This stems from the struggle to assert where "neoliberalism," post-WW2 ruling order, comes from, and who is to blame for it

So it is popular to say that it's "people with money, who don't want us to have it": and this is sort of true. But the underlying ideology predates them
Everyone *wants* to know who's to blame, all of a sudden, because neoliberalism is clearly failing, so we have to identify which of our enemies (and thus whose values) must be rejected

I am not immune from this. Take with grain of salt. But the cause and effect is everything
The below is true, strictly speaking. This is about the Rockefeller Foundation. I am just going to trust Wikipedia on this one: so, it wanted to pursue the interests of health, birth control... the Science! of the day. We already see ideology creeping in

What is the underlying argument here, though? This is my best, fairest attempt: that the NGOs of the billionaires is faking an ideology to capitalize on all spheres of life.

But I believe the driving factor of 1913 was far different from that of 1945+

Within progressivism, which in America probably formalized within 1880-1890, there are always two strange bedfellows

The idea of "liberation," and the idea of Science. And science was, at this point, rampantly eugenic. The very idea of birth control was the marriage of the two
The early progressives were obsessed with Darwin, Malthus, etc. Ideas that were made hateful by the time of the post-WW2 era, when these NGOs exploded, which explicitly rejected half of their progressive roots: which paved the way for full globalism.
In other words: the ideals of globalism, neoliberalism, predated the modern ruling order. They didn't *create* it. They merely built atop the idea of liberation, and then rejected Darwinism, when the ideology rejected it in the 1930s-40s

And now: here we are.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS

Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS 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!


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 @17cShyteposter

2 Jun
Right, this was an explicitly progressive program. What they do goes way beyond simple disavowal of their failure

Progressivism always redirects blame for its past failures to its political enemies, which it then uses to justify and coerce its next set of "solutions."
Progressivism is able to do this, of course, because it controls the narrative machine (the academy/media), but also because this control lets it shed its skin over and over again

This allows progs to look back at what they've done and say "No, we would *never* do that now!"
Well maybe you wouldn't, not in that exact same way. But you still hold the same core *values* that let you did that, that caused this thing that's now a great tragedy

So, in 2021, you might not be rounding up the Natives to liberate them through your transcendent education
Read 4 tweets
31 May
The basic leftist urge is terror at the natural world and what it takes to exist within it, that's why they want to gray-goo it, so they can simply exist as yeast, indistinguishable and without consciousness

Nietzsche and Uncle Ted best diagnose this from the right
I don't know Hegel. But based on this analysis, he and the Marxism that built on him is the leftist urge attempting to use the liberal ruling framework to employ reason, specifically through material analysis, to convince us to fight for the gray-goo world it yearns to return to.
The Founding Fathers, as Moldbug identified, deployed a right-wing coup to arrest this process, through the Constitution.

It lasted for a while, and is still fighting a little. The post-modernists are the attempt to bring their Lockean reason to its conclusion: final gray goo
Read 6 tweets
24 May
Therefore the symmetrical response to break this propaganda, whose method is to humiliate you, is to humiliate *it*:

That was the purpose of Trump, our first Troll President, who understood that there is no "reasoning" with those whose goal is to humiliate you
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

lol, no

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
Read 9 tweets
23 May
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 Image
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" Image
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

Feel familiar? Image
Read 88 tweets
22 May
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"
Read 11 tweets
21 May
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
Read 9 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!