After the first few paragraphs I began to see why some thus-aligned communities would dash the white observor's brain over the dusty ground and return to life's 'phases' without further undue interruption.
As it happens, for the past fifty or so years, I have lived within such a culture, in North East Arnhem Land, north Australia. Yes, under the tutilige of one's mother's eldest brother, (uncle/Ngapipi), such a move from the community occured for a couple of years, but it was hardly liminal. It was university and military training and yoga and selfawareness and discipline and environmental orientation and seminary, all in one. And this was preceded by a few years by entry into manhood. And it was also the indigenous social security system, the apprenticship transitioning to providieng food when the uncle became too old.
I just wish white people would go away if they ain't got the nouse to grasp the obvious. Advice. Learn the language first, then live within and learn by observation for 20 years, or don't walk here in the first place.
Liminality has its place, or at least some forms of it. It also seems to be where we can get in touch with the Higher, for better or worse (not everything "higher" is good) - an example of this would be the age-old tension in religions between the mystic or saint and the rigid order of codified religion. Liminality can also help finding oneself, with the necessary danger of losing oneself. Rites of passage are an example, or the Amish "Rumspringe".
However, the project to replace society with a permanent state of liminality is pure madness, and might literally invite rule-by-demons. The glorification of liminality at the expense of structure and order was the first step, and look where we are now.
Theophilus conflates natural limits with forced or created limits.
Control or governance requires rules and order. If a new 'ruler or ruling class' wants to rise it must change the existing order, hence a liminal space is created between old and new.
This is entirely different and contrary to nature and natural liminal space.
To obtain "Order out of Chaos" you must first create "Chaos".
For instance the new World Health Organisation "Pandemic" rules, which would turn the whole world into an Orwellian 'Big Brother" society could not have been dreamed of before the Covid nonsense.
The thing that Theophilus omits is the fact that these changes are not 'organic' and the outcome of [I love the new word] 'Transgressives' but a deliberate and well established plan of action, by [a handful of] conspirators. The Transgressives are mere useful idiots, often paid, but moronically sincere. Foot soldiers to be discarded as soon as their usefulness is over, the Gulags await.
-
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965), US Supreme Court Justice, (1939)
“So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. “
– Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister
(1804-1881)
"There is something behind the Throne greater than the King himself."
Sir William Pitt (1708-78),
-
Their plans have been in place for centuries in the form of secretive clubs, organisations and societies. [Masons, et al.]
But sometimes they emerge into the open and tell you what they are doing.
-
"The future human being is a mestizo."
from: Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi: Practical Idealism (German version: Praktischer Idealismus), 1925, p. 22)
In 1923 he published his manifesto “Pan Europe” which states that an International Pan-European Union was founded. With this manifesto the Pan-European Movement was started, the precursor of Europe of Maastricht and of the European union. This is the main part of the realization of the criminal “Kalergi Plan”. Mr. Kalergi was calling the concept of a “Pan Europe” and “Pan Europe-ism” the meaning of “Unification of all nations of Europe under one single state” – with the side intention that continental Europe should be changed by the integration of different foreign races and cultures. In this way a cosmopolitan Europe should be created, multi cultural, multi racist and eventually all should be mestizos.
In his first written manifests between 1923 and 1925 the Kalergi Plan was stressing that the Jews would take over the power, first in Europe and then in the whole world. The plan is basing on a Jewish, utopian racism and is referring to a Jewish “master race”. The expression “master race” with which Mr. Adolf Hitler was describing the Arian race was used by Mr. Coudenhove Kalergi to claim the Jewish supremacy in Europe and on the whole world. He is also using the term “Jewish noble race” again and again. The purpose was to form a Jewish Empire. Therefore Mr. Kalergi was claiming the abrogation of the right of self-determination of the peoples. After that the nations should be destroyed by a fast migration in masses, or also by movements within Europe by “ethnic” separatist movements like Catalonian separatism or like Basque separatism. Europe should be formed in a way so the Jews could dominate it. The precondition for this should be the pretension to convert the ethnic homogeneous population into mixed groups with whites, Negroes and Asian people. These mestizos should have the characteristics like cruelty, infidelity and more characteristics which – according to Kalergi – should be created deliberately and which would be absolutely necessary to reach a Jewish supremacy.
-
Frankfurt School
Moved to Columbia University NY in 1935.
Declared plan to bring about new society (1941-6)
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of
‘pansexualism’ ~ the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women.
To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance ~ hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
'We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'
-
To fix a problem, you first have to understand it.
Of course by identifying and publicly denouncing the people behind the problem, you will be cancelled, if you are lucky, and removed [a la JF Kennedy, R Cook, and countless others] if you are unlucky.
The devil is in the details. The current legt does not just seek to Break down any and all order. Its attacks are almost entirely focused in natural, social, traditional etc. forms of order, but never on the order of the actual existing power structures.
Rights for those living in 'liminal spaces' has always been a subject of concern for anyone who has ever cared for someone who lives mainly in such a space and as such I think it's a mistake to think the current push to break every barrier down is the natural consequence of feminism and gay rights. What we are seeing now with the troon putsch is a top-down, billionaire/govt backed project that, as you point out, includes the breaking down of all boundaries: national, ethnic, religious, human, child/adult, etc.
It's an attempt to destroy and recreate humanity into something these 'elite' perverts think will enable their total control of a disorganized, despairing populace for power, fun and profit. There are many on 'the left' who find this whole thing horrifying. It reminds me of the old Soviet plan that came out of the more fanatical parts of the politburo they never could implement to breakdown the family (identified by these freaks as the seed of capitalist ideation) and have the state raise children on farms. That idea looks almost conventional compared to the insane trans-humanism these clowns are pushing. I think the repugnant nature of their ideas will ultimately be their undoing as well.
So to complete my comment, some of the rhetoric of this piece, if it is truly interested in fighting against the troons, will leave a lot of potential allies cold. Overall I found it a useful analysis. Just because the trans-humanist agenda has come on the heels of the victory for gay rights doesn't mean it was inevitable. They are distinct phenomena even though the former was a necessary precursor to the latter: gay rights was a bottom-up movement that won over most of the culture through gentle persuasion of the basic humanity of homosexuals. The trans-humanist thing is top-down as can be seen both by the machine behind it and the character of it's demands: the billionaire-backed state will force it on you whether you agree or not.
Until we break the power-elite who are running this game it will continue and we will need as many on-side as possible.
In music, melody is often thought of as feminine and rhythm as masculine. The masculine's job is to contain the feminine and give it structure. A melody without rhythm is just incoherent wailing. As you point out, the left is intent on destroying all traditional boundaries. It starts with destroying the men.
So are the anonymous players effectively caught in limbo between fear of death and fear of a life that continues to oscillate between self loathing and hubris?
Is this why they cyborg experiment on humanity is happening? They want to learn whether through morphing the organic and inorganic that blood can be programmed, so that their heartless, spirit less moulds can be reprogrammed so that they can like themselves?
I think this article is good overall but I have one complaint. I think you're projecting your own sense of order onto modern liberalism. Specifically, when you say the "left" opposes nationalism and borders. Numero uno, there is no left – this is misleading. Mike Obama a socialist? LOL. 2. Modernism loves black nationalism. It loves Ukraine borders. It was gung-ho for Kuwaiti borders. Or Muslims-in-Europe borders.
Modernism is emptiness and irony. A modernist believes in nothing at all but her career and ego. Seduction and persuasion. This is why modernism is in a constant state of flux. You are implying there are a set of rules. There are no rules. Only emptiness, irony, narcissism and a desire for earthly power, because there is no other kind.
Sure, the left justifies its eternal project of destruction by invoking the "better world" rationale. That's the only way to enlist masses of normal people in their crusade. But I'd argue that the actual leftist project is just destruction of order simpliciter.
For example, take Marx's famous passage:
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
What is this but the transformation of all of life into a liminal space? Hunters, fishermen, and critics are definite things, manifestations of order. Marx would have us all floating between one role and another, never mastering one discipline but incompetently dabbling as the mood takes us.
But this is the key to the left's "better world" appeal. They play to a fundamental human weakness: the desire to be free of unchosen constraints. Essentially all of the left's propositions boil down to this. And these, in turn, boil down to the Lie that beguiled our first parents: "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
I think you're confusing two things: leftism's rhetorical appeal vs what it actually has to do in the world to not immediately collapse.
Once in a while, leftists actually try to implement something like Marx's ideal in that passage: they did this after the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, in periodic fads for free-love communes, in the various malignancies of the 1960s, and they are doing it again now. They always fail spectacularly, and a strongman like Stalin steps in to provide order. Later-stage Soviet Russia was a highly ordered (if inefficient) society, because it couldn't be otherwise.
But the utopic promise is the real engine of leftism, completely distinct from actual praxis. Even the imposition of order is justified in these terms; e.g. as a regrettable but necessary stage in the march to utopia. But the end itself just is the destruction of order, regardless of the high-flown rhetoric used to groom the normies.
If they really believed they are going to create a heaven on earth, like communism, high culture would reflect this. The managerial state would promote socialist realism or some form of a vision of it. Instead, the two highest paid artists in the world are Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons. They have no vision of a heaven on earth at all. You can apply this to all aspects of high culture.
I have looked it up. It is as I said. There doesn't appear to have been an official communist art before 1932. Just various artists, some, like Tatlin, Rodchenko, Malkevich, etc, doing anti-classical abstractions in various isms. They were rejected by the communists in both the USSR and Maoist China.because they, being abstractions, offered no utopian vision to the masses. This is well known.
After the first few paragraphs I began to see why some thus-aligned communities would dash the white observor's brain over the dusty ground and return to life's 'phases' without further undue interruption.
As it happens, for the past fifty or so years, I have lived within such a culture, in North East Arnhem Land, north Australia. Yes, under the tutilige of one's mother's eldest brother, (uncle/Ngapipi), such a move from the community occured for a couple of years, but it was hardly liminal. It was university and military training and yoga and selfawareness and discipline and environmental orientation and seminary, all in one. And this was preceded by a few years by entry into manhood. And it was also the indigenous social security system, the apprenticship transitioning to providieng food when the uncle became too old.
I just wish white people would go away if they ain't got the nouse to grasp the obvious. Advice. Learn the language first, then live within and learn by observation for 20 years, or don't walk here in the first place.
Liminality has its place, or at least some forms of it. It also seems to be where we can get in touch with the Higher, for better or worse (not everything "higher" is good) - an example of this would be the age-old tension in religions between the mystic or saint and the rigid order of codified religion. Liminality can also help finding oneself, with the necessary danger of losing oneself. Rites of passage are an example, or the Amish "Rumspringe".
However, the project to replace society with a permanent state of liminality is pure madness, and might literally invite rule-by-demons. The glorification of liminality at the expense of structure and order was the first step, and look where we are now.
Theophilus conflates natural limits with forced or created limits.
Control or governance requires rules and order. If a new 'ruler or ruling class' wants to rise it must change the existing order, hence a liminal space is created between old and new.
This is entirely different and contrary to nature and natural liminal space.
To obtain "Order out of Chaos" you must first create "Chaos".
For instance the new World Health Organisation "Pandemic" rules, which would turn the whole world into an Orwellian 'Big Brother" society could not have been dreamed of before the Covid nonsense.
The thing that Theophilus omits is the fact that these changes are not 'organic' and the outcome of [I love the new word] 'Transgressives' but a deliberate and well established plan of action, by [a handful of] conspirators. The Transgressives are mere useful idiots, often paid, but moronically sincere. Foot soldiers to be discarded as soon as their usefulness is over, the Gulags await.
-
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965), US Supreme Court Justice, (1939)
“So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. “
– Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister
(1804-1881)
"There is something behind the Throne greater than the King himself."
Sir William Pitt (1708-78),
-
Their plans have been in place for centuries in the form of secretive clubs, organisations and societies. [Masons, et al.]
But sometimes they emerge into the open and tell you what they are doing.
-
"The future human being is a mestizo."
from: Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi: Practical Idealism (German version: Praktischer Idealismus), 1925, p. 22)
In 1923 he published his manifesto “Pan Europe” which states that an International Pan-European Union was founded. With this manifesto the Pan-European Movement was started, the precursor of Europe of Maastricht and of the European union. This is the main part of the realization of the criminal “Kalergi Plan”. Mr. Kalergi was calling the concept of a “Pan Europe” and “Pan Europe-ism” the meaning of “Unification of all nations of Europe under one single state” – with the side intention that continental Europe should be changed by the integration of different foreign races and cultures. In this way a cosmopolitan Europe should be created, multi cultural, multi racist and eventually all should be mestizos.
In his first written manifests between 1923 and 1925 the Kalergi Plan was stressing that the Jews would take over the power, first in Europe and then in the whole world. The plan is basing on a Jewish, utopian racism and is referring to a Jewish “master race”. The expression “master race” with which Mr. Adolf Hitler was describing the Arian race was used by Mr. Coudenhove Kalergi to claim the Jewish supremacy in Europe and on the whole world. He is also using the term “Jewish noble race” again and again. The purpose was to form a Jewish Empire. Therefore Mr. Kalergi was claiming the abrogation of the right of self-determination of the peoples. After that the nations should be destroyed by a fast migration in masses, or also by movements within Europe by “ethnic” separatist movements like Catalonian separatism or like Basque separatism. Europe should be formed in a way so the Jews could dominate it. The precondition for this should be the pretension to convert the ethnic homogeneous population into mixed groups with whites, Negroes and Asian people. These mestizos should have the characteristics like cruelty, infidelity and more characteristics which – according to Kalergi – should be created deliberately and which would be absolutely necessary to reach a Jewish supremacy.
-
Frankfurt School
Moved to Columbia University NY in 1935.
Declared plan to bring about new society (1941-6)
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of
‘pansexualism’ ~ the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women.
To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance ~ hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
'We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'
-
To fix a problem, you first have to understand it.
Of course by identifying and publicly denouncing the people behind the problem, you will be cancelled, if you are lucky, and removed [a la JF Kennedy, R Cook, and countless others] if you are unlucky.
The devil is in the details. The current legt does not just seek to Break down any and all order. Its attacks are almost entirely focused in natural, social, traditional etc. forms of order, but never on the order of the actual existing power structures.
Rights for those living in 'liminal spaces' has always been a subject of concern for anyone who has ever cared for someone who lives mainly in such a space and as such I think it's a mistake to think the current push to break every barrier down is the natural consequence of feminism and gay rights. What we are seeing now with the troon putsch is a top-down, billionaire/govt backed project that, as you point out, includes the breaking down of all boundaries: national, ethnic, religious, human, child/adult, etc.
It's an attempt to destroy and recreate humanity into something these 'elite' perverts think will enable their total control of a disorganized, despairing populace for power, fun and profit. There are many on 'the left' who find this whole thing horrifying. It reminds me of the old Soviet plan that came out of the more fanatical parts of the politburo they never could implement to breakdown the family (identified by these freaks as the seed of capitalist ideation) and have the state raise children on farms. That idea looks almost conventional compared to the insane trans-humanism these clowns are pushing. I think the repugnant nature of their ideas will ultimately be their undoing as well.
So to complete my comment, some of the rhetoric of this piece, if it is truly interested in fighting against the troons, will leave a lot of potential allies cold. Overall I found it a useful analysis. Just because the trans-humanist agenda has come on the heels of the victory for gay rights doesn't mean it was inevitable. They are distinct phenomena even though the former was a necessary precursor to the latter: gay rights was a bottom-up movement that won over most of the culture through gentle persuasion of the basic humanity of homosexuals. The trans-humanist thing is top-down as can be seen both by the machine behind it and the character of it's demands: the billionaire-backed state will force it on you whether you agree or not.
Until we break the power-elite who are running this game it will continue and we will need as many on-side as possible.
In music, melody is often thought of as feminine and rhythm as masculine. The masculine's job is to contain the feminine and give it structure. A melody without rhythm is just incoherent wailing. As you point out, the left is intent on destroying all traditional boundaries. It starts with destroying the men.
So are the anonymous players effectively caught in limbo between fear of death and fear of a life that continues to oscillate between self loathing and hubris?
Is this why they cyborg experiment on humanity is happening? They want to learn whether through morphing the organic and inorganic that blood can be programmed, so that their heartless, spirit less moulds can be reprogrammed so that they can like themselves?
This is how I've come to understand liberalism/progressivism after discovering NRx. Good stuff.
I think this article is good overall but I have one complaint. I think you're projecting your own sense of order onto modern liberalism. Specifically, when you say the "left" opposes nationalism and borders. Numero uno, there is no left – this is misleading. Mike Obama a socialist? LOL. 2. Modernism loves black nationalism. It loves Ukraine borders. It was gung-ho for Kuwaiti borders. Or Muslims-in-Europe borders.
Modernism is emptiness and irony. A modernist believes in nothing at all but her career and ego. Seduction and persuasion. This is why modernism is in a constant state of flux. You are implying there are a set of rules. There are no rules. Only emptiness, irony, narcissism and a desire for earthly power, because there is no other kind.
Sure, the left justifies its eternal project of destruction by invoking the "better world" rationale. That's the only way to enlist masses of normal people in their crusade. But I'd argue that the actual leftist project is just destruction of order simpliciter.
For example, take Marx's famous passage:
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
What is this but the transformation of all of life into a liminal space? Hunters, fishermen, and critics are definite things, manifestations of order. Marx would have us all floating between one role and another, never mastering one discipline but incompetently dabbling as the mood takes us.
But this is the key to the left's "better world" appeal. They play to a fundamental human weakness: the desire to be free of unchosen constraints. Essentially all of the left's propositions boil down to this. And these, in turn, boil down to the Lie that beguiled our first parents: "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
I think you're confusing two things: leftism's rhetorical appeal vs what it actually has to do in the world to not immediately collapse.
Once in a while, leftists actually try to implement something like Marx's ideal in that passage: they did this after the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, in periodic fads for free-love communes, in the various malignancies of the 1960s, and they are doing it again now. They always fail spectacularly, and a strongman like Stalin steps in to provide order. Later-stage Soviet Russia was a highly ordered (if inefficient) society, because it couldn't be otherwise.
But the utopic promise is the real engine of leftism, completely distinct from actual praxis. Even the imposition of order is justified in these terms; e.g. as a regrettable but necessary stage in the march to utopia. But the end itself just is the destruction of order, regardless of the high-flown rhetoric used to groom the normies.
If they really believed they are going to create a heaven on earth, like communism, high culture would reflect this. The managerial state would promote socialist realism or some form of a vision of it. Instead, the two highest paid artists in the world are Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons. They have no vision of a heaven on earth at all. You can apply this to all aspects of high culture.
"Previous socialist art was very different."
Which previous socialist art are you talking about?
I have looked it up. It is as I said. There doesn't appear to have been an official communist art before 1932. Just various artists, some, like Tatlin, Rodchenko, Malkevich, etc, doing anti-classical abstractions in various isms. They were rejected by the communists in both the USSR and Maoist China.because they, being abstractions, offered no utopian vision to the masses. This is well known.