Timothy Birdnow

Here is a long and interesting essay that half gets it. I have a number of issues with this writer's views but overall he's starting to awaken.

He argues that the sea change we've seen in America in recent days is largely the work of Barack Obama and while Obama certainly put many of the formal structures in place these tactics predated the coming of The One. While the author admits that he doesn't seem to grasp that this has been a century long project that has labored to implement the Ruling Class dream of world government and international socialism. Obama was merely one brick in that wall.

Obama, with the aid of David Axelrod, simply updated century-old tactics used by Marxists and Fascists the world over, updated these to work in the age of the internet. But what he did was no different than what Hitler or Mussolini did; they all co-opted the big corporations and government, forging a seamless whole that worked tirelessly to promote the new vision for their respective countries. Peer pressure and twisting the educational system, along with the use of the new electronic media, was a hallmark of fascism and naziism and this is essentially no different.

Lies are the natural medium for tyrants and dictators, and gaslighting the public is exactly what they have alwasy done. For example, Gaius Caligula left Rome at the head of an army to much fanfare to conquer Britain. He got a few miles from town, turned around, grabbed some farmers to represent British captives, and then marched triumphantly into Rome, proclaiming he had conquered Britain. The public cheered wildly and pretended to believe what they knew was a lie because the repercussions would be dire.

Caligula was batcrap crazy, of course, and everyone knew this was balogna. But it is fundamentally no different than what this author is discussing; an attempt to make people believe a lie to empower those in a position of authority.

And none of this is much different from the tall tales and legends that grew up around some political leaders. Take "honest Abe" the railsplitter who used his homespun background to great advantage while implementing a rather tyrannical system (Lincoln suspended the rule of habeas corpus, for instance, and imprisoned newspapermen who wrote unflattering stories about him or his government) but who today is "the Great Emancipator" and considered the savior of "democracy". Lincoln knew how to play the game. Other examples are both Roosevelts, who pretty much gaslit the American People. (In fact, Franklyn was in a wheel chair but the media refused to report that to the public).

The reality is the press turned hard left long ago, with the PUlitzers and Hearst competing to see who could out-Progressive the other and the two divied up the nation's news outlets. We've had a hundred years of media monopoly. Then when the internet came along the U.S. government funded the creation of Google and probably Facebook too, and these two entities now own most of said internet.

What Obama did was not new; it was just the natural next step.

(BTW Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the rise of the technocracy in his Farewell Address. Do read it all.)

This author seems to be looking at this too much through the lense of politics and technology but seems to miss the big picture. Groups like the John Birch Society have long chronicled a rising technocratic/commercial conspiracy and were mocked for their troubles. Yet this seems to be what we have seen come in recent years. Cold comfort to the Cassandras in the JBS, I'm sure.

The author says "every form of totalitarianism is unique" but I disagree. They are pretty much all the same, except they have different details that inform how they oppress. But the methods are always the same, and always advancing as technology gives them an ever-tightening grip.

The Nazis were not just about Jew hatred. They were socialists who wanted government's hand in everything and wanted the state to be God. Mussolini - a Fascist, granted, which is different than a Nazi - famously stated "everything within the state, nothing outside of the state" which is the exact same philosophy as any marxist holds. The key difference between Fascism and Marxism is that the state does not own the means of production outright (yet) and believes in using Man's natural spirituality - something the marxists reject in favor of economic determinism alone. But otherwise their goals were the same. Naziism too.

And the Nazis looked quite modern if you understand what they believed. They were big into environmentalism (before the word was coined) and set aside large swaths of land for parks and nature preserves. In fact, part of why they hated Jews was because of this environmentalism; they believed in Darwinian Natural Selection and thought of Jews as an "invasive species" that needed to be weeded out. They also wanted only public education. They also were health Nazis, seeking to control the public diet and force people to exercise. They also wanted to contro the media and ban the Church or seriously regulate it. They hated smoking. They regulated industry to the point where only major corporations under their thumbs were allowed. Many of the Nazis were homosexuals, I might add, and many promoted promiscuity even while holding double standards about how this was practiced.(The double standard was evident in the Nazi relationship to homosexuals; the effeminate types were condemned and mistreated while the butch gays were a sizable portion of the Nazi party, most notably Ernst Rohm.)

All of this is seen in our modern era and also much of it was practiced by the Bolsheviks and many other leftist tyrants.

I would add the Bolsheviks were anti-semitic too, as is our current modern Democratic Leftists.

The author also seems to ascribe to an old, rather riduculous theory, that people did not have internal monologues in ancient times but that this is a mdoern construct of recent centuries. I first encountered this theory in a college psychology course and thought it ridiculous at the time and still do. That the Greeks and Romans and Hebrews don't mention internal monologues hardly disproved their existence. Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes. He claims that ancient humans heard voices like schizophrencs from the right hemisphere of their brains and that was the way the gods came into existence; people assumed they were hearing a separate entity when in fact it was just the right side of their brains talking to them. Somehow this was lost in the rising modernity and we now subsume the right side of the brain. That is utter hogwash without any evidence, if you ask em. How did this change then? It wouldn't have. Oh, and the right hemisphere lacks a language center so cannot speak verbally. People with split brain syndrome show that.

Still his argument isn't wrong; he believes the Left is trying to degrade consciousness and put an outside entity in charge of our thought process. (Well, Orwell and Huxley both said that long ago.) As he puts it, it's institutionalized schizophrenia.

And we see that in the young today, who are always on their smartphones and do not seem to have an original thought that does not come out of a machine. They are the ultimate slaves; their thoughts are not their own.

The author rightly points to Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter as a major turning point; the power of mind control only works as long as everybody is on board. Like a leveee; you can't have one setion open or the flood waters will pour in. Once Musk came into the picture and liberated one of the cornerstones of the leftist media control the dominoes began to fall.

But they aren't fallen yet and the Left will begin anew, make no mistake.

The author (David Samuels) came to his senses over Obama's policies to Iran, and he touts Netanyahu's strong stand as a key to the crunbling of the "permission structure". Perhaps but I think it was inevitable; Netanyahu had to protect his own country and just couldn't continue the farce.

But it was certainly another jenga piece removed from the dark tower.

I wrote about just why the Left loves Muhammed and this explains why Obama (probably Muslim himself) promoted the Ayatollahs to the detriment of the rest of the world. Islam was the model for the Left since socialism was first invented by Rousseau at the dawn of the 19th century. Obama and company naturally seek to support it.

In the end if this "New World Order" with the artificial reality really is finished I would ascribe that to God and not Man. Enough people prayed for Divine intervention, clearly. IF.

At any rate, do read the whole essay; it's worth your time, even if it is a bit too long.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1495 words, total size 10 kb.