Mark retweeted
The vessel without a consciousness invites possession from a consciousness without a vessel.
The socialist revolutions Marxists expected in the industrial West never took hold. That left some 20th-century Marxists with a problem. So why hadn’t workers turned against the order they were supposed to overthrow? Increasingly, they looked to culture. Religion, family, nation, tradition, inherited morality. These loyalties made the existing order seem natural, legitimate, even worth defending. The vessel was already full of what a false consciousness. There was no room for a revolutionary one.
Gramsci explained this through cultural hegemony, the grip of loyalties and habits that pass for common sense. Lukács approached it through reification: under capitalism, human relations seem natural and permanent, hiding the forces that produced them.
The Frankfurt School sought a critical consciousness that could see how mass culture made the old order seem normal. Freire popularized it through conscientização, teaching people to recognize and challenge the forces shaping their lives. Feminist consciousness-raising and later CRT’s race-conscious critique pursued related questions through sex and race.
Change a people’s consciousness and you change what they’re willing to defend or dismantle.
Expose the old order as a historical construction, show the domination beneath it, and its authority begins to crack. What had been made could be unmade.
The old order survives in people’s loyalties and moral instincts. Make those judgments suspect, and its authority weakens. What once seemed good becomes oppressive. What seemed natural becomes an illusion. The familiar world loses its hold.
Drain the vessel of its inherited consciousness, then refill it with a revolutionary one.
Mao made the assault on consciousness explicit. The Chinese Communist Party’s 1966 Sixteen Points called for replacing inherited ideas, culture, customs, and habits with proletarian ones to “change the mental outlook of the whole of society.”
The Cultural Revolution attacked the “Four Olds”: old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. Traditions were discredited, loyalties condemned, and morality recast as class domination.
Mao’s earlier formula of “unity, criticism, unity” aimed to correct thinking and restore cohesion. Under mass campaigns, criticism and self-criticism became tools of coercive thought reform. Break down the old consciousness, correct the thinking, restore unity around the revolutionary line. Then repeat.
This is demoralization: an ontological and teleological inversion of reality through the adoption of a revolutionary Left framework.
Ontologically, Western civilization is recast as an inauthentic order sustained by domination. Its institutions become instruments of oppression, its traditions inherited ideologies that reproduce alienation. The marginalized in this worldview are then cast as bearers of suppressed emancipatory potential, and their exclusion exposing the contradictions of the existing order.
Teleologically, history becomes a struggle to overcome that alienation. The revolutionary vanguard claims the work of emancipation: expose the contradictions, sublate the old order through the struggles of the oppressed, and build a higher unity of consciousness. Destroying the old order becomes historical progress.
Adopting the left frame, moral judgments reverse. Loyalty becomes complicity, defense becomes aggression, surrender becomes virtue, and destruction becomes liberation.
The demoralized person willingly helps dismantle their civilizational inheritance , convinced theyre fulfilling its highest ideals. They come to regard its very survival as an obstacle to emancipation.
The vessel has been drained and refilled. It mistakes possession for enlightenment.
A leftist social worker in Knoxville, Tenn. named Elisabeth Spencer Pitts is pressuring the city council to take down its Halloween ghost decorations because she believes it looks like a white supremacist lynching.
The last documented American lynching was 45 years ago, but leftists continue to spread hoaxes that black s—icides and things that resemble knots and nooses are evidence of lynchings. ngocomment.com
Mark retweeted
“Do you know how I stopped getting protesters to my event at universities?
I held them in the morning.”
— Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
Mark retweeted
I am in awe of how boring hyperindividualism is. Everything revolves around the “self-discovery journeys” of the most insipid people imaginable, doing nothing but gazing into their own skulls and converting resources into shit & piss. The fact that the words “human possibilities” could be made so small and uninspiring as to mean “people having complicated feelings about their genitals” really says it all. What a failure
Mark retweeted
Your name is Jean-Marc, you’re 46, and you run a video game and collectibles shop in Nice, wedged between an optician and a real estate agency selling 1-bed flats for €410,000 “with sea view” if you lean far enough off the balcony.
You know every GTA San Andreas cheat by heart. You tested all of them in 2005 on the PS2 in your bedroom at your mum’s place.
You opened in 2011 with a state-backed loan at 4.7%, and the naive belief that passion eventually pays.
It did pay, sort of. €1,900 a month in a good year, after the French tax office has eaten first, second and third. Your commercial rent is indexed on a formula nobody in the Republic actually understands.
You sell Funko Pops at €17.99, sealed Pokémon cards, refurbished controllers. You let little Enzo, 12, pay in installments because he’s saving for a Switch 2. You close at 7:30pm and walk home because the harbor parking is €3.40 an hour.
Saturday, there’s a protest “against the cost of living.”
You also think living costs too much. You almost went.
At 5:12pm, your metal shutter gets ripped open with a crowbar.
Forty teenagers in tracksuits and crossbody bags walk into your shop like it’s a bonus level. They take the PS5s, the Dragon Ball figures, the till with today’s €280 and even the box of paper bags that say “thank you for your visit.”
A guy in a floral shirt films it vertically for TikTok.
You step outside and say “stop, this is my shop.”
You get hit from behind.
Then rocks.
They laugh. Floral shirt guy is thrilled: good angle, good lighting.
Sunday morning, the police tell you there are “1,400 arrests nationwide” and they won’t send a squad for some Funko Pops. Filing the complaint takes 2 hours 40. The officer types with two fingers on Windows 7.
Monday noon, your insurer reminds you that your €1,140-a-year policy has a €3,000 deductible and a “riots and civil commotion” exclusion on page 31, font size 6.
Saturday night, an MP explains on TV that “the anger is legitimate” and we “shouldn’t cry over shop windows.” He’s never owned a shop window. He has a state-funded apartment.
Sunday, your limited edition Vegeta figures show up on Vinted. “Brand new, never opened, €39, pickup in North Nice.”
The seller has 4.9 stars.
Monday, the tax office emails you. They haven’t heard about the riots. They’ve heard about your payment deadline.
You did everything right, Jean-Marc. That was never the problem.
The problem is you were playing by the rules in a lobby where nobody else does.
So stop believing in the State. It’s not coming to save you. It’s coming to collect.
Stop voting. Every five years they hand you the controller, and it’s never plugged in.
Go to the gym. Not for revenge. For you. Because when the system folds, the only asset nobody can loot is the one you built under a barbell.
And make money they can’t see. Cash, side hustles, sats on a cold wallet in a sock drawer. Not your keys, not your coins. Not your shop, not your loss.
Fuck the system, Jean-Marc.
It already did it to you first.
Mark retweeted
"Black wealth" as a whole is simply the amount accidentally left over after they attempt to spend all of their income
This is not a race that does saving
If they had wealth before 2022, it's because of a massive transfer of public funds in the name of covid which resulted in a giant boom in crab leg consumption and Carnival cruises until the wealth was gone
Blacks have been given about 65-75 Marshall Plans worth of transfer payments since the Great Society - yet, no wealth - why? Because tropical humans don't have massive short-term preferences. NBA stars are broke within a few years leaving the league
The only reasonable answer to "what happened to black wealth after 2022?" is "you're asking the wrong question - the question is why did black wealth skyrocket between 2019 and 2022?" and we all know the answer
(data from the Federal Reserve)
Mark retweeted
At my red state hometown fair, and the people here are at least 60% nonwhite. It was not like this even 15 years ago. The pace of change is extreme. Foreign languages, foreign accents when they do speak English, foreign styles, foreign norms.
I don’t hate these people. Lots of happy families etc. But I feel as at home as I did in Taipei. I enjoyed visiting Taipei. I enjoy travel generally. But the premise of travel is that you eventually come home. My home is gone. I’m an eternal traveler now. My home doesn’t exist. This makes me profoundly sad. And angry.
Mark retweeted
Back in 2017, I read a book called How Democracies Die. Despite being authored by two left wing professors, it's a very, very good book.
The book is about how (mostly) populist movements kill democratic systems. The overwhelming majority of the book covers how right wing movements topple democracies.
It's very well researched and cited, and I enjoyed reading it immensely.
But as I read through all the examples, I couldn't help but wonder: why in the world did these right wing movements wake up one day and decide to destroy these supposedly perfectly stable societies?
It just didn't make sense.
So after I finished the book, I made a list of ten examples in the book to research.
The first thing I found is that these right wing movements were reacting to something. That's why they're called reactionary movements. And what were they reacting to? Socialist or communist movements.
In EVERY SINGLE CASE*, the right wing movement arose in direct response to the rise of a violent socialist or communist movement.
It's an immune reaction.
In EVERY SINGLE CASE*, the socialist or communist movement had either already taken power or was threatening to and, in the latter cases, the right wing movements that took power simply beat the communists to the punch.
The Right took power before the communists did. That's it. That's literally all you need to know about why and how right wing movements take power.
That's how your vaunted democracies die. Not because right wingers wake up one day and, for no reason at all, decide to take power, but because the Far Left threatened to do it first.
What Joel Berry and James Lindsay and all the others should understand (if they don't already), is that if you want to stop the so-called "Woke Right" then the real enemy is the Woke Left.
There is no right wing immune response if there's no cancerous Far Left movement threatening to destroy their country.
There is no reactionary movement if there's nothing to react to.
Why, then, do they spend SO MUCH TIME antagonizing the populist right wing?
And why does Joel Berry keep posting these absolute dog shit takes that actually illustrate the point of his opposition? Is his IQ actually 300 instead of 30? Inquiring minds want to know.
(*One claimed exception is right-wing Imperial Japan, which did not start as an outgrowth of opposition to communism, but a reaction to the coercive influence of Western imperialism. Once the right-wing imperial system was adopted, Japan did suppress socialist and communist movement, and passed laws that effectively banned both. I don't believe Japan is an exception, but some ACKSHUALLY reply guy might bring it up, and here's your sign.)
Mark retweeted
If you declare freedom or liberty to be the highest good in society and that securing these things is the foundation upon which the state’s legitimacy rests, then do not be surprised when your country slowly transforms into a Progressive dystopia over time.
What happens when two people clash over the definition of what constitutes liberty or freedom? What happens when millions of people disagree? Or half the country?
Liberalism has no metaphysical foundation to adjudicate those disputes because it already declared and so over time it MUST expand the definition of liberty to mean not only freedom from coercion, but also freedom from ALL forms of arbitrary power and unchosen obligations imposed upon them.
What this means in concrete terms is that we eventually end up with a never ending list of “rights” the state must secure in order to ensure that everyone is fully liberated.
This is how we ended up with Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, LGBTQ Rights, Immigrant Rights, Indigenous Rights, a Right to Housing, a Right to Healthcare, a man's "right" to be called a woman, a child's "right" to mutilate themselves, a refugee's "right" to enter our country and collect welfare, and so on.
Not all Classical Liberals voted for these things or have a problem with inherited obligations like tradition, family, religion, or the nation. But someone eventually will. And they will appeal to the Classical Liberal's own internal logic to demand liberation from the very things that Liberalism itself cannot truly justify.
What began as a rebellion against very legitimate and blatant examples of tyranny, such as a cruel king or vicious dictator, now ends in a rebellion against the "tyranny" of international borders or “assigned sex at birth."
Mark retweeted
As I said before, it’s not even clear why being invaded is meaningfully worse. I mean, just run a thought experiment where another country conquers your own and takes over the levers of power, moving in enough citizens from their home country that you lose political power, but otherwise keeping everything the same.
On what basis can you complain about it that wouldn’t also apply to mass immigration? I mean, assuming you’re a citizen who doesn’t want either thing to happen, why is one outcome worse than the other?
Mark retweeted
Outside of defeat in battle or war, there’s essentially no precedent for being ethnically swamped and replaced in history by migration. A totally new phenomenon we are supposed to just accept as “normal” and are castigated if we object to it.
Mark retweeted
Impossible. Multiculturalism is an extreme outlier. Ethnic nationalism is the mean. And nature always regresses to the mean. It’s natural law.
It is only a matter of time before ethnic nationalism — as it is in the rest of the world — will again be the norm in Western-Europe.
🇩🇪 German Chancellor Friedrich Merz:
“Germany has left nationalism behind and will never again allow ethnic nationalism in Germany.”
Follow: @europa
Mark retweeted
Politically motivated mass migration, enough to change demographics permanently, is ethnic cleansing.
It is even more disgusting in a democracy because the direct result is literally removing political power, the *weight* of each vote, from the native population.
Mark retweeted
"We've been lied to by every government for several decades about nation-ending levels of third world immigration and as a result we are rethinking our relationship with a state which we increasingly regard as illegitimate."
"Okay, I get it, you don't like Andy Burnham."
Mark retweeted
The problem with thinking the government are just 'incompetent' when it comes to illegal immigrants is that they've created an entire logistical chain from port to village parish that includes everything from health care to pyjamas.
That's not incompetence; it's something else.
Mark retweeted
Germany, the UK, France, and the US could all put a permanent halt to the rise of the "Far Right" if they simply halted mass migration from the Third World.
And yet every time the Left takes power in these countries, they will do the exact opposite because that's what Leftism is about today. The entire purpose of the Left-wing political project is to dissolve the West, and that dissolution gets manifested in part through demographic replacement.
Pointing out that the Left would be far stronger electorally if it simply gave up on mass migration is to misunderstand the purpose of why the Left exists in the first place. The goal is to dismantle all inherited structures, institutions, norms, and orders that impose unchosen obligations upon the abstract universal floating bundle of rights that we call a human being.
To forgo that objective in the name of electoral expediency is to forgo the entire reason the Left engages in politics to begin with.
Mark retweeted
>The AfD won because of mass third world immigration
>Brexit was because of mass third world immigration.
>Trump won both elections because of mass third world immigration.
>The right wing is rising in every country in the entire western world because of mass third world immigration.
If there wasn't mass third world immigration the EU, the UN the USA and every single major liberal institution would be under absolutely zero threat right now. The entire elite global power structure would be as unchallenged as it was in the 1990s.
But even still, they just will not stop the mass immigration.
That tells me that the replacement of homogeneous, white populations isn't a side effect or unintentional consequence of their worldview, but it's most essential element. Otherwise they wouldn't be willing to burn down everything they spent decades building to keep it going.
