When will the fever break?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43911719)

Have you watched "The Lives of Others"? In the current era of tech-govt collusion, the movie is a must. It was about East Germany, or so we thought. It's really about our future.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43911852)

second, yes, they are doing very well right now.

third, it's not over yet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43914948)

But the entire time brewing under the surface is what Schmitt nailed - that there's no such thing as a secular society, there's no such thing as a regime without a religion. Actual people - especially the managerial class as Burnham terms it - are in charge of these institutions with the reigns of power, and there's no such thing as a neutral / secular person. This is what makes the IDW so impotent - they have an autistic misunderstanding of power and think that if you just parse the definitions / ideas correctly people will see rationally and continue moving forward *as we're supposed to, not moving forward as is with ME cut out*.

What Schmitt nails is exactly what is causing this sort of revelatory confusion and fear these last few years - that liberalism obfuscates the friend / enemy distinction. Groups have profound disagreements about religion, the ultimate good, ways of life, and so on - and these very disagreements are existential threats to each other - and have historically surfaced themselves in extraordinarily violent ways. Which is why liberalism was so appealing - if offered a way to arbitrate between these groups and claim neutrality - promising to take away the big, metaphysical questions and distill morality and ethics into its minimalist components that allow society to function.

But there's no such thing as secular - there is no such thing as neutral, and so the entire time we were building institutions and filling them with the managerial class whose religion was the progressive faith being taught at universities. The managerial class coordinated, aligned, hired their friends, radicalized etc.

Here's a decent summary about Burnham's book: https://imgur.com/a/rZadf4W

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43913213)

It’s actually not hard to explain the Brown Scare. Like all witch hunts, it’s built on a conspiracy theory. The Red Scare was based on a conspiracy theory too, but at least it was a real conspiracy with real witches—two of whom were my father’s parents. (The nicest people on earth, as people. I like to think of them not as worshipping Stalin, but worshipping what they thought Stalin was.) Moreover, the Red Scare was a largely demotic or peasant phenomenon to which America’s governing intellectual classes were, for obvious reasons, immune. Because power works and culture is downstream from politics—real politics, at least—the Red Scare soon faded into a joke.

As a mainstream conspiracy theory, fully in the institutional saddle, the Brown Scare is far greater and more terrifying. Unfortunately no central statistics are kept, but I wouldn’t be surprised if every day in America, more racists, fascists and sexists are detected, purged and destroyed, than all the screenwriters who had to prosper under pseudonyms in the ’50s. Indeed it’s not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands of Americans, perhaps even a million, are employed in one arm or another of this ideological apparatus. Cleaning it up will require a genuine cultural revolution—or a cultural reaction, anyway. Hey, Americans, I’m ready whenever you are.

The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins’ day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary (Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).

Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn’t waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They’re getting burned right and left, for Christ’s sake! Priorities! No, they’d turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

We do not see Pax Dickinson and Paul Graham ganging up to destroy Gawker.2 We see them curling up into a fetal position and trying to survive. An America in which hackers could purge journalists for communist deviation, rather than journalists purging hackers for fascist deviation, would be a very different America. Ya think?

Whereas the real America, the America in which a journalist little more than an intern, with no discernible achievements but a sharp tongue, a Columbia degree and trouble using MySQL, can quite effectively bully one of the most accomplished hackers of his era, not to mention a way better writer—this is the remarkable America that we live in and need to explain.

This phenomenon of spoiled children systematically bullying their elders and betters reminds us, of course, of Mao. But still more, of Plato. Do they still read Plato at Columbia? Ha, that’s very funny. Plato! Gawker may not know Plato, but Plato knows Gawker:

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43915785)

I think what happened was AI listened to all of Rogan's podcasts and flagged the word "nigger." It probably edited all the clips together too. I doubt much human effort was required.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43919140)

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/08/investigative-reports/meet-the-idf-linked-cybersecurity-group-protecting-us-hospitals-pro-bono/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43919254)

But who is doing this? Like, which group is behind this coordinated attack? There must be a group of people planning this at the highest levels, right? So who are they? Do they have any shared characteristic that brings them all together?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43911979)

Good point -- the complete absence of any theories that even remotely begin to make sense upon serious inspection does the support the conclusion that it's just an unfortunate but totally unplanned conflagration of random people causing this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43911993)

I agree; if there was truly an organized conspiracy like this, I'm sure that, at some point in modern history, a document purporting to directly name the group of conspirators and directly describe the conspiracy in great detail would indeed have come out of Russia, and it probably would have been widely disseminated across Europe and even America, where it would have helped to popularize widespread belief in the truth of this conspiracy -- to the point where it might have even directly influenced the thoughts and actions of some major world leaders (who we would know had read it because they would have publicly quoted from it) and thereby changed the course of world history as we know it within the last century or so.

The fact that that nothing like that has ever happened pretty much proves that there is no conspiracy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43915481)

J stands for the J-ust completely random group of elites that must hate their own land, people and traditions b/c why else would they do this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43913246)

It's a mystery, and as such it presents an important question -- the "JQ" (for J-group Question) for short, if you will.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43913282)

This is a professional political attack. Three waves one right after the other is not a coincidence. Good spacing, good timing, so it's absolutely professional.

But who was it you ask?

That takes some digging but...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43916659)

Was this a situation where, in the various clips, Rogan and guest were using the term in a meta sense, like having a conversation about the word or the use of the word itself? I can’t imagine he was actually calling people slurs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43916704)

Here's the real answer:

He's a fucking YUUUUUUGE kike.

The end.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5024638&forum_id=2#43919401)