I've realized something that others may well have realized long ago, may reflect my naivety and optimism, but is now made me seriously doubt things can or will improve.

there is an alarming proportion of people who, having caved before authoritarianism ...

... react to those who have not, not with any of: admiration of courage, sadness at futility, curiosity, apathy, or even well-conceived disagreement or anger given they actually believe in the merits of authoritarianism, but rather pure, sadistic resentment and attack.

the desire to attack does not come from a wish to dominate, but to pool suffering; not the will of a potential master, but a fellow slave.

it is as if - or possibly literally *is* the case that - coming to terms with their own voluntary subservience ...

... would be so psychologically damaging that it must be avoided at all costs, no matter the immorality or inconsistency of what they demand of others, or the nonsense they use to retroactively justify their own choices.

they need to socialize their emotional sunk costs.

because at no point were their own choices motivated by reason. they were motivated by fear.

you'll notice this manifest in several telltale ways.

for example, they will insist there is one objection to their view, which happens to be stupid, evil, and believed by nobody.

any attempt at reason would immediately expose how absurd this is, and hence must itself be treated as morally and intellectually suspect so as to be dismissed as quickly as possible, lest sustained reasoning demonstrate that their own view has no basis besides fear.

you'll notice they talk with absolute confidence about the motivations of others, occasionally to their faces, despite never having enquired.

they can't admit curiosity or even ignorance. if they say "I don't know" they invite being told. they do know: stupidity and evil.

you'll notice their "reasons" contradict their previous "reasons" and will contradict their future "reasons." often, they are self-contradictory.

this seems strange until you realize they are not reasons at all: they are coherent linguistic expressions to repeat ...

... when justifying their fear-motivated choices, because that fits the form of standard dialogue. but it doesn't fit the function, and so the experience can be rather cargo culty.

relatedly, you'll notice they will say these things without being asked or it being relevant.

it's a form of signalling and intimidation - they are inviting others to emit the same noises to cement the rules for that sphere of discussion and to reinforce that: no, these choices were not based on fear at all.

but no reasoning allowed. only the suspicious reason.

these are all inadvertent defense mechanisms to remain psychologically stable because the trauma of facing up to their cowardice must be avoided at all costs.

equally distributing suffering is preferable to the shame of admitting they have been successfully manipulated.

it is also darkly funny how easy it is to predict what the evolving set of "reasons" will be that mysteriously line up to support whatever comes next.

here's how you do it: you pick some incremental authoritarian measure, then you work backwards ...

... to how that would be packaged to somebody highly susceptible to fear yet unwilling to acknowledge this, indifferent to consistency, and desperate to demonize those who are not suffering in the way for which they have volunteered.

it's practically a parlor game.

it's also terribly sad and honestly quite frightening to think about what is going to happen when it is no longer possible for people to *just be reasonable*.

(spoiler alert: they'll leave)


the only viable option to my mind is self-(re)organization in communities that value personal responsibility and intellectual honesty above all else, or which at least consciously aim to keep those who don't below some critical mass or just out entirely.

if you are likewise scared of the former and excited by (or just resigned to) the latter, then good luck 😊

finally, I'm curious as to where else this has been written about as I'm sure it's not at all novel - ...

... what comes to mind for me is La Boétie, Klemperer, Arendt, and Havel.

if you have any more suggestions please reply so all can see.


• • •

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

Keep Current with allen farrington

allen farrington 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 @allenf32

17 Aug
closed networks only ever beat distributed networks because the distributed network lacks some utility as a fundamental feature of its design that the closed alternative supplies, either from scratch or by variations on embrace, extend, extinguish:


the idea of distributed energy suffers from the transience of generated power and the inability to reliably match supply and demand, hence lacks a guaranteed buyer that the centralized grid provides.

#bitcoin fixes this.

distributed capital markets suffer from the artificial scarcity of securities, hence lack the ability to clear and settle trades, escrow and contingently redirect capital, and custody assets that investment banks and their offshoots provide.

#bitcoin fixes this.

Read 6 tweets
13 Aug
from The Organization Man, by William Whyte, published in 1956, the thesis of which is basically that corporate America, far from being a beacon of hyper-individualist capitalist awesomeness, instead turns people into cowardly, risk-averse, collectivist wusses.

*** 1956! 😱 ***
from the chapter titled, "Scientism":

"The scientific elite is not supposed to give orders. Yet there runs through all of them a clear notion that questions of policy can be made somewhat nonpartisan by the application of science. There seems little recognition that ...
... the contributions of social science to policy-making can never go beyond staff work. Policy can never be scientific, and any social scientist who has risen to an administrative position has learned this quickly enough. Opinion, values, and debate are the heart of policy, ...
Read 6 tweets
7 Aug
these people have no idea what they've just done.

#bitcoin is now the universally applicable, single-issue pro-freedom schelling point that has never previously existed.

and now they are clumsily conspiring to attack it, outing themselves as unequivocally anti-freedom.
we know their attack will fail, yet the harder they fight the more attention they draw, leading more precoiners to decide to educate themselves to figure out what the hell is going on, accelerating their failure.

it really is beautiful to watch.
their options:

1 - conspire privately, perfectly making the point because #bitcoin is free and open source.

2 - argue publicly, outing themselves as technologically illiterate morons whose anti-freedom stance derives from their ignorance and stupidity.

3 - bend the knee.
Read 7 tweets
7 Jun
any bitcoiners working in traditional finance: your employer may not be as awesome as mine but don’t worry, your time will come and you’ll be a god damned hero 😊

DM me if you want any advice. happy to open source my institutional orange-pilling strategy 👍
so my DMs have exploded - WHICH IS A GREAT THING!

I’ll reply to all to be polite but a lot of what I’m saying is the same so I’ll shortly do a thread to make the generalities truly “open source”

okay, here goes:

1. *be clear on your goals and approach them tactically*

don't make your first swing about Austrian economics, regenerative farming, the petrodollar, or whatever other nonsense you've heard me spout off on.

remember that what you are trying to help ...

Read 32 tweets
6 Jun
I’ve only cried as an adult 3 times that I can remember: when my gf accepted my proposal, listening to @Snowden, and now listening to @JackMallers.
and that order matters btw: I will only ever be in awe of Edward and Jack from afar but family is the most important thing. especially the one you haven’t started yet 😊
sorry guys, I’m totes emosh.

your regularly scheduled shitposting will return posthaste 👍
Read 4 tweets
28 May
I had an interesting thought after listening to @harris_irfan and @saifedean and also chatting with Harris about his far too kind tweet below.

not to sound too grandiose but here follows my thesis on: what bitcoiners do and don't fight over.


Harris said he found it quite intimidating how smart everybody seems in the community. on the one hand, yay, go us, we are super smart 🤓

but on the other, I think the intimation is more a function of behaviour than intellgience. and it's indirectly a filter for humility.

there is simply no tolerance whatsoever for bullshit, and, simultaneously, the threshold for accepting something is that you understand it 100%, which means it needs to be perfectly explained to you also.

Read 14 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!