Let's talk about @KamalaHarris saying "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been." This phrase, which she repeats all the time, is not mysterious. It's esoteric. That is, it's occult. It's a Marxist and Luciferian incantation, and that's easily seen.
What "esoteric" means here is that it has a hidden meaning. It looks and sounds like goofy nonsense, but it isn't. People who know, know. That is, it's coded and Gnostic in its formulation and the principle she's articulating is ultimately Luciferian/Hermetic, a la Marx.
We can set aside the hand gesture she typically makes while uttering this incantation, although we shouldn't. It's blatantly up on the right (what can be, a worldly utopia) and down on the left (unburdened by, or liberated/emancipated from the mundane status quo).
Let's have a look at Karl Marx issuing the same idea. Here he is at the punchline of the Communist Manifesto explaining that when the proletariat organizes itself and executes a revolution, it can move forward into what can be (Communism) unburdened by class antagonisms.
Here's how Marx opens the Communist Manifesto, though: "The history of all hitherto existing society" [what has been] "is the history of class struggles." That's precisely what he says a Communist revolution would emancipate [unburden] Man from in the punchline, though.
In other words, Marxism itself, in its own manifest declaration, identifies it as being able to move into "what can be, unburdened by what has been," and socialist/Marxist consciousness is a Gnostic awakening to "see what can be, unburdened by what has been." Straight Communism.
A few years earlier in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), Marx expresses the same idea, comparing "crude Communism" to true, transcendent Communism. It's [becoming unburdened by] private property "as human self-estrangement" through "positive transcendence."
The general theory (theology) of Marxism is that Man is burdened by what has been, which is called his "historical conditions," but can awaken to his true (socio-spiritual) self, which is socialist, so that it can be transcended. "To see what can be, unburdened by what has been."
Here, earlier in EPM, Marx is explaining that awakening to a social(ist) consciousness (that is, man's true nature) has a transformative capacity to unburden/emancipate the senses to "see what can be, unburdened by what has been," rather literally. This is what it's really about.
Marx characterizes "what has been" as an "exoteric revelation of man's essential powers" to build a future for himself emancipated from his own historical conditions. That is, "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been" is an ESOTERIC incantation making this meaning visible
Exactly the same mentality appears in Queer Theory (Queer Marxism, so no surprise). "Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality." It's a "horizon imbued with potentiality." Being "Queer" means being able "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been."
How clearly does it have to be written to see it?
"Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring that allows us to see and feel beyond the quagmire of the present. The here and now is a prison house."
The goal is to reach "what can be, unburdened by what has been."
Exactly the same sentiment is expressed in CRT through "antiracism." An "antiracist" society is one that can see or imagine "what can be, unburdened by what has been," meaning the history of racism and racial antagonism and injustice, which are our "historical conditions."
The sentiment Kamala Harris repeats endlessly, seemingly weirdly, is an esoteric incantation of societal and human rebirth (that is, a cult) that has manifested in such human paroxysms as the French Revolution, all Communist revolutions, and Lucifer's revolt against Heaven.
Lucifer sought "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been." God had created the perfect order in perfect Plenitude, but the angels had no free will beyond their first choice to accept or reject. Lucifer, in his pride, rejected, "to see what can be unburdened by" Heaven.
In the French Revolution, the goal was to establish a wholly new society that would have a new calendar, new government, new everything, starting at Year One. They were going to see what could be for the French people unburdened by what has been in French society. Disaster.
The French Revolution was actually modeled after Oliver Cromwell's Glorious Revolution in which the radical Puritan faction in England would aim "to see what can be, unburdened by" the chain of royal succession and divine right of kings in England. Murderous disaster.
It's worth knowing that Cromwell called his great experiment "The Great Protectorate," so that we can reflect on how much Kamala Harris's "what can be" is predicated on "safety" in our own day. Of course, the French called it the Committee for Public Safety too.
While every Communist revolution, like Marx indicates, is a revolt against what has been in the hopes of achieving a utopia only the cult can "see" (or "imagine"), is also a complete social rebirth, it's most obvious in Pol Pot's Cambodian Revolution with its "Year Zero."
Cromwell, the French, the Bolsheviks, Pol Pot, Mao, and the rest were all leading people to see "what 'can be,' unburdened by what has been." The death and rebirth of self and society is precisely the goal, and that's what Kamala Harris routinely channels (incants).
Today, we have the Great Reset. That is, a Great [What Can Be, Unburdened By What Has Been]. That's how a reset works. You unburden yourself from what "has been" and start over. It's the same exact program in essence, though not in mechanisms and details.
Though this thread is already very long, it's worth pointing out that Klaus Schwab's (WEF) most recent book is essentially a long manifesto of how we can move into a new world by "[seeing] what can be, unburdened by what has been" (here: shareholder capitalism and GDP growth).
The objective of the so-called New World Order is precisely that: a new circular economy focused on "wellbeing" that's managed by "enlightened" stakeholders (what can be) unburdened by shareholder fiduciary responsibility, profit, and individual achievement (what has been).
I'll sum up here, though so much more could be said. We're undergoing a global French (or Communist) Revolution, which will have disastrous results. Kamala Harris chants the Marxist/Luciferian incantation of that evil agenda: "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Woke Right are a joke. They parade about talking about how they alone have solutions, but they don't even identify the problems. Their solution is "give us power." They rage about cultural rot but never talk about solutions for the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act or ESG.
For people who claim to have taken up a structural(ist) view of the world, they don't have the slightest idea what structures are causing the problems we actually face. They think it's that culture went sideways because people like them couldn't force them into certain values.
Our culture didn't go sideways. It was driven sideways by a series of successful operations waged against us by Communists both foreign and domestic. If you don't actually undo the things that have actually caused our problems, you will not solve them; you'll multiply them.
Let's do another lesson on propaganda! It's so important to understand the various elements of propaganda in shaping opinion, especially on social media, where it can look very organic. I want to talk about two paired phenomena here: manufactured consensus and audience capture. 🧵
I actually want to start by talking about something the Communists did in Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which, in the latter case, got described with the term "planned spontaneity." Manufactured consensus very frequently follows from orchestrated spontaneity.
The idea of planned spontaneity is that a planned event occurs in such a way that makes it look like an organic groundswell. Everyone is suddenly thinking it. Using George Soros's dialectical technology, it's called "reflexivity" today, but it's ultimately fake. It's propaganda.
The post-liberals (Woke Right) are actually progressives in the same way the Progressives/Marxists are a RETVRN movement. Post-liberalism holds that liberalism had its time and now the future is marching on to something different and they're AHEAD of the curve, differently.
They believe they not only see the correct future but are its shapers, and anyone who doesn't get along with them and their ambitions is stuck in the past and therefore on... the wrong side of history. They're just progressives with a different view of progress than the Left.
Normal people who are not in some way Woke do not see history or progress this way. History is actually open-ended. It doesn't have a particular course it has to take; we get to choose our destinies. Progress means solving material problems that real humans face (mostly tech).
I legit have a criticism of Israel about Gaza, just one, really, and I've only ever heard one other person say it. Everyone else whining about it seems to me to be whining about entirely the wrong thing or hooked on obvious propaganda.
To be completely fair, my criticism is a potential criticism because it's HELLA conspiracy theory, but most of those that aren't really stupid pan out, so I'm pretty confident it's not wrong. To the degree that it's right, I'm concerned. To the degree that it's wrong, I'm not.
It's this: I'm concerned Israel may have leveled Gaza with the ostensible aim of destroying Hamas (which they have every right to do at this point IMO) specifically to rebuild ("Build Back Better") the entire region into a high-tech surveillance smart city under globalist control
So this is my big-brained idea about why Marxism is always going sideways, particularly with the groups it claims to champion, as an analysis of their dialectical theory. This is just going to be a little technical, so not everyone is going to dig it. 🧵
So Marxism is dialectical, and the dialectical theory isn't just that there's a unification of opposites (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). There's an additional part of the story: the antithesis or "negative" arises from within the original thesis ("abstract" in Hegel's telling).
So, the way we might see this in, say, the Communist Manifesto, is where Marx explains that the abuses of the bourgeoisie gave rise to its negative, the proletariat, thus creating the other half of the class-conflicting dynamic of capitalism. So bourgeoisie leads to proletariat.
Someone sent me this clip of Tim Pool demonstrating fully that he doesn't understand virtually any of the terms in the debate at all, most importantly "Leftist." This is the most confused garbage take I've ever heard from him amongst much serious competition.
Maybe because I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll try to explain some of this preposterous confusion. Not understanding "Leftism" is a philosophical, practical, and political orientation that qualifies as a worldview with its own suite of ideologies is the first hurdle.
I'm not a Leftist. Leftists believe a variety of propositions about the world and our interaction with it, usually amounting to believing themselves to be their own creators in a meaningful sense and the world itself being derivative to their perception of the world.