I have a few confidantes who contact me for private discussion or send me articles, etc. I was sent an excerpt from a Washington Examiner piece titled, “Archaeology of Freedom,” by Geoff Shullenberger, which looks into the question many have asked: what happened to “The Left?” My friend sent me this section, the last three paragraphs of the article:
My initial thought is that the left has never been ideologically married to anything but power and control. It is always about dismantling the current social order to place itself in its stead, and once in the seat of power, abusing that power and embracing all the worst totalitarian instincts.
They only care about freedoms in any capacity when it is their desires being limited. They do not wish to honor your freedoms, they do not care about others in any capacity that outside their own benefit.
I think the left is fracturing, to be sure, into camps, some of which are aligned with the dissident right, because they're fellow dissidents, but it's really tricky. I find Graeber frustrating for similar reasons that I find Chomsky frustrating - when they're actually engaging their own theory, they're more solid than most on either side, in the pursuit of human freedom, but they bail on it in various degrees, when they get outcomes that challenge their moral intuitions. But I agree with you on Graeber maybe being a stronger voice than Greenwald. But then, the empowered left has sidelined and innoculated the herd against Greenwald, so who knows. They're getting pretty good at, not so much "information control" as much as "standpoint control." They're getting folks to censor their own eyes pretty well. Had someone refuse to watch Lex Fridman's interview of Jay Battacharya on lockdowns, despite the latter having sat on NIH funding panels and having been involved in virology research for decades, and not at all being a "fringe" player. That sort of "I won't look at your bad source" is shades of "huh, this thing you just said is also what this Koch funded person said" which is the same sort of social herd immunity against ideas.
That said, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are some nice whitepills among the dissident strain, and I hope that continues.
I do not expect anything positive to occur as far as liberty or freedom goes until people have been pushed beyond the brink of personal destruction. I do see the masses being pushed and corralled more and more everyday, but the schooling and national pride is still too strong for the masses to realize government is their enemy and they do not have to obey.
It will not take a large number of people to retake the concept of freedom. But make no mistake, it must be taken because it will not be returned or given.
Technology provides the means for people to strike back from 300 plus meters distance. When the right people have reached their breaking point and decide since they have already lost everything, they have nothing else to lose, it will begin to get interesting. At that point the lowest rung of the decision-making tree will begin being forcefully removed.
As more and more government chess pieces are taken off the board. Government will respond, which will result in more chess pieces being taken off the board. This is going to happen, it just depends where it starts and how widespread it becomes.
I do not think it will take long before the different chess pieces hide and the entire charade is exposed. The problem is, will it be televised or buried?
My initial thought is that the left has never been ideologically married to anything but power and control. It is always about dismantling the current social order to place itself in its stead, and once in the seat of power, abusing that power and embracing all the worst totalitarian instincts.
They only care about freedoms in any capacity when it is their desires being limited. They do not wish to honor your freedoms, they do not care about others in any capacity that outside their own benefit.
I think the left is fracturing, to be sure, into camps, some of which are aligned with the dissident right, because they're fellow dissidents, but it's really tricky. I find Graeber frustrating for similar reasons that I find Chomsky frustrating - when they're actually engaging their own theory, they're more solid than most on either side, in the pursuit of human freedom, but they bail on it in various degrees, when they get outcomes that challenge their moral intuitions. But I agree with you on Graeber maybe being a stronger voice than Greenwald. But then, the empowered left has sidelined and innoculated the herd against Greenwald, so who knows. They're getting pretty good at, not so much "information control" as much as "standpoint control." They're getting folks to censor their own eyes pretty well. Had someone refuse to watch Lex Fridman's interview of Jay Battacharya on lockdowns, despite the latter having sat on NIH funding panels and having been involved in virology research for decades, and not at all being a "fringe" player. That sort of "I won't look at your bad source" is shades of "huh, this thing you just said is also what this Koch funded person said" which is the same sort of social herd immunity against ideas.
That said, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are some nice whitepills among the dissident strain, and I hope that continues.
I do not expect anything positive to occur as far as liberty or freedom goes until people have been pushed beyond the brink of personal destruction. I do see the masses being pushed and corralled more and more everyday, but the schooling and national pride is still too strong for the masses to realize government is their enemy and they do not have to obey.
It will not take a large number of people to retake the concept of freedom. But make no mistake, it must be taken because it will not be returned or given.
Technology provides the means for people to strike back from 300 plus meters distance. When the right people have reached their breaking point and decide since they have already lost everything, they have nothing else to lose, it will begin to get interesting. At that point the lowest rung of the decision-making tree will begin being forcefully removed.
As more and more government chess pieces are taken off the board. Government will respond, which will result in more chess pieces being taken off the board. This is going to happen, it just depends where it starts and how widespread it becomes.
I do not think it will take long before the different chess pieces hide and the entire charade is exposed. The problem is, will it be televised or buried?