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
In the 1920s, the Soviet Union pandered to its "native" (koreni) ethnic minorities that had been swept up under Russian and then Soviet rule with a program called korenizatsiya (nativification or "rootsification") in exactly this way to turn them against their class enemies.
I know I've really been harping on korenizatsiya lately and that it's a very foreign concept, but it's extremely important for us to understand. It's the fundamental basis for the DEI programs we've been running, and it's also the exact mechanism of the "native" Woke programming.
I think it's generally very important for us to understand when we're running a direct Soviet Communist import program and for people to learn to recognize a direct Soviet Communist import program, so I'm talking a lot about it. It's not just "Leftist insanity" or empathy.
One of the most important lessons I've ever learned came from the skeptic community, and it's this: scientists are almost always completely useless, or worse than useless, at detecting and unmasking deception. We must be cautious, as we've learned, with deference to scientists.🧵
Understanding why scientists are frequently worse than useless, often a positive liability, in matters of deception is a matter of understanding what scientists do: they work to understand and give explanations to phenomena observed in reality.
The trouble with scientists is that they very frequently (though not always) take the observed phenomena at face value. They might eventually get there and realize deception is a part of it, but it tends to take them a long time, during which the deception continues.
So there's a pretty popular meme idea about power out there that's nothing short of propaganda. It goes like this:
The Left wants power. Conservatives want to be left alone. This is why the Left always wins. (So, conservatives should desire power.)
It's deeply wrong. 🧵
Dialectical manipulation always mixes truths and lies, and it always screws up context. In this case, it is absolutely true that the Left covets (not just wants) power, and it's generally true that conservatives wish to be left alone. Those are the truths. The rest is misleading.
Leftism could be defined, in fact, by its relationship with power. The Left and normal people (particularly conservatives) have different relationships with power. The Left covets it and, failing to truly understand it, always abuses it. Conservatives don't.
It's very tempting to say "Woke is dead" in the wake of the tremendous victory of Donald Trump in the American election this year, but nothing is further from the truth. Those of us who understand Leftism know this and how Woke will move in the coming years.
Leftism is diabolical. It doesn't die; it changes forms and tactics. Dark arts are never defeated, though they can be blocked.
Leftism is dialectical. The dialectic never retreats. The dialectic only progresses. It takes advantage of whatever circumstances it has to gain power.
The election of President Trump represents a significant victory in this particular war against Woke Marxist ideology and Woke ideology more broadly, and it may significantly close down the federal apparatus to it's hand, or at least force it to change its appearance and form.
You've heard the saying "you don't have to care about politics, but politics cares about you." That's even more true for political warfare. You may not care about political warfare, but these days, political warfare definitely cares about you. There are psyops everywhere.
Because of mass media, the internet, and social media, at least for the time being, you live on a political warfare battlefield. You have very little choice in this matter, and whether you're a innocent bystander or an active combatant, you are by default a combatant in it.
I want you to take this description very seriously. You are a combatant in a global political warfare firefight whether you want to be or not, outside of some very difficult and narrow exceptions. That's because political warfare isn't like conventional warfare. It's everywhere.
After having given it some thought, I've decided to put a super-mega-thread of my recommendations for the new administration's Department of Education, et cetera. Given how these things go, I expect this will make at least everybody mad, but welcome to the jungle. 🧵🧵🧵
1) The Department of Education must be abolished before Trump's term ends, but there's a functional contradiction in this first priority. A department that doesn't exist cannot actually do anything, so it's unclear what any of the Trump Administration's ambitions in education would even mean.
The primary power over education the federal government has is monetary, but if the Department of Education shuts down, the executive apparatus for directing federal moneys in education disappears as does the executive power base for influencing education. Some decisions have to be made, then: federal or state control of education, and when?
Simply shutting the Department of Education down on Day 1 would be a serious mistake. The string-tied federal money in education is all authorized by legislation in Congress's purview, and the legislation authorizing that money and enabling its strings would not end just because the Department of Education ended. That all has to be dealt with.
If the Department ends with money (and strings) still authorized, other departments (like Treasury, and?) would have to pick up the slack, scattering the education functions around, across, and through the executive branch, making it harder to fix. The Department is also ideally poised to facilitate the process of Congress undoing much of this legislation.
In the meantime, the Department can use what power it has, even as it sunsets itself, to repair many of the most outrageous issues in education as it currently exists, which are numerous. This would allow a transition period in which states are pulled into better educational priorities and commitments before they're given full educational autonomy.
The only practical solution, then, is that the Department of Education must be wound down, not simply abolished. Its eventual abolition should be a priority it communicates to the American people and to Congress, who should have a bill prepared for it at the right time.
I would in theory recommend a two-year timeline to establish and accomplish its mission and close its own doors, but the midterms are a concern, meaning a three-year timeline might be smarter and more politically viable.
This approach cannot become an excuse to perpetuate the Department and "use the One Ring." A clear shutdown timeline with benchmarks should be planned and communicated from the start, and Department actions should only be taken such that they are consistent with the overall agenda of closing the Department down completely by the planned deadline.
Fwiw, I have recommended that Tiffany Justice from Moms four Liberty serve in the role of Secretary of Education as described above. She should have the patriotic honor of terminating the awful department in her tenure. She understands the assignment and represents the largest coalition of parents and their interests this country has ever known. That's big outsider energy of exactly the right kind.
2) The United Nations, UNESCO, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and other global NGOs need to have no influence on American education whatsoever. If you don't understand that the Woke education in Alaska looks just like the Woke education in New Jersey looks just like the Woke education in Kenya, you need to get with the program: this is a global initiative in education, not an American one. That needs to end from the first possible day.
I recommend full withdrawal from all these global(ist) education initiatives—including Education for Global Citizenship, SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) in education, Education for Sustainable Development, and Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), not to mention any vestiges of Common Core–derived from the UNESCO World Core curriculum.
To effect this, not only should there be a deliberate withdrawal, etc., from official relationships with these organizations, all school districts in their own relationships with these organizations should have to disclose that information clearly and publicly.