots of people sincerely came to believe it was a white supremacy sign, or (2) it wasn’t adopted by actual white supremacists.
adl.org/education/refe…
Read 9 tweets
26 Jan
If you want to refute all arguments for the existence of God, all you need to do is to prove the contradictory. Demonstrate that it is true that "There is no God."

"But Eve," you say, "you can't prove something *doesn't* exist! That is proving a negative!"

You can. Like so: Image
I just proved a NEGATIVE, EXISTENTIAL claim.

I proved that "a largest prime number" does not EXIST.

Now, I'm going to show that you can prove POSITIVE EXISTENTIAL CLAIMS purely formally, that is, non-empirically. THIS will show that existence claims don't HAVE TO BE empricial.
"For any given prime number P, there exists a greater prime number N."

PROOF:

1 P is a prime number.
2 There is no largest prime number [see above].
3 ∴ P is not the largest prime number.
4 ∴ There exists some prime number N greater than P.

Q.E.D.

No "empiricism" needed.
Read 8 tweets
10 Dec 20
Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen epitomizes the scientific attitude (re: the Comedian’s murder):

“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
EVERY science begins with a number of foundational principles that are THEMSELVES non-scientific.

Physics begins from the idea that there is a material world, that it is uniform, that it is regular, etc.
Biology begins the the assumption that there are living beings.

This is of course not an irrational thing to believe. It is actually true.

But the point is that SCIENCE doesn’t know that it is true. Physics can’t tell a “living being” from any other being.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!