Brandon Camping

James Lindsay will never recover from this

A little note about the myth of Lucifer. Lucifer means "light-bringer" (or "light-bearer") and originally refers to the planet Venus when it is visible in the morning sky. It rises in the East before the Sun and can be bright enough to cast thin shadows. When Venus appears in the eastern sky ahead of the sun, it is sometimes referred to as the "Morning Star" or the "Day Star," and was regarded in the ancient world as a herald of the incoming day and light of the (true) Sun. This thinking precedes any mythological understanding of Lucifer as the proudest among fallen angels or his equivalence to the devil or Satan. That particular line comes from post-Exilic Judaic thinking, likely influenced by Zoroastrian considerations and myths but incorporated otherwise. We see this appearing in the book of Isaiah, in particular. In Isaiah 14:12-15, we read this, although it's actually about the King of Babylon and addressed to Jacob: 12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” 15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (The original Hebrew text says Helel ben Shahar ("shining one, son of the dawn" or "day star"). Of course, Jews would interpret this as a complete rebuke against and warning against the heights of human pride and the desire to establish any man as "Most High" (just ask any observant Jew why the men wear the Kippah). God will lay low any who believes he is elite enough to ascend above all others or God Himself (or reality itself, for that matter). One might recognize it as a rebuke of maniacal "elite theory," to use some modern language. Christian interpreters later drew from Luke 10 and Revelation 12 to interpret this portion of Isaiah otherwise and more cosmically: as the story of Satan's fall from Heaven and into Hell. So the myth of "Lucifer, the light-bearer," literally as the "Morning Star" or "Star of Day," came to be associated with Satan. Later Christians connected this idea of Lucifer as Satan to the Serpent in Eden in Genesis 3 and connected the idea of the "Morning Star" as a form of deception and invitation into false or hidden secret spiritual "knowledge" (gnosis, so Gnosticism). Venus as the Morning Star thus became associated in Christian mythological thought with Lucifer and, in particular, with deception into false enlightenment, in particular "awakening" on Lucifer's terms, not God's. Lucifer appears ahead of the true Sun and true light of day, that is, true belief in God, and offers a taste of that light while actually still in the darkness. It's a nice metaphor and potent image: waking up ahead of the true dawn to a little bit of dazzling light while still being in the dark. This myth goes on to be taken very literally in the Gnostic cults before they were put down (though they never really went away, did they?). God, the Creator, is interpreted as a liar and a demon in the Gnostic myths, and Lucifer, as above, is treated as the first truth-teller Man ever encounters. Lucifer, as "light-bringer" is the liberator who boldly dares to defy the tyrant God to bring "true" spirituality to Man (in open defiance of God). These Gnostic myths later got incorporated into all kinds of goofy things through the Middle Ages in Europe after being reintroduced in Provence in the 11th century after the First Crusade, eventually into the motifs of thought that inspired "philosophers" like Rousseau and Marx and the demonic fraud Helena Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy and the Theosophical Society. Many of the dumbest ideas of the 19th century in Europe are directly the result of this myth being taken in its Luciferian (Gnostic) inverse. In my reading, virtually all of the esotericism that is woven into what we call "Woke" today is precisely of this flavor. Saul Alinsky, of Rules for Radicals fame, made it explicit by offering the following epigraph in the introduction to that wretched book: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer." So, do I think that "Woke" is Luciferian? Yes, certainly, by organization and in intention, and sometimes deliberately by intention. Whether we read the mentality in the pride of the King of Babylon in Isaiah, interpret it as later Christian thinkers did and warned about, or recognize its esoteric but also deliberate and sometimes explicit embrace in the Gnostics through the Social Esotericists and Elitists we call "Woke," the Luciferian spirit is undeniably there. Woke includes the "saying in one's heart" that they will "ascend" through their superior "understanding" of human reality. It is a proud and false awakening where a little bit of dazzling light shines in darkness. It is an insistence that the world operates, or should be forced to operate, on one's own "awakened" terms. It is Sociognostic. And that's without attaching the (again, post-Exilic) Jewish interpretation of Satan to this same character: accuser, prosecutor, deceiver, and (especially to Christians) Father of Lies. That is, it is also evil, deceptive, and accusatory on false and contrived terms and tempting to indulge in our own worst impulses and consider it superiority. In conclusion, this is what "Luciferian" means, and, yes, absolutely, Woke is Luciferian. (JLWR)

Earlier today, I explained that what we see from Tucker Carlson, et al., is ultimately Critical America Theory, which many people found clarifying. To add some depth, I want to explain that at the heart of every critical theory is a lunatic totalist conspiracy mentality. We can start where we started earlier, with Max Horkheimer's characterization of his Critical Theory. He invented Critical Theory in 1937, adapting it from the Marxist tradition of ruthless critique. He described it this way (paraphrasing): "We [neo-Marxists] developed the Critical Theory when we realized that it is not possible to describe the good or the ideal society on the terms of the existing society, but we can criticize those elements of the existing society that we wish to change." This characterization is very important because it reveals the ultimate character of all critical theories: looking for "problematics" in society that don't live up to some imagined ideal society that likely cannot even exist but can still be used as a reference point against which to complain about reality, often senselessly. Briefly, how? How can you use something that isn't real as a reference point? By believing things like "we don't know what an ideal America would look like, but it wouldn't have racism." Then you send people out looking for anything they can consider racist and get them to "problematize" it because the ideal society wouldn't have that happening. That's how. The thing is, Horkheimer's characterization also reveals the true structure of all critical theories: they're conspiracy theories. The belief in the Critical Theory is that the whole of society in every regard is so captured by the ruling classes and powerful interests that you don't even have the tools you'd need to describe an alternative. That is, powerful interests control everything, and they do so in a way where people don't realize it. In fact, they don't even have the conceptual tools to imagine an alternative. And the ruling classes benefit from that situation, so they like it that way, and they keep it that way, sometimes on purpose. The two sides of this mentality are "critical consciousness" for the people who are "Woke" to the Critical Theory and "false consciousness" for the people who aren't. The conspiracy the powerful interests in society run is alleged to be so complete that people literally misunderstand their reality. Give that a second to sink in. That's the totalist part of the lunatic conspiracy theory. The belief that Critical Theory is based on is that the powerful are so in control of society that: (1) nobody at all has the conceptual tools to imagine or articulate an alternative vision; (2) nobody BUT THEM even know this is happening. That's really important because what it means is that everyone is a dupe except the Critical Theorists. That means nobody is actually capable of understanding, much less managing, their own lives and circumstances except the Critical Theorists. Depending on the critical theory in question, different powerful interests allegedly control society (again, to such a degree that nobody except the critical theorists themselves even know it, and such that nobody can articulate an alternative). (Critical) radical feminists, for example, believe that society is totally structured by a male-dominated force called "patriarchy" that benefits men. It is enforced, they say, by another force they call "misogyny," which means hating women. Critical Race Theorists believe society is totally structured by a white-dominated force called "white supremacy" that benefits white people. It is enforced, they say, by another force they call "systemic racism," which they alone can detect (in literally everything). (Critical) Queer Theorists believe society is totally controlled and structured around people who deem themselves "normal" to the exclusion of everyone "queer." This is enforced by a wide variety of structural forces called "normativities," such as "heteronormativity," the completely made-up "cisnormativity," and "thinnormativity," which ultimately hold that there are norms and that's at least sometimes good. Critical America Theory, which I discussed earlier, has two main modes, which we could call "Left" and "Right." The "Left" mode believes that America is controlled by a conglomerate of powered interests including capitalists, nationalists (whom they call "Fascists"), and all of the "privileged" groups in the whole Intersectional pantheon of victimized identities (called "minoritized groups"). The "Right" mode believes that American is controlled by a conglomerate of powered interests including the Leftists and their Intersectional victimhood paradigm and its beneficiaries, globalists (the "managerial elite"), Jews, and, well, capitalists. Both of these modes hold out that the powerful interests completely control the social, economic, and political lives of Americans, and that Americans simply don't know it because it's not possible to talk about it because, allegedly, the powerful interests will shut you down or ruin/"cancel" you if you do. Even though they all do all the time pretty much exclusively while screaming that they can't. These two models are more or less completely diametrically opposed on all issues except Jews and capitalism. The "Left" mode is pro-Intersectional while the "Right" mode is reverse-Intersectional (same model, but privilege is good now). The "Left" mode is pro-globalist while the "Right" mode is nativist-nationalist. Both modes believe capitalism enables the whole problem and that Jews are participants in the problem (though in different ways). "Left" Critical America Theory believes capitalism restrains people in the name of making money (puts money over people) and that Jews are part of the oppressor category that allegedly harms poor Intersectional victims, including the imaginary people known as "Palestinians." Most of this blame is displaced onto Israel, not Jews directly, which is blamed for "genocide" and such, narratives that can be traced at least in part to Soviet propaganda efforts and Islamist agendas. "Right" Critical America Theory believes capitalism is too licentious in the name of making money (puts money over people) and that Jews form a shadowy cabal of powerful and all-controlling hidden interests (that advance their own "Jewish" (national) interests over those of their "host" nations). Most of this blame is displaced onto Israel, not Jews directly, which is blamed for "genocide" and such, narratives that can be traced at least in part to Soviet propaganda efforts and Islamist agendas (with plenty of Nazism mixed in). The point is that these are totalizing conspiracy theories, so in addition to everything that obviously implies, it also means that they cannot be refuted. Any attempt to refute them is merely to reassert the theory of capture and to defend the system of power that prevents people from knowing the "truth" (believing the critical theory). For instance, refuting a feminist is just another way of asserting patriarchal control and attacking women. Refuting a Critical Race Theorist is having White Fragility which is a kind of covert racism they uncovered in you. Refuting a Queer Theorist is forcing norms upon them that cause them harm and make them s-word-icidal. Refuting a "Left" Critical America Theorist is having sold out to capitalist interests or defending one's own privileged status in the system (or "supporting genocide"). Refuting a "Right" Critical America Theorist is believing making money is more important than people, being a shill, or having been bought off, captured, or blackmailed by Jews, Israel, the Jewish lobby, or the allegedly powerful interests that are controlled by these (or "supporting genocide"). I'm sure you're familiar with all this crap, but you might not have known that it's a direct consequence of the structure of the Critical Theory itself. Once Horkheimer laid out that the raison d'etre for the Critical Theory in the first place is that the "very terms of the existing society" are captured by powerful interests and ruling classes, that means that all refutation of the Critical Theory itself is just further proof that the Critical Theory is right that the whole system of sense-making permitted by the ruling classes is captured. Guys, this is idiocy. It isn't just idiocy, though; it's also evil idiocy. Very evil idiocy. Destructive idiocy. It's also easily replicable by people who are just playing in the incentive structure of the cynical logic of the Critical Theory mindset, so while some of the participants pushing us in this direction know exactly what they're doing, most either don't or, at the very least, don't have to. What should you do? Learn to recognize it. Mark it. And avoid it. And help others to do the same.

What you see almost endlessly from Tucker Carlson, "Comic" Dave Smith, Theo Von, etc., and the rest of the blackpillers amounts to a Critical America Theory. I'm not making this up. I'm explaining. Critical Theory was developed by neo-Marxist Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School in 1937. In an interview in 1969, Horkheimer explained what the Critical Theory is. He said (closely paraphrasing): "I developed the Critical Theory because we [Western neo-Marxists] realized we cannot articulate the good or ideal society on the terms of the existing society. What we can do is criticize those aspects of the existing society that we wish to change." In other words, a Critical Theory believes everything is so captured and corrupted by power and those who benefit from systems of power that it isn't even possible to talk about a better situation in clear terms. All that's available is criticism of why the system/society isn't better than it is. This activity has come to be known as identifying or "making visible" the various "problematics" in the existing system. A Critical Theory OF SOMETHING would focus this general mode of engagement into a particular domain. For example, a Critical Theory of Race in America would believe that racism is so endemic to a society and embedded within its systems to the benefit of whites that we cannot articulate a true "antiracist" vision on the terms available to us. All we could do is identify where "racism" manifests and criticize it for being there. We call that program "Critical Race Theory" because it is a Critical Theory of Race. What it does in practice is (1) identifies "hidden racism" in everything (criticizing those elements of the existing (racial) system they wish to change), called "identifying problematics"; (2) induces more people to think this way; nothing else. What a Critical America Theory would look like is not being able to articulate what a good or ideal America would look like on the terms of the existing America but criticizing those elements of America as it exists that we wish to change. That is, it would look for everything America isn't doing perfectly according to some ideal standard that doesn't exist, probably cannot exist, and cannot even be articulated and "make those problematics visible" in the hopes of changing the system. Leftists, including the whole of Critical Race Theory, do this endlessly. From Derrick Bell's (founder of CRT) 1970 book, Race, Racism, and American Law, forward, it is a relentless racial Critical America Theory. That's why it exported poorly and often hilariously to other countries that don't have the same law or racial history. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (1980) is another example, a very naked example, of a work of Critical America Theory. Specifically, this book goes through every chapter of American history, from pre-founding (Christopher Columbus) to the present (1980 at the time) and catalogues how America cheated "the people," mainly workers, indigenous, racial minorities, and women (the intersectional coalition). What I'm telling you is that the blackpillers of Podcastistan and X, etc., very notably including Tucker Carlson, are doing a socially conservative variation on Critical America Theory. Whether Carlson or "Auron MacIntyre" (nhrn) from The Blaze, the undertone of every message is plainly "you don't hate your (real) country enough" as compared against an imaginary ideal that doesn't, can't, and won't ever exist. The Blackpill Comics all do the same thing, relentlessly identifying "problematics" and alleged hidden systems of control that delegitimize the country as it actually is against a standard that isn't even real. The thing is, Critical America Theory is a Critical Theory of America. That is, it is a Critical Theory. That is, when you participate in this slop, you are taking on a critical consciousness about America. Having a critical consciousness is being WOKE, by definition (of Woke). This slop is Woke. When this Critical America Theory slop takes on a socially Leftist slant, we call it Woke Left (or just Woke). When this Critical America Theory slop takes on a socially conservative or Rightist slant, we call it Woke Right (which is just Woke too). They are both Woke. They are both toxic. They are both false enlightenment into a kind of terrible darkness, entitlement, malice, despair, hatred, and failure. Reject Critical America Theory. Love your country. It's great, and it's worth it.

Ok, the lines at the airport are really something. Never seen anything like this anywhere in the world. This is happening because the Democrats want to keep illegal aliens in the country and make people angry at Trump and ICE.

Watch the full clip, it’s worse than advertised: 1. He says the West sucks because White people hate Black people. 2. He blames ISIS and terrorism on Western colonialism. 3. He wants total debt forgiveness.