New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 34
A common operational tactic of Woke Marxists is to weave a long narrative arc about what’s happening in society through media and education and then to give “proof of worldview” by plugging useful events into that mythology to spur mass line activism and direct action. That is, they fit events into narrative arcs that have been strategically laid ahead of time. If you can spot the narrative arcs and how they work, not only can you refute them, you can also predict what kinds of events would count as “worldview proof” and interrupt their success. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay breaks down the strategy and gives some useful advice for spotting and desynchronizing narrative arc fitting operations. Join him to learn to beat this tactic.
Additional episodes of New Discourses Bullets can be found here.
Subscribe to New Discourses Bullets on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee or by RSS.
4 comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuXZoWeAVDM
The idea of narrative arc has good potential & its good to see you looking to make some terms James. I’m just trying to see how its understood without sentences like ”the woke create this narrative arc” & so on. These architectures are templates the establishment place out there for woke activists to take advantage of. The main force that has powered everything along has been artificial adaptations to consensus theory. In other words the establishment has been able to create its own consensus. That sounds obvious, but i’m not sure these things are well understood when needing to be phenomenologically structural, which is what this ‘narrative arc’ would be.
So really NAF is a counter woke veridical for plugging the artificial force into Empty Consensus making it full = their unnatural invocations.
You are speaking in terms of an legitimate use of phenomenology with abuses via consensus. theories. As you are still weak in phenomenology you’ve mixed up some concepts. For instance it would be better if it were a consensus arc, since narrative isn’t optimised given the linguistic strategy would actually be a epiphenomenal aspect of this Arc – which itself requires a precise phenomenological description in terms of its matrix and algorithm. Therefore it does not help to place an narrative concept linked to the apologists themselves, in a position where the design is. That would be like mixing up Apollo 11 with the Moon.
The thing is the chit chat the WOKE use to terrorise the world and the machine isn’t the same. WOKES do not know what they are going to say until the machine says it for them. After this they never know why they are saying it. Later still they never know why its changed & they are not saying it anymore. You are kind of creating a higgs boson that gets propaganda out to the woke with this concept.
Thus you should describe the machine ( the phenomenon ) . And you should describe the Epiphenomenon it creates among the woke itself. Otherwise you’ll be doing what you are doing = describing both in a mish mash. That will greatly reduce the effectiveness of your phenomenological output.
In phenomenology we know the the source and we know the sea. Social engineering runs from source to sea James.
Thanks for doing it though its excellent & will develop as you’ll like it to iff you try harder.
A few thoughts come to mind on this matter:
There’s something called ‘rain making’ where a rainmaker (in other words someone with a theory of rain) claims that if he does this or that, rain will happen. If rain happens then he takes credit, but if there’s no rain then you need to pay him again to encourage it to rain; not enough ‘rain making’ was performed. Eventually, it rains and he takes all credit. The rainmaker’s theory of rain is impossible to falsify, has no predictive power but ostensibly ‘fits the facts’, i.e., it always explains why it rains.
In a way, this example highlights both how cheap explanation is epistemologically speaking and how valuable prediction should be in determining truth claims.
Similarly, the Woke takes credit for every particular instance of police brutality, which can (apparently) be generalised in support of their theories, which explain all. The counterfactual (if police aren’t being brutal) only means they’re either hiding it, have not had an opportunity today, or they’ve ‘recentered’ their privilege by being ‘nice’ to black people, or some other such nonsense. At any rate, there’s no way to test or falsify their theories about ‘white supremacy’ vis a vis the police. There is only explanation. Everything is a priori.
Of course, society isn’t a lab so prediction can be a problem practically, but that’s one good reason to be suspicious of grand social theories of which Critical Theories are but one flavour.
You could certainly appeal to lower-level social theories (such as middle theory) for why particular police (whether that be individuals or departments) may be bad, and this may predictably point to the right way forward for police reform. Such theories are much simpler, assume less and are somewhat testable compared to Marxian/Critical Theories. However, they don’t offer the same level of pathos or the drama of good vs evil battle. They don’t have the glamour, in other words.
True society isn’t a lab.
Unfortunately there is cause to suspect that global establishments is viewing the masses as if in a maze & acting according to the impulses of place cells. In fact if James had look at that neuroscience first he’s have had a better chance if getting over this narrative arc idea.
In phenomenology you need a matrix i.e the field of extension concerning causation. And you need an algorithm, the producer field or range of inputs which can influence causation.
We have to face the fact that in the globalists case, they found a way to form many different fields of causation via race sex and gender. Luckily they all have a shelf life and decay, wokes soon start to emotionally disintegrate and are so nuts they shatter at the sight of one new wrinkle.
Thus just for instance.
Current and recently past counter woke has largely remarked on the intense irrationality and contradiction thats been the driver of WOKE. It only stands to reason that an ongoing and evolutionary way counter woke would significantly begin to understand the inevitable mental health crisis that must ravage WOKE. Obviously it is a very sick global regime. & CW’s shall have to watch out for how the establishment try to obscure that crisis – but it WILL be there. Much of this is true on RACE – with black people descending into hell over being condition learned to hate all white people via White Fragility. And similarly the gender lot, who are showing every trait of codependent sociopathy i.e hating each other. They were condition learned via the use of Metaphysics, and are showing signs of psychically attacking each other via methods of Witchcraft.
So sht hitting fans big time already as the hard work the establishments did is ‘going off’ at increasing rates.
Its hard for the globalists to come up with replacements. So they’ll try to fortify and repair the existing Woke structures In that sense they’ll before ever more shaky scaffolds, as they are patched. Potentially new young woke will be witnessing as much distressing and deeply disturbed mental health phenomena from WOKES old bangers heading for the scrap yard as they will any motivating forces from them. ‘WOKE; the phenomenon – will start to look like the special place in hell it was always designed to be, but NOT in the way the establishment want it to be anymore.
In short its got a global sized – harrowing looking -victim of its own success phase to endure next. that will suck so much the new generation won’y know where to do all that throwing up.
OLD BANGERS OF WOKE. OBSOLETE OLD WANKERS of all genders by 30 that look 50 and are as crazy as a box of frogs.
Most of them will be so messed up they’ll not be there anymore. Thus the globalists will throw more money at FAKE WOKE. People in in distant countries sweat shops posting cut & paste around the MSN.
Counter work philosophy needs algorithmic thinking in mind that can use accurate probabilities. To do that requires phenomenological grasp & a lot more self control than we’ve seen so far.