| Tweetovi |
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
18 h |
|
Third world countries ‘gained independence‘ in the sense that, after the wars, it became untenable for the Western powers to monopolize them, so they agreed on a way to share them instead. This became the ‘international order’ of trade and finance with its familiar institutions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
18 h |
|
The ‘free world’ is the liberal imperialist clubhouse. The ‘global market’ is their shared pool of imperial conquests. The international system is the set of institutions that keep this all running. It developed in response to the world wars and works well.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
18 h |
|
The liberal world order is basically Anglo-American imperialism but adjusted to accommodate other developed countries. Those developed countries adopt the Anglo-American system of government and in return get access to a shared pool of imperial conquests (the rest of the world).
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
19 h |
|
Our task is not to be build something wholly new but to remove liberalism’s obfuscatory mechanisms, to reveal what lies beneath them, the true sources of our power. This we will then enhance, in full self-awareness of our own capabilities and with open-ended ambition.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
19 h |
|
One thing anti-liberalism (and anti-capitalism) of the past got wrong is taking too many of the claims of liberalism at face value. Every state is by necessity an unitary entity; liberalism isn’t an alternative political system, it’s an alternative propaganda regime.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
Nobody sane would organize a real corporation the way America Inc is organized, with one exception: America Inc has some similar design features to the way black projects are organized to ensure that everyone involved remains maximally in the dark about what’s going on.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
The nation-state-as-a-corporation has an org chart, showing how all the departments connect together. In America Inc the media department is connected to the think tank department which is connected to the defense department, etc. It’s convoluted, opaque.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
Think of the nation-state as a big corporation, like the way we used to talk of ‘Japan, Inc’. All of the institutions, regardless of whether they present themselves as ‘private’, ‘public‘, ’independent’, etc, are departments within this big corporation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
What little truth there is to the claim of ‘independence’ in the US media – that its direction at the behest of the state is rendered opaque through the use of intermediaries – makes the system epistemically worse and not better. A state media would always do better.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
The fact that, e.g., in the US the state directs foreign policy coverage in the media via think tanks funded by the defense industry doesn’t make it more likely to be truthful. Just the opposite, this is clearly a WORSE system than simply having the state direct it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
There are steps in anti-liberalism:
1. You notice liberal ideals lead to some perverse outcomes (questioning)
2. You realize liberal ideals don’t make sense (rejection)
Most people stop here, but the most important step is:
3. You ask what those fake ideals are for (horror)
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
The goal of liberalism is nothing less than the complete annihilation of the human spirit. This is not something it’s really possible to be honest about. It therefore requires a special sort of ‘double propaganda’ where you first convince people they’re uniquely free.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
Given that the US media is not any more ‘independent’ than the Chinese or Russian media, why does that same media spend so much time and energy trying to convince people that it is? Because the US has vastly more nefarious intentions than China or Russia.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
It’s easier to convince you that, e.g. “our censorship isn’t like their censorship”, if I mislead you about both. ‘Illiberal’ states are assimilated into a narrative that is useful for liberal propaganda purposes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
If you know anything about China, Russia, etc, you’ll know that the media misrepresents them. But what’s more interesting is HOW they’re misrepresented. It’s not just a bias against those countries, it’s an attempt to create a contrast, to mislead you about how things work HERE.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
3. velj |
|
”Western media isn’t like Chinese media, it’s independent and not subject to state control.” Yeah, who told you that?
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
2. velj |
|
Our media does nothing other than propagandize, but part of the propaganda - repeated endlessly - is that it is NOT propaganda, only the media of other types of political regime is propaganda. That was the one trick needed to reduce the population to unthinking acceptance.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
2. velj |
|
Our media is indistinguishable from the media of the totalitarian states that constantly related everything to the greatness of communism or fascism. It's just relentless "liberal democracy is the only way" propaganda. It's incredible that anyone thinks otherwise.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
2. velj |
|
Because liberalism is a propaganda discourse, it's not really trying to give good explanations. It just seeks to relate events to the institutions liberals demand others adopt. Any given event is related to elections, free press, rule of law, etc, regardless of the causality.
|
||
|
|
||
|
scientism
@mr_scientism
|
2. velj |
|
Our institutions run into problems every day, almost none become an election issue and very few ever make it into the press, yet we ROUTINELY solve these problems. The regulatory role of liberal institutions is obviously limited, yet we talk as if it was pervasive and necessary.
|
||
|
|
||