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
Like it or not, this is correct. It's not a matter of being tolerant or not. Islam, or at least Islamism if there's any daylight between them, is fundamentally a militant ideology. Free societies cannot tolerate militant ideologies except in small fringes.
Karl Popper laid out the so-called Paradox of Tolerance in 1945 in his not-so-great book The Open Society and Its Enemies, and free societies will live or die based on the practical solution they come up with to this paradox. This paradox is the rub of liberty and freedom.
The Paradox of Tolerance is simply enough stated: must a tolerant society tolerate intolerance that will eventually end its tolerance?
The answer is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the problem is that it's hard to draw a clear line anywhere.
No, Fascism is a progressive ideology, which is inherently idealist (Hitler makes this argument himself about National Socialism in MK vol 2 ch 2). Conservatism is a realist ideology. They're not remotely the same, though both claim to favor the nation and tradition.
Hitler, as indicated: "This is why it is necessary to establish a faith in an idealistic Reich to battle against the reckoning imposed by the present materialistic Republic."
This is not a conservative statement, and it's an anti-realist statement, like Marxism would make.
I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out what the relationship between Fascism and conservatism is, and it's this: Fascism is what you get when a conservative abandons realism for romanticism and idealism, which are progressive and anti-realist.
Yesterday, I read the very last chapter of Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 15: "Self-defense as a Right." It's not a particularly enlightening or powerful chapter, but it made me think of Europe today. It makes me think Europe is being forced with immigration back to that place. 🧵
"The enemy's reaction is your real action" is a backbone of Leftist activism, and that sentiment was heavy on me while I read the very last chapter of Mein Kampf. Why? Because the architects of the immigration crisis in Europe would have been familiar with Hitler's motivations.
In fact, the architects of the immigration crisis in Europe would have been fully aware of not just what Hitler was talking about but the effect his arguments had in Germany in the 1920s through 1940s. "Self-defense as a right" is a theme we're hearing everywhere from Reaction.
Authoritarianism is frequently (but not always) explained and measured using a three-factor scale that measures "conventionalism," "authoritarian aggression," and "authoritarian submission." These are worth knowing about, particularly in this day and age. 🧵
Conventionalism is the first of the three typically recognized authoritarian traits. What it refers to is a tendency to follow conventions and to expect (or force) other people to follow the same conventions. These conventions can be defined in a wide variety of ways.
Often, and I think wrongly (following Altemeyer, mostly), the conventions are usually defined in terms of adhering (strictly) to traditional norms and expectations, but this misses a key, crucial generalization that any ideological community can define any conventions it wants.
A huge lure that hooks people into the Woke Right is what we might call "the hope you're not allowed to have." Someone can sell a hope that force or authoritarianism or fascism can stop the apparently unstoppable march of Marxism and radicalize by saying it's unfairly withheld.
Frankly, all totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies use this mechanism. Marcuse talked about it with "liberating tolerance," for example, and the "utopian possibility" of a liberated socialist state. The mechanism (sales pitch) is pretty devious and radicalizes people hard.
In short, the ideologue pitches the idea of a vastly better society freed up from the repressions of the current age but places it just out of reach, thus seeming to damn its targets to living in unnecessary misery if only we were allowed to pursue liberation, but we're not.
Something everyone needs to understand about identity politics and "collective identities" (aka, "collective justice," aka "social justice") is that they are intrinsically scams and will intrinsically end up led by people who screw over the people "of identity" who support them.
Identity politics is not what happened in the Civil Rights Movement. What happened in the Civil Rights Movement was a bid by groups to not have to be treated as groups. The slogan black men carried on signs in Memphis was "I am a man."
The term and concept of identity politics as we understand it now was coined in the late 1970s in the Black Feminist Marxist group called the Combahee River Collective, which laid out the neo-Maoist program of intersectionality from Woke (Left) Identity Marxist perspectives.