This is an ideology that spits in your face, and then belly-laughs as you do backflips to explain why, as its warm spittle drips down your lips, we must be "more civil, more liberal" than it: we will just "reason" people out of their frenzy
Liberalism had a nice run there, it was very pleasant for a while. But it's proven so impotent at leading that it can be taken over by a newsroom of 25-year-old "communists" with cow rings who spend more on their SSRIs and therapists than a healthy person spends on their home
Cheeto Hitler, Orange Mussolini, wanted to give you and your children just one more generation of your venerated mid-century liberalism, before the cow-ringed commissars completed their goal
But he was too "rude," lmao. So now you get the ruling class you deserve. Enjoy it
Honestly A Centrist is truly brave for a lot of the stances he takes. I want to admire him for that.
But what frustrates me beyond all reason is this idea that you can restore liberalism, through liberal means, when all of your elites have been trained to loathe it.
What's here is no longer "liberalism." It used up liberalism, and is now shedding it, to continue its ruling process
So you can no longer oppose it through "liberalism." It has already poisoned that ideology, and left it in the dust.
The snake has simply shed its skin
So what *you* need, if you wish to preserve any shred of liberalism, is to embrace the only ideology capable, within democratic rule, of opposing the ideology you enabled, and can't stop on your own
The irony is palpable. But again, you demanded this, it's what you *want*
You are them, you're just a defeated version of their old snake-skins, that's exactly what they want you to be, and as long as you look at the old desiccated skins that they've already shed, and say "Wow that's me!", they will always beat you
You need something harsher.
You won't allow it, though. You're the same "them" you loathe. The rational result of them. Why you can't argue against them, rationally, despite all the contradictions
Unless you are able to say "No, these are not, in the end, my values":
These are, in the end, your values.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In just fifteen pages of "Suicide of the West," Burnham's already proven a major thesis: that the West has lost the will to survive
Published 1964, so written before the Civil Rights Act. Always crazy to read people forecasting these processes so (relatively) early in the game
Really looking forward to the extrapolation of the passage that follows: that liberalism is the rationalization of this process of suicide
Probably best captured by "the conservative case for X," e.g. "the conservative case for chopping your son's nuts off"
lol. Basically, for liberalism, "the science is settled" on everything, and if you resist "the science" of the consensus, you are, as it turns out, the only group liberalism is justified in wielding force against
Hard disagree on the first part (if you can even taste tannins an average person should be able to distinguish red from white 90% of the time on that factor alone)
But the overall thrust is right, b/c the main point of criticism is just to find dudes with similar taste to yours
Criticism of any kind involves two main branches of "expertise": sampling way more of the field than anyone normal has any time for, and then applying your specific aesthetic preferences to whatever you've just tasted/read/watched/etc
The first branch is, for almost all people, way more important than the second: so the goal of most criticism *should* be that of a humble aggregator
"I waded through all this so you don't have to, and here's the stuff I'd watch for fun if it wasn't my job"
This is how progressives have been engineering "democracy" for years now, remember that the idea isn't to engage in discussion/debate, it's to bypass it through carefully designed rhetoric
Big data various iterations of propaganda until you find the form that achieves the goal
This was formerly achieved by passing the winning iteration to journalists who would then distribute it to the public
So once you've got enough data, it becomes possible to program JournoBots to guide unruly citizens through their dialogue tree to reach the approved conclusions
Of course normal people recoil at hearing the NYT say "So we built a little propaganda machine to help you route-around your fellow citizen's concerns in real time lol"
But this is all second nature to journalists, who've been steeped in this process for a long time
To understand leftism, you just have to understand its fundamental animating goal, which it turns out is very straightforward: to dissolve us all into interchangeable human gray goo
Once you've got that in place, everything else follows from it
The mind naturally recoils from this goal, because of how unnatural it is. It throws up all kinds of rationalizations, "No, it's about protecting those who can't protect themselves"
Yeah, you're making my point. The value of harm reduction, continued to its end goal, is gray goo
This basic principle immediately exposes the flaw at the core of Marxism, which the modern liberal "right" treats as Ur-Leftism, because the "liberal right" is itself a ridiculous contradiction, doomed by its inability to reach back *beyond* Communism
You know what, here's the hottest take I can drop, Stephen King *should* have been the next Poe or Lovecraft, he had both the imaginative horsepower, the narrative mastery, and the sense of horror necessary to become this.
Some of King's work, especially his early ones, and *especially* the first four Gunslinger novels, prove this. He had it in him. Immense, insane imagination, the sensitivity was there.
Bad. Ass. Author. But there was something just a little off. He couldn't quite do it.
So wait—my most volcano-scorching-hot take is that early Orson Scott Card, the Mormon, is the greatest horror author of our age. He sold out later but his '70s/80s shorts are the most horrifying works I've ever read from that period. Even more terrifying than King
"The value of a human being today is measured in terms of his economic efficiency and his erotic potential—that is to say, in terms of the two things that Lovecraft most despised."
lol. Houellebecq presaging a lot of his own soon-to-come preoccupations here