Common Sense 319 – A Recipe for Caesar

[heydaralon]

Please elaborate.

I think he refers to the worship of the elite. The technocrats work like the socialist intelligentsia. The know what is "best for everyone" mostly meaning what is best for themselves. In the grass roots they have a lot of followers, useful idiots who want to turn over all the power to them, so they don't have to think for themselves.

When the Communists take over, the Intelligentsia (Socialist or otherwise) are first against the wall.

My kingdom for a skilled technocrat.

If you look at the history of Progressivism, how it started, the messianic Christian ideas (virtually identical to communism's) behind it, you will see for yourself. Many Progressives loved and admired Stalin and Mao. Many still do. The ideology of the media and academic elites aint new. The Cathedral has been around for a long long time.

The fact that the intelligentsia would be killed first by communists just shows how little thought these "experts" have really put into their belief system.


Also, I remember awhile back when you came on here and said some extremely hurtful things to me. If you think I've forgotten that, think again pal. I compiled many of your comments into a private message and showed them to Martin. He promised me he will look them over and decide what further action needs to be taken against you.

[C-Mag]

I'm only about 20 minutes in, but Rogan and Weinstein are talking about this very theme we are talking about with Dan

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think he refers to the worship of the elite. The technocrats work like the socialist intelligentsia. The know what is "best for everyone" mostly meaning what is best for themselves. In the grass roots they have a lot of followers, useful idiots who want to turn over all the power to them, so they don't have to think for themselves.

When the Communists take over, the Intelligentsia (Socialist or otherwise) are first against the wall.

My kingdom for a skilled technocrat.

If you look at the history of Progressivism, how it started, the messianic Christian ideas (virtually identical to communism's) behind it, you will see for yourself. Many Progressives loved and admired Stalin and Mao. Many still do. The ideology of the media and academic elites aint new. The Cathedral has been around for a long long time.

The fact that the intelligentsia would be killed first by communists just shows how little thought these "experts" have really put into their belief system.


Also, I remember awhile back when you came on here and said some extremely hurtful things to me. If you think I've forgotten that, think again pal. I compiled many of your comments into a private message and showed them to Martin. He promised me he will look them over and decide what further action needs to be taken against you.

As ever, the road from X to Communist must wind through the broad and ill-defined term Progressive. Just about anything can be the New Communists.

And, not for nothing, but "if you look a the history of..." is the same argument that "slavery and racism are in the DNA of America, 'cause history." A little tasty genetic fallacy, some bandwagon fallacy, and bing bang boom, everyone is either a communist or a racist, or whatever.

[heydaralon]

When the Communists take over, the Intelligentsia (Socialist or otherwise) are first against the wall.

My kingdom for a skilled technocrat.

If you look at the history of Progressivism, how it started, the messianic Christian ideas (virtually identical to communism's) behind it, you will see for yourself. Many Progressives loved and admired Stalin and Mao. Many still do. The ideology of the media and academic elites aint new. The Cathedral has been around for a long long time.

The fact that the intelligentsia would be killed first by communists just shows how little thought these "experts" have really put into their belief system.


Also, I remember awhile back when you came on here and said some extremely hurtful things to me. If you think I've forgotten that, think again pal. I compiled many of your comments into a private message and showed them to Martin. He promised me he will look them over and decide what further action needs to be taken against you.

As ever, the road from X to Communist must wind through the broad and ill-defined term Progressive. Just about anything can be the New Communists.

And, not for nothing, but "if you look a the history of..." is the same argument that "slavery and racism are in the DNA of America, 'cause history." A little tasty genetic fallacy, some bandwagon fallacy, and bing bang boom, everyone is either a communist or a racist, or whatever.

This is well documented. James Ostrowski wrote an excellent really short primer on this. Another short book is Illiberal Reformers by Thomas Leonard. If this is something that you are remotely interested in, you should check them out. They do a far better job explaining this than I would. John N Gray has also written quite a bit about the early foundations of Communism and Western Academia's response to it while it was happening. The list of academics and Leaders pop up a lot in both movements. There is quite a bit of overlap.

At its most stripped down version, progressivism thinks society needs to be saved and that big government using social engineering can achieve this salvation. This is a playoff of the Messianic idea of Christianity and the viewing of history as a redemptive process (another Christian idea) instead of the idea that it is cyclical (a pagan one).
Now compare that to communism, whose founders also borrowed Christianity's myths. In fact, Engels viewed Thomas Muentzer's radical Christian peasant revolt of the 16th century as a prototypical communist society. In order to reach the salvation of a egalitarian society, we must use the government to bring about socialism, which also saves society and will help usher in the utopia. In heaven on earth, we won't even need a gov't, because everyone will be enlightened and equal.


The
Leninist vanguard idea is eerily similar to Progressivism too. Progressives attempt to save the masses via "experts" and academics, whereas Lenin and Mao did it via a small cadre of revolutionaries. Both Communism and Progressivism rely on these technocratic types and are contemptuous of how the masses think and feel that they will drag them kicking and screaming into heaven on earth.

The progressive movement is not only tied to communism, but its early proponents were also hardcore eugenicists too, another form of social engineering. Stalin was also very interested in changing the genetic code of man and create super soldiers (he actually tried to do this by breeding man and gorillas. The logistics of this I am not sure of)This is also well documented.

Fundamentally, Progressives and Communists want to make society in their own image, and are both post Christian religious cults. You can argue (and probably be right) that neo liberal or economic systems that use the free market as an aspiration are also rooted in religion but that is a separate matter.

[heydaralon]

Hanarchy:






You should also look at logical positivism. August Comte and Henri De Saint Simon were hugely influential to both Marxists and Progressives. Again, they drink from a very similar ideological well.

A book that explores this is John N. Gray's Al Qaeda and What it Means to be Modern. Its a bit dated, but it is an excellent primer on the subject (Not too long either, less than 150 pages). Once you identify what Positivism is, you will start seeing it everywhere. Its been around for a quarter of a millenium and has gained a shitload of traction with policy makers, academics, and media elites.

[C-Mag]

Please elaborate.

I think he refers to the worship of the elite. The technocrats work like the socialist intelligentsia. The know what is "best for everyone" mostly meaning what is best for themselves. In the grass roots they have a lot of followers, useful idiots who want to turn over all the power to them, so they don't have to think for themselves.

When the Communists take over, the Intelligentsia (Socialist or otherwise) are first against the wall.

My kingdom for a skilled technocrat.

The WHO, CDC and Dr Fauci are perfect example of technocrat elites.

They stalled calling this a pandemic because they wanted to keep globalist trade models going and didn't want to give a black eye to China. This cost us lives, and in the case of Italy particularly, a lot of lives. There was no reason why we didn't have strong warnings and preparations going by Mid-January.

What we got instead was the WHO saying there is no evidence of human to human transmission, which was Bullshit. The CDC and NHI went along with that.

Then when they finally called it a pandemic, it was basically too late already. Everyone knew it was a pandemic by the time they mad it official.

Dr. Fauci came out with 2 Million deaths, then he went to 200k deaths. That's a reduction by 90%, a change by a factor of 10.

These people are not Experts, and you should take their pontifications with skepticism.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If we are counting, I am pretty sure Fauci has said fewer untrue things than the Great Leader.

Maintaining global trade is, perhaps, not an evil conspiracy be evil gub'ment shills, and is in fact a sensible thing to do if we would like to continue living in the luxurious conditions to which we have all become accustomed.

@darlon

I am familiar with positivism, I am curious how Technocrats are the "new communists." Is it just "works in and with a government?

[StCapps]

I am curious how Technocrats are the "new communists." Is it just "works in and with a government?

They think they know better than everyone else, so this entitles them to tell everyone how to live, because it's for their own good. Just like communists.

Technocrats are the useful idiots the Commies use to impose their agenda, until they start saying things that oppose that agenda.

This is why the communists love technocrats until they have fully seized control, then they are the first to be lined up against a wall and shot. They use the technocrats to seize power, and then eliminate them as threat to them continuing to remain in power.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am curious how Technocrats are the "new communists." Is it just "works in and with a government?

They think they know better than everyone else, so this entitles them to tell everyone how to live, because it's for their own good. Just like communists.

Technocrats are the useful idiots the Commies use to impose their agenda, until they start saying things that oppose that agenda.

This is why the communists love technocrats until they have fully seized control, then they are the first to be lined up against a wall and shot. They use the technocrats to seize power, and then eliminate them as threat to them continuing to remain in power.

By that reasoning, every king, every priest, and every average narcissist is a communist. Sort of an overly broad way of defining communist.

As for the re st of it, you sure use the words Technocrat and Communist together in sentences a lot, but there isn't a lot of actual information in either of those statements.

[StCapps]

As for the re st of it, you sure use the words Technocrat and Communist together in sentences a lot, but there isn't a lot of actual information in either of those statements.

Go look at the aftermath of The Russian Revolution. That's exactly what happened to useful idiot technocrats, the left eats it's own, Koba Knows. You think this is all new, or something?

The technocrats aren't just the new communists, they are old communists as well, or at least the useful idiots of the communists pushing their propaganda.