#technocratic totalitarianism

[infinitysisters]

“There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. The notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous.”

— Cormac McCarthy

[deframing]

억압된 것이 회귀하는 '디지털 전체주의'의 시대다. 사회적 원자화와 극단적인 자기애, 그리고 공포와 불안에 따른 규제 열광 속에서 우리는 결국 스스로 생각하는 법을 상실한다. "계몽주의 전통은 세계를 이해하고 통제하려는 인간의 낙관적이고 에너지 넘치는 포부에서 비롯되었지만, 몇몇 측면에서 이는 정반대의 결과인 통제력 상실을 초래했다. 이렇게 인간은 고독한 상태에 놓인 자신을 발견하게 되었다. 자연으로부터 끊어지고, 사회적 구조와 연결성으로부터 분리되었으며, 깊은 무의미감이 초래하는 무력감을 느끼고, 상상할 수 없는 파괴적 잠재력을 지닌 막연한 상태 속에 살아가는 것이다. 동시에 심리적, 물질적으로는 행복한 소수에 의존하는데, 그 소수는 신뢰하지도 않거니와 나와 동일시할 수도 없는 이들이다. 한나 아렌트는 이런 개인들을 가리켜 원자화된 피지배자라고 명명했다. 그리고 우리는 이 원자화된 피지배자 속에서 전체주의 국가의 기본적 구성요소를 발결할 수 있다. Although the Enlightenment tradition arose from man’s optimistic and energetic aspiration to understand and control the world, it has led to the opposite in several respects: namely, the experience of loss of control. Humans have found themselves in a state of solitude, cut off from nature, and existing apart from social structures and connections, feeling powerless due to a deep sense of meaninglessness, living under clouds that are pregnant with an inconceivable, destructive potential, all while psychologically and materially depending on the happy few, whom he does not trust and with whom he cannot identify. It is this individual that Hannah Arendt named the atomized subject. It is this atomized subject in which we recognize the elementary component of the totalitarian state." 마티아스 데스멧, <전체주의의 심리학> #Book #Totalitarianism #Psychology #Technocrat #Transhumanism #Digitalization #Atomization https://www.instagram.com/p/Co42qIePZzM/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[centrally-unplanned]

I will say the one good thing Hitler did was force the entirety of his inner circle to attend yearly Wagner opera festivals, which they all hated. Goebbels was a vocal Wagner hater, and Nazi officers were frequently cited sleeping through the performances, but Hitler's obsession was undeterred and people were forced to play along. Stalin did the same thing - he was a huge fan of American Western films, funnily enough, and he would host parties of the inner Politburo circle where everyone would drink and be forced to watch the latest Clark Gable flick, unable to leave until the films were finished, often well into the late hours of the night.

I, like Hitler and Stalin, would also do this. Not because its like a healthy part of a national elite's cultural development or something, that's obvious bullshit. But because this is the only justified use of totalitarianism. As dictator I would force the entirety of my Council of Technocrats to watch yearly marathons of Evangelion, FLCL, etc, make them fill out waifu tier lists and watch Youtube analysis videos, the works. This is good, this is what power is for.

[trickricksblog08]

Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum poses a far greater threat to your existence than any of the imaginary crises he and his cohorts conjure up as a pretext to supplant national sovereignty, representative democracy and individual freedom with totalitarian rule by unelected globalist technocrats.

From the documentary, 'Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening'.

Watch the full documentary: https://rumble.com/v2rxr4s-plandemic-3-the-great-awakening-full-movie.html

🔥John McAfee🔥

[therainbowwarrior4]

Project 2025 is a plan to, in the words of project Director Paul Dans, "...march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the Deep State".It is organized by the Heritage Foundation, to "muzzle woke propaganda at every level of government", "gut the administrative state" (HUD, FEMA, DOJ, DHS, the Federal Reserve, CDC, FDA, EPA, etc.) and concentrate power into the hands of the President (Leeja Miller, in a video that is linked below, goes into detail on how this would work).Their claim is that "Only through the implementation of specific action plans at each agency will the next conservative presidential Administration be successful".The plan includes a [180 Day Playbook](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/), described as "...a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency."

The plan is "the conservative movement's unified effort to be ready for the next conservative administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025".Project 2025 promises to "rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left" and to "unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors".Project 2025 lists problems with America such as:* The breakdown of the family* Immigration* The "totalitarian cult known today as The Great Awokening"* The erosion of constitutional accountability in Washington* Children suffering the "toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries"* An "overseas, totalitarian Communist dictatorship" that is "not a strategic partner or fair competitor" and is "engaged in a strategic, cultural and economic Cold War against America's interests, values and people"* "Low-income communities" that are "drowning in addiction and government dependence"* "America's elites have betrayed the American People"* The left using climate change "to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty crushing regulations"They believe that "These are problems not of technocratic efficiency, but of national sovereignty and constitutional governance. We solve them not by trimming and reshaping the leaves, but by ripping out the trees -- root and branch."

Their broad goals are to:1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life, and protect our children2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people3. Defend our nation's sovereignty, borders and bounty against global threats4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely - what our constitution calls "the Blessings of Liberty"Dans states that "The long march of Cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before".Project 2025 is, in my words, a distinctly terrifying and highly detailed roadmap for:* Installing a Chriso-fascist oligarchy* Rolling back civil and human rights* Removing bodily autonomy from women and transgender individuals* The systematic eradication of minorities and other vulnerable groupsI don't use the words "systematic eradication" lightly or with hyperbole.

They obviously don't come right out and say it, but they state that:* Pornography should be outlawed* The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned* Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders* Telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shutteredThe real problem with the above, apart from the obvious, is that they label the existence of LGBTQIA+ people as "inherently pornographic". They say that pornography is “manifested today through the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology".They say that the fix "starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity ('SOGI'), diversity, equity and inclusion ('DEI'), gender, gender equality, gender awareness, gender sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists".They also state that "The president should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc."

They want to "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family" which would remove protections for same-sex marriage.Leeja Miller helpfully points out that the above language does not simply include transgender individuals, it includes cis women as well. I'd argue that removing the DEI language also allows them to target anyone that isn't a white, cis, heterosexual, evangelical (or other approved flavor of Christianity) male.Some other points of note:* They want to eliminate the Department of Education* They want to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory* They want to bring back the practice of impounding funds

**References*** A direct link to a PDF copy of the project's Policy Agenda, aka their "Mandate for Leadership": [https://thf\_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025\_MandateForLeadership\_FULL.pdf](https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), this can be found on the Policy page of the Project 2025 website.* A video from Leeja Miller: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3UvaC5m7o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3UvaC5m7o)* An NPR article focusing on the climate policy aspect: [https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192634090/if-republicans-win-the-white-house-in-2024-climate-policy-will-likely-change](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192634090/if-republicans-win-the-white-house-in-2024-climate-policy-will-likely-change)* A UC Berkeley write up: [https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2023/11/17/project-2025-democratic-doomsday/](https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2023/11/17/project-2025-democratic-doomsday/)* An article from the NECC Observer: [http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2023/11/20/the-danger-of-project-2025/](http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2023/11/20/the-danger-of-project-2025/)* An article from PBS: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision)

[roxannepolice]

What do you mean exactly by Saxon representing “Post Politics”?

Hi! First, a bit on post-politics:

Basically this is all bound up into the naive optimism of post-cold war "end of history" hopes, where liberal democratic free market fuelled welfare state becomes the total norm that can only spread throughout the world now that totalitarian centrally steered empire has fallen. Like, the idea for a world without politics understood as various ideologies opposing each other and replaced by state becoming a purely administrative institution has actually been seen as the utopian goal of history- except in practice it resulted in detached from reality technocrats fighting for power with equally but differently detached from reality populists.

But somewhere at the beginning of the 21st century there was this clash of democracy with politics-as-election-of-administrators becoming just straight up boring, leading to elections being less about ideologies and more about personal feelings for a party and even more glaringly - particular person. And that is not to assume that historically people have been very considerate of reading through the agenda of each official, but rather what becomes the norm that politicians rely on. Empty but passionate and eloquent statements about things being bad ("This country has been sick. This country needs healing. This country needs medicine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that what this country really needs right now, is a Doctor."), lifestyle of the politician (Harold Saxon's model wife, excellent background on a website, also sth sth would you rather vote for an art loving vegetarian from working class or a rude misogynistic chain smoking alcoholic aristocrat), or just freaking LOOKS ("I think Mister Saxon is exactly what this country needs. He's a very fine man. And he's handsome too.") become infinitely more important than actual policies or ideology ("Why do you say that? What was his policy? What did he stand for? I don't know. He always sounded good. Like you could trust him. Just nice. He spoke about. I can't really remember, but it was good. Just the sound of his voice.")*.

Yes, fandom has generally decided Harold Saxon was from a conservative party, but he's explicitly not from any party whatsoever. If anything, BBC really took advantage of having a talented actor that looks like Tony Blair, a LABOUR PM (though I'd say Harriet Jones is more of a Blair stand-in). It's a party whose only premise is the personal charisma of an individual. And that is NOT how you should elect politicians.

*Ngl, this is why I facepalm at Arachnids in the UK. If you think the problem with Donald Trump as one of the most powerful people in the world is that he has OCD and is generally a bad person, then no. No it's not.

[darkmaga-retard]

Should you take an arch-technocrat at his word? I think so. Larry Ellison is the founder and former chairman of Oracle, the third-largest software company in the world. According to SFGATE, “The CIA was not just Oracle’s first customer. Founded in May 1977, the firm’s name came from a CIA project code-named “Oracle.” Small world, indeed. Listen to the video and be prepared to be shocked.

When I was in the software business in the 1990s, the VP of Sales at Oracle approached me about integrating my sales and marketing software into the growing stable of Oracle products. I thought I had struck it rich! That is, until I got a whiff of their internal culture. The sales manager for Oracle was a woman who affectionally called her sales team her “yuppie guppies.” How cute, I thought, until I asked one of her “guppies” what that meant. He explained that guppies eat their own offspring and if they didn’t make their sales quotas by hook or by crook, they would be escorted off the campus within the hour. Needless to say, I ran as fast as I could to get away from them.

Larry Ellison has never changed his spots over the years. He should have been branded as a menace to society long ago. ⁃ Patrick Wood, TN Editor.

On Thursday, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison shared his vision for an AI-powered surveillance future during a company financial meeting, reports Business Insider. During an investor Q&A, Ellison described a world where artificial intelligence systems would constantly monitor citizens through an extensive network of cameras and drones, stating this would ensure both police and citizens don’t break the law.

Ellison, who briefly became the world’s second-wealthiest person last week when his net worth surpassed Jeff Bezos’ for a short time, outlined a scenario where AI models would analyze footage from security cameras, police body cams, doorbell cameras, and vehicle dash cams.

“Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on,” Ellison said, describing what he sees as the benefits from automated oversight from AI and automated alerts for when crime takes place. “We’re going to have supervision,” he continued. “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report the problem and report it to the appropriate person.”

he 80-year-old billionaire also predicted that AI-controlled drones would replace police vehicles in high-speed pursuits. “You just have a drone follow the car,” he explained. “It’s very simple in the age of autonomous drones.”

Ellison co-founded Oracle in 1977 and served as CEO until he stepped down in 2014. He currently serves as the company’s executive chairman and CTO.

Sounds familiar

While Ellison attempted to paint his prediction of universal public surveillance in a positive light, his remarks raise significant questions about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for abuse in a world of ubiquitous AI monitoring.

Ellison’s vision bears more than a passing resemblance to the cautionary world portrayed in George Orwell’s prescient novel 1984. In Orwell’s fiction, the totalitarian government of Oceania uses ubiquitous “telescreens” to monitor citizens constantly, creating a society where privacy no longer exists and independent thought becomes nearly impossible.

But Orwell’s famous phrase “Big Brother is watching you” would take on new meaning in Ellison’s tech-driven scenario, where AI systems, rather than human watchers, would serve as the ever-vigilant eyes of authority. Once considered a sci-fi trope, automated systems are already becoming a reality: Similar automated CCTV surveillance systems have already been trialed in London Underground and at the 2024 Olympics.

China has been using automated systems (including AI) to surveil its citizens for years. In 2022, Reuters reported that Chinese firms had developed AI software to sort data collected on residents using a network of surveillance cameras deployed across cities and rural areas as part of China’s “sharp eyes” campaign from 2015 to 2020. This “one person, one file” technology reportedly organizes collected data on individual Chinese citizens, leading to what The Economic Times called a “road to digital totalitarianism.”

Begging for GPUs

[dailyanarchistposts]

Note from Return Fire

It’s time again to confront the authoritarian turn brewing on the fringes of the climate movement, and here Klokkeblomst reminds us why. The essay’s subject – the academic Andreas Malm, who blows hot air about why pipelines should be blown up but also about the need for a new ‘War Communism’ of harsh State interventions in the face of the ecological (or, in his reductive terms, ‘climate’) crisis – can serve as an initial target, but we publish this contribution we received in the hope that it will also speak to the tendency that is latent in the current atmosphere of desperation, which we should expect to grow regardless of the influence of this particular figure. (While seeming less influential as yet in radical circles, Malm is wooed by certain establishment media in his native Sweden where he cuts the figure of the militant parading his support for Hamas and other authoritarian groups for a bourgeois audience; suggesting, as with his fellow academic – and fellow apologist for the atrocities of State communism – Slavoj Zizek, he seeks his main recognition in an arena that is not involved in the complicated dynamics of actually trying to effect revolutionary action.)

While in this case in favour of such actions (purely theoretically) if only they fit into his hierarchical schema, we can place Malm on the same spectrum as the UK academics Paul Gill, Zoe Marchment and Arlene Robinson of Univeristy College London’s ‘Department of Security and Crime Science’, who published a paper last year written to offer clear recommendations to the repressive organs of the State as to how to equate anarchist sabotages – legally and propagandistically – with terrorism: he is an enemy of our struggle. His vision insists on quantifiable movement growth as standard for an action’s effectiveness rather than chaotic flows of desire and affect which these sabotages often spring from, achieve, and unpredictably inspire; instead insisting on seeing their ‘results’ in a vacuum (following the well-trod elitist path of other eco-authoritarians Deep Green Resistance). As such he’s a good example of Leftist (and sometimes Left-anarchist) obsession with what the author of excellent third part of ‘After the Crest’ series – reproduced in a forthcoming chapter of volume 6 of Return Fire – calls ‘geometrical growth’, a logic of accumulation: in resistance like in capital.

Now like always, justification is never lacking for his politics of ‘emergency’ that would justify totalitarian State measures; once you’ve accepted the price of such intervention as justified and likely to achieve the results you want, in today’s world there’s no shortage of issues to tack this lust for iron-fisted measures on to. The logic of urgency, however, is a poor metric for the ecological struggles we need. The idea that we have only so many years, decades, or “chances” left only obscures the effects of the crisis that are already happening; just disproportionately to the poor, non-Western, non-human. Such clock-watchers base their forecasts on technocratic measures like CO2 particles that are determined on levels utterly out of our participation, leading us directly away from our own judgment and experience: for instance, in the ongoing struggles to defend land and simultaneously rejoin the life of what actually sustains us beyond the supermarket and internet, or against capitalist extraction projects; which such academics and (wannabe-)politicians haven’t been positively contributing to but now want to co-opt and lead, straight into the dust. And, as this reduces the successfulness of these resistances when we let this happen, it gives even more grounds to the authoritarians (Left or Right) who propose their more ‘radical’ solutions...

In Malm’s take, the anti-nuclear movement is ‘naïve’; yet his model rests on technologies that don’t even exist yet in forms that have shown results, and he ignores efforts like re-vitalisation of indigenous lifeways, restorative agro-ecology, commoning, etc. This isn’t surprising for the legacy he likes to see himself as representing: the Leftist project of seizing the reins of a global industrial order, the results of which he hypocritically decries; yet remains utterly attached to its world. This is far from an isolated symptom these days; it hits a nerve for the terrified citizens who buy his books. Furthermore, his strident defence of the State – and insistence on the primacy of its agency vis-a-vis the ecological crisis – comes at a time of a crisis of governance worldwide which anarchists would do well to push away from the State-form; but Malm offers the contenders for the outcome of this power vacuum a new legitimacy, an ‘eco-Marxist’ flavour serviceable for the same project of infinite technocratic accounting that the progressive (we don’t mean this in a positive light) parts of the capitalist system are already clamouring for. He ignores the actual fault-lines like borders – which, as a Statist, he can only favour – which have been and will be some of the first flash-points as ecological collapse gains speed. Each argument for totalitarian responses invigorates others; we can see for example how in Germany among the supporters of the most restrictive COVID-19 regulations was the federal leader of the Green Party, proposing the governance of the state of emergency as “the model” for “the configuration of climate change”, praising Chinese “management of the pandemic”...

While we disagree that the struggles Malm should support instead should be “non-violent (but not pacifist)” because we do not find it to be a useful conception or restriction, as we’ve made clear since our very first chapter, and we’re not sure exactly what “climate justice” would mean in this context, we find it important to extend the reach of this piece as much as possible; including, to the degree we can, to the youth and others recently becoming active in the fight for a dignified life and a flourishing ecology we could call home. Artwork was supplied by the author, with a couple of additions from us. We welcome feedback at returnfire@riseup.net – also, to see the articles referenced by title throughout this text in [square brackets], consult chapters of the current volume of Return Fire (vol.6). PDFs of Return Fire and related publications can be read, downloaded and printed by visiting our website.*

– R.F., Winter Solstice 2021 * returnfire.noblogs.org

[karagin22]

Europe has gone, and Asia - surrendered to authoritarianism, nonsense like the 'leader principle', totalitarianism, all the bonds placed on liberty which treat men as so many economic and political units with no importance as individuals. No dignity - do what you're told, believe what you are told, and shut your mouth! Workers, soldiers, breeding units... A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and _nowhere_ else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world... aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure." From politics I have come to believe the following: (1) Most people are basically honest, kind and decent. (2) The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. The do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator. (3) Americans have a compatible community of ambitions. Most of them don't want to be rich but do want enough economic security to permit them to raise families in decent comfort without fear of the future. They want the least government necessary to this purpose and don't greatly mind what the other fellow does as long as it does not interfere with them living their own lives. As a people we are neither money mad nor prying. We are easy-going and anarchistic. We may want to keep up with the Joneses -- but not with the Vanderbilts. We don't like cops. (4) Democracy, or a Republic, is not an automatic condition resulting from laws and constitutions. It is a living, dynamic process, which must be worked at by you yourself -- or it ceases to be democracy, even if the shell and form remains. (5) One way or another, any government that remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way -- prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs. Hitler's government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their franchise. (6) Representative Democracy is the most efficient form of government ever invented by the human race. On the record, it has worked better in peace and in war than fascism, communism, or any other form of dictatorship. As for the mythical yardstick of 'benevolent' monarchy or dictatorship -- there ain't no such animal! (7) A single citizen, with no political connections and no money, can be extremely effective in politics. From Take Back Your Government - A Practical Handbook for the private citizen who wants democracy to work. By Robert A. Heinlein.

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Derrick Broze sits down with Jason and Matt to discuss the various power structures in the world and how they tend to push humanity into totalitarianism with the current system pushing the construction of a technocratic police state.

Listen Here: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/podcast/podcast-derrick-broze-epstein-elon-cults-the-world-economic-forum

#TheFreeThoughtProjectPodcast

[grandhotelabyss]

As someone who appears to have undergone their intellectual formation during the capital 'T' Theory era, closely associated with a chic and predominantly discursive radicalism (the left of the left of the left), how did you begin to grow increasingly skeptical of this milieu and its orthodoxies? In my experience, most of those we now label as "theorycels" feel that abandoning this tradition would equate to a wasted life, especially given the extensive reading involved.

Thanks! It's a big question. In some ways I'm less skeptical of theory now than I've ever been (I assume you mean poststructuralist theory). I entered college with The Western Canon and Sexual Personae under my arm, so I began my tertiary education by being very wary of it. I've always had a dispositional dislike of theory as a literary style: the dogmatic tone coupled with the extreme abstraction, so that the law is being laid down, except that you don't quite know what it says. Even Foucault complained of Derrida's style that it represented "the terrorism of obscurantism." I hated the smug way theory was used in English departments to discredit literature as a machinic combination of preexisting ideologemes, to banish the sense of ineffable inspiration and world-transforming mission so many major writers themselves have always testified to—to discredit literature as one discourse among others, rather than the queen of the discourses, which it is (and if you can't say it is in an English department, where the hell can you say it?).

By the time I entered graduate school, though, theory was on the way out in English departments, to be replaced by various forms of historicism and other kinds of sociological and reductive "cultural materialist" approaches and the digital humanities. These approaches are far more anti-literary than theory ever was—especially if you actually read theory's primary sources, figures like Barthes and Deleuze, and find out how much more romantic and psychedelic they actually are in contrast to their literal-minded, puritanical Anglo translators and redactors. At least theory understands, as historicism does not, that the inner plurality and polysemy of every major text guarantees that the text by definition exceeds, defies, transforms its context, including its past and its future.

Theory has always had a hostility to the state that infuriated Marxists—I take theory to be a late Cold War manifestation of anti-communism—and therefore it made a brave showing against the totalitarian technocracy of the pandemic era, so much so that at least one would-be technocrat wrote a whole book to denounce it (see the link to my review of The Revenge of the Real below). It can also furnish resources to scrutinize the claims of the identitarian left (cf. "Postmodernism Is Good, Actually"). (That it also helps us to criticize the biologism and Social Darwinism now so fashionable on and adjacent to the right today should go without saying.) Its bracing anti-humanism is refreshing in the face of the "therapeutic society." Michel Foucault would not advise us to "trust science" and might be skeptical that we can "have" a gender, and Jacques Lacan thinks our vaunted "trauma" stems from our induction into the order of language and that therefore there is no real treatment except to play with language.

It's still not my preferred reading material, though—too dry, too abstract (though no more or less than Hegel, Kant, Spinoza; a lot of people who don't like "theory" just don't like "philosophy," and I have my days, too). Paglia's critique of theory was entertainingly external, a stand-up comic's brutal mockery. But Bloom was friends with Derrida and de Man, so I take his criticism more seriously: that theory deadeningly codified the insights it plundered from imaginative literature, which it then turn around (resentfully) and attacked. Derrida was "French Joyce," said Bloom, and Foucault "French Shakespeare." I tried to make this very point in my doctoral dissertation:

The wager of this study is that such novel-theory has, in my view, mistaken its own genealogy. I particularly want to engage the skeptical tradition of novel-theory because I hope to substantiate the claim that its own posture of suspicion toward subjectivity is first articulated in and by the novel of Aestheticism, which will become the modernist novel proper. How, after all, can critics so astutely observe the operations of ideology if they do not claim some distance from its demands, just as Pater and Wilde did when they declared art autonomous from social claims? My argument about the Aestheticist novel as thinking form can be summarized as follows: by declaring its distance from apparatuses of state, church, and market, the novel under Aestheticism claims for itself a privileged vantage from which to produce critical knowledge about these institutions using its own procedures rather than relying tautologically on those of the hegemonic forces it contests. Furthermore, in developing those procedures, it reflects critically upon them too, becoming a recursive form of criticism that examines its own entanglement in the relations it criticizes. Because of this reflexivity, autonomous literature may be complicit with ideology but can never be fully identical to it. In short, the modern novel looks more like the kinds of bold, agential theory written by critics such as [D. A.] Miller and [Nancy] Armstrong than one would guess from reading their works.

Paglia's right, though, that it has no sense of nature and little sense of spirituality and is finally too impoverished a vision. I agree with D. H. Lawrence that the proper place for philosophy is probably the novel. We could talk about exceptions to all my criticisms—Foucault is lucid, Deleuze is wild, Barthes is novelistic—and overall I find the achievement of those thinkers, insofar as I understand it, to be mixed.

Some of my further thoughts on theory can be found in my essay on Foucault and my essay on Lyotard, while my attack on the tendencies that succeeded theory in literary studies and on the American left at large can be found in my essay on Franco Moretti and my essay on Benjamin Bratton. And you probably won't want to miss the chapter in my novel Portraits and Ashes where a company of academic critics spend pages debating the significance of an art installation before it turns out that the installation's purpose is to slaughter its audience—my horror-comedy version, perhaps, of art's superiority to theory.

[metaphysicalpistolsoraclemine]

Within all the heated controversy, the unveiling of the One World Order through the global implementation of an assortment of AI networks all for achieving complete Technocratic Totalitarianism by 2030 is underway. The agenda of full cognitive capture through digital means is escalating now.The plan for Agenda 2030 is hidden in plain sight and now many more of us on the earth need to be awakened to this so we are informed about consent and understand what these anti-human forces are doing in order to achieve these dystopian goals. They only have the power that we give them.

This is a heightened spiritual battle that is taking place on the ground in the west, and through the physical world there is also the visible battle occurring in plain sight to gain complete control over our minds, it is the battle for installing satanic ideology into the mainstream without any limits, into every day technology which strips individual human beings of their dignity, divinity and personal freedom. The battle is happening for laying the full infrastructure required for the Techno-Totalitarian world, which is essential for the next stages they plan to implement which are ongoing mandated nanochip infested Vaccinations and plans for directed evolution, Eugenics and finally, Transhumanism.

Current examples of the reset are being made through the intended operation of using the internet-hive net for global surveillance, data collection, mind mapping, economic restructuring, and facial recognition systems that are designed to be fully functional within the complex infrastructure build out of the internet of things and smart cities by 2030. This wish list plan for Technocratic Totalitarianism supplies an unlimited range of possibilities for the Controllers to manipulate the data in these AI transmissions for the purpose of implanting thoughts, eliminating dissenters and gaining complete control over human brains, essentially creating a synthetic Hive Mind and compliant population.

Primarily, the Black Sun groups have been experimenting on humanity for many years with an assortment of Artificial intelligence and black box quantum computing technologies for the purpose of moving the collective consciousness towards AI controlled Groupthink, which is similar to connecting human brains to the internet. This system is referred to as the Brain Net or Hive Net. The NAA want to connect all human brains to artificial intelligence systems as the means of total and complete human consciousness enslavement, in order to monitor and manipulate all electromagnetic activity of the human brain to fully collect the data for the purpose of controlling the Timelines.

[techniche]

The vision of the WEF (merged with the UN in 2020 in a Treaty signed by Guiterres) can be traced all the way back to H. G. Wells. H. G Wells was not just a science fiction author. He was a lot more. A member of the Royal Society. He helped shape much of Darwinian propaganda in his day. Tutor to Aldous Huxley and Julian Huxley. Julian was famous for coining the term Transhumanism. He also went on to establish UNESCO). Aldous Huxley famous for his science fiction world, but also his mind control experiments with the CIA and the Tavistock institute

The vision that Wells depicted in his books, such as the New World Order and The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution, envisioned a one world technocratic government run by social engineers, experts and scientists.

H. G Wells was also a member of the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society was established in the late 1800s. This Society has attracted many a British coterie of Malthusians and eugenicists who envision a global societal order run by a managerial elite

Lord Bertrand Russel, Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, Aldous Huxley, George Bernard Shaw (one of its founders), Julian Huxley, Maynard Keynes... All members of the Fabian Society.

To this day, the Fabian Society is still the driving force behind Britain's labour party. And the Society has a branch in Canada, established by 5 Rhodes Scholars.

Through what channels did Wells envision this one world government would take form? One of many... one of them includes the control and collectivization of all wealth... and the means through this is via big business - via mergers and monopolization. Capitalism, and the centralization of capital, for Wells was one of means by which the governing of all human subjects will be realized. The UN calls this private public partnerships (P3). A variant of facism, or state corporate merger. It will be Big Business that will mobilize the workers, as stated in the white papers of the Vatican sponsored Council for Inclusive Capitalism...

Hint hint... BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street hint hint

Wells once said:

"Collectivization means the handling of the common affairs of mankind by common control responsible to the whole community. It means the suppression of go-as-you-please in social and economic affairs just as much as in international affairs. It means the frank abolition of profit-seeking and of every device by which human beings contrive to be parasitic on their fellow man. It is the practical realization of the brotherhood of man through a common control"

The vision of the WEF is very much in line with the vision of the Fabian Society which is in line with the UN, and Agenda 30.

This vision of the world is being challenged primarily by Russia and China - who still believe in national sovereignty, and for nations to determine their own destiny in the absence of a global imperialistic elite who seek to undermine national governments and to impose a totalitarian world order under the directorate of the world governing bodies

[thecatholicbozo]

"What is really sought, human closeness, overcoming of loneliness, union with another personal being - all that can be had only in real love. ...For love - above all, eros - is by nature something that cannot be fitted smoothly and easily, without problems, into the functional context of utilitarian plans.

...Human personality forbids being "used" for the ends of others. Yet in consumer sex, which deliberately fends off love, the partner is regarded purely as a means and instrument. Hence the human face is not seen at all (this ignoring of the other may be quite mutual).

Complete absence of human warmth is almost requisite. Consequently, in such detached sexuality there is hidden, despite all the outward show, a measure of frigidity in the clinical sense of the word.

There is also, insofar as the relationship of person to person is concerned, an element of violence and a tinge of exactly that same "totalitarian coldness" which pervades the atmosphere of dictatorships and of purely technocratic societies - in which there is no room for the "green thing" called love, so that again the human being is driven to the one seemingly open but, in fact, deceptive escape route of isolated sex consumption.

...The consumer is made to believe that sex is the same thing as eros and that all the gifts of eros, all the joyful raptures of "togetherness" can be had in sex consumption."

-Josef Pieper, essay On Love, 1974

[kynndr3dd-synn3]

If the "human-induced climate change" narrative was actually concerned about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, its proponents would embrace nuclear power.

The fact that they don't REVEAL THEIR TRUE PURPOSE as a mere pretext to replace national sovereignty, representative democracy and individual liberty with a totalitarian, centrally-planned one world government, ruled by unelected globalist technocrats, installed increment by increment under the guise of "saving the planet".