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
Marxism utilizes a broad Continental school of thought I'd call "dialectical sociology," if I was giving it a technical name. It might be useful to people's understanding to outline what I mean by this school of thought. It's a central piece of what I've called Social Gnosticism.
Obviously, there's a lot to unpack on this to make it clear, so an essay or podcast may have to follow (or both). I'm going to start with Rousseau for this description as well. Generally, Continental Enlightenment philosophy (not Scottish!) regards men as imprisoned by society.
The question at the heart of their thought is ultimately, what does it mean to be human? especially given all the apparently artificial aspects of civilization and civilized life. They were therefore, like others, obsessed with understanding the "State of Nature" of man.
If this is going to be a Trump victory, and especially if it's a Trump blowout, both of which seem possible, be certain the Left has a plan that includes subverting it from within. Knowing how they (mainly the Fabian Society) did it to Reagan is advisable so it can be stopped.
If my concern for a Fabian or Fabian-style subversion of a Trump Administration 47 is on target, personnel will have to be very carefully vetted. Fabians run infiltrating influence campaigns, so socialists posing as conservatives will offer the "real conservative" view to Trump.
The nearest parallel to this in American history that I know of is the subversion of the Reagan Administration, which included building up the Department of Education instead of getting rid of it, among many other things. Trump's already tipped that way here with "school choice."
I think it's valuable to talk about one of my favorite lines from Karl Marx: "Communism therefore [is] the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being." Like most of Marx's ravings, this leaf did not fall idly. It's central to understanding Marxism. 🧵
If you want to understand Marxism as a Communist religion, it's important to start here. Karl Marx is not asking an economic question, a political question, or even a sociological question here. He's asking a religious question: who and what is man, and what should he do in life?
Marx characterizes (true, as opposed to crude) Communism as the complete return of man to himself. That's an interesting way of conceiving of an economic doctrine and political program, isn't it? Of course, that's because Marxism isn't an economic doctrine or political program.
One of the worst aspects of Woke thought is its hostility to science (while claiming the mantle of science and appropriating sciency-looking things that support it). I don't really talk about this enough and need to put something together on it. It goes for law too.
Other than "reality exists and can be known about," probably the deepest axiom of both science and law is that we inhabit a shared reality objective to each of us. Woke thought is entirely hostile to this idea. Then it accepts what serves it and rejects what doesn't, always.
Much more specifically, Woke thought is hostile to science and law in that it's measurement of validity in both domains is whether or not it agrees with or supports Woke aims and beliefs. If it does, it's "valid" and "just," and if it doesn't, it's "invalid" and "injust."
If you want to understand why Communists always end up killing so many people, aside from the fact that it's a personality disorder turned into a religion that takes over politics, you have to understand it as a fanatical religion that demands a "qualitative change" in humanity.
Lots of people apparently just want me to "say capitalism, James!" meaning they want me to "admit" that Communists hate private property and want to abolish it (which, I have pointed out, of course, hundreds of times with citation, including Ch. 2 of the Communist Manifesto).
Karl Marx himself was abundantly clear that's not what Communism is properly about, though, even though he wrote in the Manifesto (Ch 2): "Communism can be summarized in a single sentence: abolish private property." Marx actually meant for private property to be transcended.
Classical Liberalism fully embraces the concept of (scientific) universality, which I think is one of the most interesting and important ideas to repelling arbitrary power and thus unleashing peace and prosperity. It's important to understand this principle. 🧵
Classical Liberalism accept the realist axiom that the world exists independently of all observers, and the principle of universality rests upon that. The simplest expression of universality is "anyone can perform the test." That is a fantastically powerful, world-changing idea.
Because Classical Liberalism assumes realism, it assumes we have provisional and limited access to objectivity. This does not mean any given observer is objective. It means that no matter who the observer is, the facts of reality are the same and can be agreed upon.