I want to share a detailed example of how American Liberalism has been subverted. An illustration of how it was not the natural progression of Classical Liberalism to end up where we are, but rather a slow and methodical sabotage of its constitution and replacement by Progressivism. I hope you will see that if Progressivism is fought with the tools we already have, enabled by Classical American Liberalism; our founding documents and governmental structure -- we don’t have to accept the tyranny of any kind of collectivist ideology—or eventual technocracy.
I’m going to discuss the impending implementation of REAL ID (instituted in days). I wish I had researched REAL ID sooner. It was just not really on my radar. I don’t have one. I didn’t know much about it.
A long 🧵: REAL ID shares its genesis with the origin of the Patriot Act, and the post 9/11 security overhaul. By creating a standardized ID, its stated aim is to prevent fraud and terrorism by creating additional security measures beyond our current state-issued driver’s licenses. REAL ID is supposed to make it easier to verify identity and create systemic synergy between states, federal, public and private service institutions.
As an add-on to a military spending bill in 2005, REAL ID was passed with no meaningful public inclusion or referendum (attached to a massive spending bill for the Iraq war and tsunami relief). Remember that the Founders emphasized public participation and consent.

Using the same justification of increased federal control under the guise of safety, the Patriot Act, passed in 2001, massively expanded the government’s power to monitor communications, access personal records without a warrant, demand cooperation from third-party services such as banks and airlines, and it provided a path for investigating individuals without having to prove ties to terrorism. REAL ID is a progression of this increased security op.

Yes, it is crucial that we have discussions and debates with one another over issues that are important to us. We need to be able to share opinions, ideas and work out disagreements. The saying "politics is downstream from culture" highlights the very real effect of the population's dialogue on politics. The belief in free speech is foundational in America's metaphysics.
No one I am aligned with in belief is arguing against free speech or debates. That is a strawman.
What we are trying to do is alert people to a very modern problem of information and communication being weaponized to drive division. No one knows for sure if that is what has occurred over the past few days, but anytime a very divisive, heated issue suddenly explodes (and with an influx of questionable discourse, like bots or shady accounts or known divisive players responding and amplifying), it is worthwhile to take a moment to assess if that is a possibility.

If any good is to come of the rhetoric of the past couple of days, it’s that there is now a conversation going on regarding the manipulation of communication and what strategic purpose this plays for parties who wish to exploit division. With technology like social media that facilitates mass communication instantly, this is an issue that we will need to be constantly vigilant to if we are to have productive debates and conversation. 1/ 🧵 2/ It’s useful to revisit the mechanism of narrative operations and how it works. The action/reaction cycle of social unrest is a strategy that has been used repeatedly throughout what is now the modern age of warfare. Battle has moved beyond just the kinetic realm and into what is now an invisible battlefield of influence.
The evolution of warfare throughout human history has been divided into 5 generations by scholars. It is the 4th and 5th generations that are pertinent today; they operate on the moral and cultural level, turning populations against each other internally along ideological lines, often using narratives centered around social grievances.
Because 5GW is focused on societal issues, it is often based on social constructivism. We can see constructivism all around us today; it is Woke. It could be argued that there could be nothing more conducive to successful 5GW outcomes than Woke. Neo-Marxist ideology (PoMo/Critical Constructivism= Woke) is strategically used by employing cultural deconstruction tactics, organized around lines of identity, to destabilize the status quo in an attempt to gain power.

This is exactly how political warfare movements operate. When you understand that political warfare, specifically dialectical political warfare, works best when there is no centrally-controlled command center, you will see how seemingly organic, small groups can have such an out-sized influence on the political landscape.
1/ 2/ Mao utilized the mass line theory to activate his followers, & this is the "to the masses-- from the masses-- to the masses" strategy. The idea was basically a dynamic engineering of policy or activity comprised from interactions between the common folk and leadership. It is considered an essential factor in the consolidation of power. Despite sounding fairly democratic & even ideal (of course leadership should craft policy that appeals to the people being governed), it is actually a strategic way of manipulating human behavior.

Dialectical warfare is an essential concept to understand. It has been used repeatedly in history & it is being used today. If we don’t understand this concept, we will fall victim to its subversion.
We can look at a historical example to draw a corollary, and it is especially applicable to what we are experiencing in Western society right now; a Maoist insurgency, Maoism with American characteristics.

Mao’s Chinese Cultural Revolution:
Mao came into power as an opposition to the ruling Chinese Communist Party, the status quo or existing social order.
He felt that the party had become classist & bogged down with bureaucracy. It was betraying its Communist ideals & facing threats of collapsing. Mao mobilized support by infiltrating & seizing institutions such as media & education.
He used media to spread his revolutionary message & mobilize support. His media campaigns helped drive divisions & encouraged the public to engage in conflict that would punish those deemed as enemies of the cause; businesses or land owners, rival politicians, anyone possibly engaged in activity that could be deemed in opposition. Messages were disseminated through newspapers & even by writing on blackboards in public areas.

In the 1930s young teachers-in-training were invited to take trips to Russia to “learn Soviet methods of teaching.” Students at Columbia were encouraged by their Progressive Educationist teachers to enroll in a Moscow Summer School course so they could observe the Soviets’ progressive methods of education & be inspired to use those practices in their own teaching. The course “Principles of the Collectivist & Socialist Society” was listed as a prerequisite to the trip. The trips were listed as sponsored by the Soviet government’s People’s Commissariat of Education & facilitated on the American side by a Columbia University advisory council, including professor & “father” of the Progressive Education movement, John Dewey.
Dewey had taken his own trek to Russia in 1928 where he was warmly welcomed by the Soviets, who had been so inspired by his progressive educational reform philosophy that they modeled their own system after his.