All online political discourse, all the takes and owns, all has as its exclusive and ultimate aim, not the improvement of material conditions in reality, but the control of the cybernetic psychological warfare machine that forges reality. There’s nothing noble about participating
Demonstrating or amplifying performances of morally laudable opinions in service of this competition and the increasing of the share of influence possessed by people whose leveraging of that influence you believe you will materially benefit from does not make you a good person
It’s through the ability to manipulate or influence the appearance of public opinion consensus thar power is wielded, as the fictive construct of that consensus is the illegitimate ground of action by the liberal state. But this mechanism is inherently always fraudulent
The majority of people, regardless of whatever flavor of ideological self-justification they abuse, or under a pernicious delusion that their construction of an appearance of moral propriety within this context equates to genuine moral conviction. They are fooling themselves
Your opinions, and sentiments, if they were indeed self-sufficiently righteous, would remain so regardless or whether you put them on display. The fact that you need to so display them to have their supposed worth validated by the discourse machine suggests they’re phantasmal
The entire idea that the field or public discourse constitutes the premiere battlefield in the fight for the moral reform of reality is a self-serving ideological foundation for solipsistic self construction and projection. The whole thing is antithetical to moral goodness
This is why so much content within this framework has the character or a self-help program. Such regimens consist in tools and techniques for the management and construction of public image, as that image itself, despite its fictive status, is the instrument of social power
As the illusion of the discourse and the consensus it generates is politically reified by the liberal state as a mandate for its crimes, so the online discourse participant reifies their projection of their public self into an idol of their own egoism they may vainly admire
The prevalence or these illusions and our addiction to them constitute the real social-political problematic of our time. The particular disposition of such illusions at present is irrelevant. The goal is not to adjust that disposition, but to dispel the illusions themselves
To labor under the delusion that slightly correcting the aesthetic character of the illusions this or that way equates to meaningful political program or will affect any worthwhile reform or things in actuality is a lie people tell themselves. There is nothing good in any of this
This is the basic truth of the matter that all discourse havers must come to grips with sooner or later. If they’re unwilling or unable to do so, they’re lost.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m starting to wonder if Comenius didnt write the Rosicrucian manifestos. It seems increasingly clear to me that Rosicrucianism has a Hussite/Taborite core, that the concepts used trace back to Jan Hus and that Rosicrucian terminology is modified from phrases Hus used
The idea of the “invisible college” is right here: corpus mysticum universale eccles corcumex Christo et collegio predestinatorum veraciter constitutum
The universal mystical body, truly established by Christ and the college of the predestined.
The Temple of the Rose Cross is such a striking and original image, but what’s the source of that imagery? This militaristic, temple-tank on wheels? I can’t help but see some resemblance to the Hussite battle wagons. Am I crazy?
Never forget how the Papists persecuted the Church. The Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ. Popery is the denial of the reality of the Lord’s Universal Church.
Woodcuts from the Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days aka Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 1563
See: King, John N. 2001. “‘The Light of Printing’: William Tyndale, John Foxe, John Day, and Early Modern Print Culture.” Renaissance Quarterly 54 (1): 52–85
Thinking about the martyrdom of Petrus Ramus at the hands of the Papists and crying
I think I just permanently broke a lot of people’s brains on this site, where now they compulsively photoshop a picture of me at an apple orchard with my wife over and over again for all eternity into increasingly incoherent, disintegrating phantoms of my social media “brand”.
Western critiques of liberalism are all inherently poisoned by the non-critical, ingrained liberal perspective of the supposed critics. Every online Leftist faction or clique seems unable to avoid framing their argument entirely in terms of their own immediate consumer experience
Liberalism is bad because of *minor social or consumer inconvenience* which means *nonsensical, extreme over generalization pathologizing liberalism into a hatred of fundamental dimensions of human experience*
“Liberals want kids to have to wear helmets when riding bikes. Therefore liberals *hate* childhood”
And this. One of my favorite live renditions of a song. Goes unbelievably hard. Wish it was longer.
Neil Young’s music from this era is pervaded with an apocalyptic atmosphere that attains a bleakness most wouldn’t immediately associate with him. It honestly frequently goes too fucking hard to listen to. It’s dark, black, terrifying fucking music