Displaying posts with tag Articles.Reset Filter

Public post

Marxism is a Cult Religion

by James Lindsay

All Marxism is cult religious.

All Marxist “theory” begins by believing it uniquely knows what human beings really are (socio-spiritual beings), into what they have been thrown (a mundane world of property ownership, imposed identity, and suffering through scarcity), and to what we must return (a truly social society that transcends individualism). Because Marxists fundamentally believe they know the true and secret socio-spiritual nature of humans whereas (demonic, Demiurgic) social forces have conditioned everyone else not to know them, they feel uniquely entitled to power for the purpose of remaking man into who he is. This explains most of their behavior.

The ultimate goal of Marxism isn’t economic, political, or social control, as most would believe. Those are merely means to its end. Its ultimate goal isn’t even power, though it worships power as the constitutive force of reality. Its ultimate goal is to direct the socio-spiritual evolution of Man. Socio-spiritual in the sense that Man’s true spiritual nature manifests in his social relations. This is the idea of the “New Man” Marxists always speak of. He is Man spiritually evolved to remember who he truly is, a truly social and creative being that is one with all others in his species and, indeed, all of Nature.

This means that Marxism is just a particularly nasty, vindictive, and deceptive form of Gnostic theosophy, a cult religion. Laid bare of all its details in whatever form, economic, racial, sexual, whatever, it is a drive to seize power to direct the spiritual evolution of Man. Everything else it argues is either rationalization or excuse, none of it is real or legitimate because none of it does anything but serve its actual purpose in whichever moment of resistance it finds itself in.

What is meant by “direct the socio-spiritual evolution of Man”? In a word, eugenics. Marxism intrinsically practices eugenics, though not necessarily on the “crude” physical level (mundane) but on the more refined spiritual level they believe they uniquely understand. In practice, a lot of the crude part comes out by necessity. The goal is to prune out of mankind those unfit to evolve spiritually to the higher collectivist levels and to transform the rest into socio-spiritual Marxists.

In theosophical cults, Man is believed to have forgotten who he really is by virtue of some Fall. He is truly Spirit and One with God and thinks himself otherwise because of the distortions of his conditions: materialist, social, economic, or otherwise. He has forgotten this because he lacks “God’s wisdom” (theo-sophy) to know who—and what—he truly is, which is a spiritual being at one with the One. Since this is true for everyone all at once, no one is truly separate from anyone else. All is One; All are One. To be an individual in this circumstance is to reject Oneness in favor of individualism, which is Man’s Fall.

The goal of theosophical religious cults is to seize enough power over their adherents to remind them of who they “really are,” which brings them to “at-One-ment” (atonement for their false separation from God) by obliterating their allegedly false consciousness of themselves and Man. They misunderstand themselves and thus misunderstand the society and world around them. Theosophists aim to remind them of who they “truly are” and bring them back to Oneness of spirit and being. They can be kindly enough, but in the end, they are tyrannical because humanity can only evolve as a whole if their presumptions about the nature of reality and Man are true.

These cults are ultimately Gnostic. As the second-century Valentinian Gnostic Theodotus put it: “It is not, however, the bath [baptism] alone that makes free, but knowledge [gnosis] too: who we were, what we have become, where we were, where we have come to be placed, where we are tending, what birth is, and what rebirth.” Theosophists believe we were Spirit but have become mortal; we were in Paradise in perfect union with God but have been thrown into this mundane world; we are tending toward spiritual awakening or destruction; and birth is a Fall and rebirth is accepting their Gnostic cult beliefs and practices. It isn’t all just ancient heresy or New Age hippie nonsense. Marxism is cut from precisely this cloth.

The old Gnostic heresies place the Fall of Man in the Sin of Adam, obviously, blaming the wrath of God for flinging us out of Paradise and our inheritance into this world of work, pain, toil, and death—as individuals, separated from God and Eden. Their belief was that the Serpent in Genesis 3 told the truth, and the God in Genesis is not God but a demonic Demiurge, builder of the world, imprisoner of his spiritual brethren in Man.

Marxism, qua Marx, places the Fall in the separation of private property (thus individualism) from communal property (thus collectivism). The bourgeoisie is Demiurgic, constructing a political economy in which the masses must labor, suffer, and die. The masses can awaken as a class-conscious proletariat that understands Man’s true nature is socialist, which means being transcendent of private property and the individualism that follows from it. This program goes on through the other forms of Western Marxism.

Critical Race Theory, which is Race Marxism, puts the Fall in the creation and imposition of power-laden racial categories (“whiteness” and “white supremacy”), which is a proxy for Western values including capitalist economics and their cultural hegemony. “White people” become Demiurgic, imprisoning “people of color” in a world not made for them but willing to use them. They can become race conscious, though, and understand Man’s true nature is transcendent of race while retaining consciousness of it.
Queer Theory, which is Queer Marxism and overtly an esoteric religion based on sex, puts the Fall in the assertion of any valid claim to normalcy and legitimacy. “Normativity” is a Demiurgic force that imprisons perverts, weirdos, deviants, and degenerates, in addition to sexual and “gender” minorities, in a world that demands they be normal. They can become consciously queer, however, and understand Man’s true nature is transcendent of any norms or expectations.

The framework is the same in every case, and the details only vary a little as needed. A demonic superpower—the Demiurge, the bourgeoisie, whites, "cis" straight people, or whatever—orders and rules the world for itself. It did this by illegitimately taking a step toward godhood, separating itself from the All, and locked out those who are truly innocent and knowing. It is the projection of Satan onto the godly and godliness onto Satan. On the first page of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels say the whole of their program is put in a word: “oppressor versus oppressed.” The privileged establish themselves as separate and deserving while the innocent are excluded from “godlike” knowing and punished severely when they take a bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

The Gnostic theosophical myth is that the innocent are excluded by powers who broke away from the unified totality of being to assert their individuality. Maybe they have done this through claiming deity themselves as Creator of the (mundane and Fallen) world, or in a socio-spiritual sense through private property, racial status, social status otherwise, etc. Because these deign to be God but are not, they are jealous and wrathful of anyone who might approach the “hidden truth” of gnosis, which would break their spell and end their illegitimate power. They hide and suppress the “truth” and punish anyone who seeks or stumbles upon it.

The theosophical gnostics know otherwise, though. They know the "gods" are false and that God as a unified totality is real and, in fact, not distinct from themselves. They are therefore spiritually or socio-spiritually advanced but oppressed and must shepherd Man to Liberation. This amounts to a revolution, either of Heaven and Earth or of society, depending on the locus of their beliefs, but it’s all the same. Marxism, Race Marxism, Queer Marxism, and the rest are identical in this form. They are all theosophical religious cults pretending not to be.

One way to put this is that theosophy, whether Marxist or otherwise, is Satan presenting himself as an Angel of Light until he creates a madness in those who follow him that way that possesses them with a spirit of enmity and false superiority presenting itself as righteousness and truth. You can know them by their fruits, it is said. What are their fruits? Entitlement. Narcissism. Self-aggrandizement. Accusation. Deception. Enmity. Sowing confusion, even in their own minds and hearts. Attempting to lead the little ones astray. Destruction, everywhere they go. It is Evil selling itself as uniquely Good.

Marxism cannot escape this cloth because Marxism is cut from this cloth. All Western Marxist “theories” are the same in this. They are destructive theosophical cults. All Marxism is cult religious.

Articles

Comments (0) loading...

Like(1)

Dislike(0)

New Discourses

Mar 12, 2024 06:05 pm

Public post

Queer Theory is the Doctrine of a Sex-Based Cult

by James Lindsay

The following is derived from the preparatory notes I made for my February 20, 2024, remarks to the University of Pittsburgh TPUSA chapter, as pictured, which was protested but very well received.

I’m here to talk about Queer Theory. Some major points can be summarized very easily.

Queer Theory is the doctrine of a religious cult;
That religious cult is based on sex;
That sex-based religious cult primarily targets children; and
Almost none of it has anything to do with gay identity.

Let’s address the last point first because it’s the least obvious.

The term “queer” in “Queer Theory” gets its definition from David Halperin in a 1995 book called Saint Foucault. The first words of the relevant paragraph (on p. 62) are “Unlike gay identity.” There, Halperin explains that gay identities are grounded in a positive fact of homosexuality. That means homosexuality is in some way real. “Queer,” by contrast, he says, need not be based on any positive truth or in any stable reality. There’s nothing in particular to which it refers. It’s an identity without an essence. That means it’s not based in reality.

What is Queer Theory, then, if it’s not based in reality? It’s a radical political view. Halperin tells us “queer” means adopting a politics that is whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant. Just to prove I’m not making it up, here’s the relevant quote.

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.

To underscore his point, he then continues with,

“Queer,” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative—a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her or his sexual practices.

In other words, you cannot be queer. You can only do queerness. It’s an act.

So nobody is “queer.” People feel “queer” against some standard, perhaps imagined, and people act queerly. By that, it means they act defiantly against normalcy and legitimacy while denying reality. You can only perform queerness—or, if you refuse, straightness. Performing straightness, to Queer Theory, isn’t being who you are if you’re straight; it’s just another kind of performance, one that upholds the allegedly oppressive “status quo” instead of opposing it.

Now let’s consider the Drag Queen Story Hour curriculum paper from a couple of years ago.

It explains in a section titled “from empathy to embodied kinship” that queer programs are presented as improving LGBT empathy, and that Drag Queen Story Hour makes use of such “tropes,” their word.

It then says that’s not really what Drag Queen Story Hour, queer education, or “queer worldmaking” are about, though. Instead, they use the “tropes” of empathy “strategically” as a “marketing” platform to justify getting it into schools, libraries, and in front of kids, but it’s actually about leading kids to see the world and themselves in a queer way. Here’s how they word it:

Finally, it is often assumed that the primary pedagogical goal of queer education should be to increase empathy towards LGBT people. While this premise has some merit – and underlies many sincere projects in educational and cultural work, including DQSH – the notion of empathy has also been critiqued by feminist scholars of colour and others for the ways in which empathy can enable an affective appropriation of an individual’s unique experiences and reinforce hierarchies of power. … Whether through literature or virtual reality, these tropes tend to reflect an overstated ability to understand difference, as well as empathy’s potential to preclude meaningful relationships of solidarity.

It is undeniable that DQSH participates in many of these tropes of empathy, from the marketing language the programme uses to its selection of books. Much of this is strategically done in order to justify its educational value. However, we suggest that drag supports scholars’ critiques of empathy, rather than reifying the concept…This approach can support students in finding the unique or queer aspects of themselves – rather than attempting to understand what it’s like to be LGBT.

That’s what Drag Queen Story Hour is actually about. It’s not about empathy—that’s a marketing strategy that is, in fact, a bit problematic. It’s about getting kids to discover any aspects of themselves that might be considered “queer” and developing those into a queer political stance that will be conflated with who they believe they are. More than that, they’ll be told they’re not truly allowed to be who that is, even though it’s who they really are. Society will object. Their parents will object. It has to be kept secret from their parents in case it isn’t affirmed by them.

Now, I’m not supposed to use the word “grooming” to describe this grotesque set of activities. It’s part of a major controversy—one the Pitt students showed up (potentially menacingly, but in fact as clowns) to protest outside. So I’ll ask a question instead. I’m going to show you something, and then I want to know what word am I supposed to use for this. This self-characterization for the program comes up shortly thereafter in the same paper.

Drag Queen Story Hour presents itself as “family friendly” in a way that it characterizes as a “preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship.” What does that mean?

It then says that the “family” in “family friendly” refers to a “queer code” for the “other queers [they connect with] on the street.” So they’re not just lying about the empathy but also what they mean by “family”—which is a “queer code” for a “new family” that Drag Queen Story Hour is teaching kids to be “friendly” to.

The paper repeatedly invokes the concept of a “drag family” for the kids too, and then the paper ends with “we’ll leave a trail of glitter that will never come out of the carpet.” What’s the carpet here?

Here’s the full quote of the “family friendly” part, so you don’t think I’m lying.

Queer worldmaking, including political organizing, has long been a project driven by desire. It is, in part, enacted through art forms like fashion, theatre, and drag. We believe that DQSH offers an invitation towards deeper public engagement with queer cultural production, particularly for young children and their families. It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.

So, I’m asking. What word am I supposed to use for that? I know which one I can’t use, and that puts me at a complete loss.

So here’s how Queer Theory works. You can’t describe it unless you support it—just like a cult, one we now see targets kids. If you criticize it, that’s “hate.” The rumor widely printed about me is that my using that word, “groomer,” to describe that, above, implicates me in some social crime called “anti-LGBTQ hate,” which is very bad, very serious, and utterly toxic. It’s not just “harmful rhetoric” but a “conspiracy theory.” I am a very bad person, apparently, for naming the obvious, not as a result of inference or guesswork but from their own proudly printed writings.

The accusation and resulting social dynamic, which is always hostile, is straight out of Maoist China. I am alleged to be engaging in a crime called “anti-LGBTQ hate,” and “the right side of” society is to judge me and hold me to account for that crime by whatever means it can manage. This bullying is to continue until I learn to recognize from the “queer position” (that is, standpoint) how what I said was socially criminal and pledge to reform my thought, adopt Queer Theory, and not only do better but also become an activist on behalf of Queer Theory. This is identical to the thought reform of Maoist China with a slightly different ideology.

The accusation is obviously nonsense, but that’s not the point. The point is to initiate the social struggle session on me to “transform” my views. The accusation is of an old Marxist standard form, though. It’s a truth married to a lie.

Here’s the truth: Gays and lesbians fought for decades to break the public perception that they are predators and groomers of children. Here’s the lie: That’s who and what I’m talking about when I criticize their theory and activism, which is the very groomery thing I just described previously, in their own words.

As we saw from Halperin and from the “marketing” admission in the Drag Queen Story Hour curriculum paper, Queer Theory doesn’t represent gay identities. It hides behind them and uses them.

The truth is that “queer” used to be a slur for gay people, one many activists took to describe themselves in defiance of prejudice and bigotry. The lie is that Queer Theory ever represented a civil rights movement for anyone. It’s a destructive form of radical activism that actually historically opposed gay civil rights and equality. Why would it do that? Because gay equality and acceptance would normalize being gay within society and legitimize gay people as fully equal members of society, and Queer Theory is, by definition, radically opposed on principle to anything normal and legitimate. They even have a word for it, homonormativity, which is also very bad.

Gay activists from the 1990s will readily attest that the Queer Activists were often strongly opposed to their ambitions: civil and legal equality, marriage, and social acceptance. Queer Theory needs radical activists, not stable citizens who can go about their lives in a society that doesn’t discriminate meaningfully against them. Those activists fought hard for decades to overcome stereotypes of predatory behavior and the idea that they’re intrinsically groomers. That’s why the Queer Activists can claim that calling out their blatant grooming is an “anti-LGBTQ” theme. Those were stereotypes that good people fought like hell to overcome.

The fact is that Queer Activism, exactly as described here, puts the appearance of glaring truth back into those stereotypes, and then the Queer Activists hide behind gay people and say, “see, they’re attacking you; see, everyone hates you.” Of course, everyday gay people who are good citizens lose the most from this little trick, and the Queer Activists gain the most. Queer activism is strictly parasitic behavior.

On the theme of grooming, specifically into a cult, I want to direct you to another scholar, Kevin Kumashiro, who wrote a paper in 2002 called “Against Repetition.” In that paper, he describes the purpose of queer education of children. Kumashiro explicitly says that teaching children about social justice, including about ideas from Queer Theory, induces emotional and identity-based crises in them.

He then says that’s why it’s important to have queer educators who can guide the vulnerable students who are experiencing their crises to resolve them in favor of social justice and Queer Theory beliefs and actions. The relevant quotes are these:

Repeating what is already learned can be comforting and therefore desirable; students’ learning things that question their knowledge and identities can be emotionally upsetting. For example, suppose students think society is meritocratic but learn that it is racist, or think that they themselves are not contributing to homophobia but learn that in fact they are. In such situations, students learn that the ways they think and act are not only limited but also oppressive. Learning about oppression and about the ways they often unknowingly comply with oppression can lead students to feel paralyzed with anger, sadness, anxiety, and guilt; it can lead to a form of emotional crisis. (p. 74)

Once in a crisis, a student can go in many directions, some that may lead to anti-oppressive change, others that may lead to more entrenched resistance. Therefore, educators have a responsibility not only to draw students into a possible crisis, but also to structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively. (pp. 74–75)

This practice is indoctrination, and it is knowingly willful and deliberate. In a 2019 paper, Torres and Ferry say explicitly that what their model of education represents is indoctrination. Here’s how they said it.

For all the criticism teachers receive for ‘indoctrinating’ students, turning them into liberal-minded cry-babies, not much has been said in defense. At the very least, a shy denial is made. It is time for educators to own this criticism and admit that is exactly what we do. (“Not everyone gets a seat at the table!” p. 33)

What Kevin Kumashiro is describing, though, is worse than indoctrination. The cycle of inducing crisis and then resolving it toward a doctrine, though, isn’t indoctrination. It’s a technique called trauma bonding, which is a practice of cult grooming and ideological transformation—that is, thought reform or brainwashing.

It can be said plainly, then. Queer Theory practices thought reform because Queer Theory is the doctrine of a religious cult. That cult is based on sex and primarily targets children, and it has little or nothing to do with being gay.

Nobody joins a cult to join a cult. People join a cult because they are suffering in some way, and the cult offers them a resolution to their suffering. Virtually everyone who has escaped a cult tells the same story: they wanted to belong, they wanted a social circle, they wanted understanding, and they wanted purpose. The cult preys upon these people and slowly locks them in.

Trauma bonding is as harmful and manipulative as it sounds. It is a technique of cult initiation and abuse. It’s like a kind of hazing. The basic formula is simple. First you traumatize your targets until you’ve harmed them enough for the process to work, and then you celebrate them when they do what you want.

In Queer Theory, you tell them the world isn’t at all the way it seems. It isn’t the way they’ve been led to believe. If they’re different, it’s because they’re oppressed. If not, it’s because they’re hurting other people. If they’re interested in exploring, even though they’re young, they should. If they’re uncomfortable with their bodies for any reason, perhaps their body is wrong for who they really are. If their parents might disagree, they shouldn’t be included in the decisions. Queer Theory is then offered as the lens that resolves all of the confusion, shock, dissonance, and pain.

Then you affirm and celebrate them when they show interest. You lead them to believe they’re making brave decisions that are worthy of interest and respect. You coerce their social groups to participate in this ritual and tacitly threaten anyone who doesn’t want to go along with it. You make them feel like they belong and that they—just for being who they are—are special and have a special purpose to fulfill. You teach them special words that describe the very small but growing number of people who identify just like them.

This cult programming—or grooming—takes predictable paths. First, it leads people into emotional vulnerability followed by resolution. This generates personal and social interest, then psychological and social commitment. This is then deepened into an increasingly deep social and emotional commitment achieved largely through trauma bonding techniques, among others, detailed below.

This process creates emotionally and socially bonded members who populate the wide majority of any cult’s membership: those who are socially and emotionally locked in even without necessarily understanding the doctrine. This is sometimes called the “outer school” of the cult. The social, psychological, and emotional cues are steadily deepened over time, particularly increasingly playing upon themes of guilt, shame, isolation, alienation, and confusion on the one hand and hope, excitement, inclusion, and belonging on the other. Shunning “haters” who don’t support and affirm them, even within their own families, is also increased to make sure the cult environment is the predominant influence in the victims’ lives.

When commitment is high enough, a process of “study” begins, where the more committed outer school members start learning the cult doctrine. Here, they’d be studying Queer Theory. They’re not just learning how to use pronouns, present themselves, denounce everything against Queer Theory, and shut people out of their lives for disagreeing with what the cult thinks is good. They’re learning to defend it with pseudo-intellectual arguments based in Queer Theory. They’re also doing a lot of Queer Activism, which in turn deepens commitment. Why would you do this stuff, which is unpopular and difficult, when you have other and better things to do unless you are really committed? These people, who are socially and emotionally dependent on the cult and intellectually committed to it form an “inner school.” They are the “adepts” of the cult, where the “outer school” are its initiates. Most of the scholars and community organizers in the Queer Theory cult are in this tier.

There’s another tier, of course. The so-called “inner circle.” The members of the inner circle of a cult direct it and profit from it. They might or might not believe its doctrine, depending on their motivations. With Queer Theory, undoubtedly some of the biggest organizers and financiers of the movement, which primarily targets our children, do not believe it in itself but fully believe in its destructive and disruptive potential. Others believe in the enormous amount of profit that’s available from destroying lives and turning them into permanent, complicated medical or psychiatric patients. Others see the political utility of a permanently disaffected group with partially legitimate demands against a system they hate. Others see getting millions of people participating in the cult and its affirmations as a way to affirm themselves in their own “journeys,” and they just so happen to have the money to finance a campaign for mass affirmation.

The most important thing to remember about these tiers is the basic structure and the guiding principle behind each. The “outer school” initiates are seeing psychological and social reward through the cult’s manipulative offering, and they’re the overwhelming majority of captured cultists. The “inner school” seeks the same with existential fervor and some degree of intellectual and moral superiority. The “inner circle” is very small in number and ultimately is using the whole cult to their own twisted purposes. In the case of Marxist cults, the inner circle always uses the revolutionary cult of the era and then disposes of it when it’s time to move on to the next “phase of the revolution.”

The environment in which cults transform their victims is worth understanding in greater depth. According to Robert Jay Lifton, who studied the Maoist cult in detail as it was happening, cults effectively take advantage of up to eight qualities. Queer Theory very obviously utilizes all of them in sophisticated ways. I’ll touch upon them briefly.

Milieu control: Cults control the environment and make sure it only reflects cult doctrine. This is why they cut people off from friends, family, and outside information and views. This is your inclusion policies to ensure institutions and people only present cult-agreeable views and affirmation and remove anything that might cause doubt in the cult. This is cancel culture. This is immersive media and messaging from all levels.

Mystical manipulation: Cults create an appearance of total agreement (silencing all disagreement), inevitability (“there’s a change coming and there’s nothing you can do about it but get on the right side of it”), planned spontaneity (organized protests that look organic), and a higher purpose (like being on “the right side of history”) in order to convince their victims of their power and influence. It makes the cult appear more “right” and righteous to those captured within its spells. Think of the film The Truman Show. Jim Carrey’s character, Truman, was at the center of a huge operation of mystical manipulation within a fully controlled milieu.

Demand for purity: Cults are almost always puritanical in their values systems. They present their victims with stark contrasts of good and evil, right and wrong, on virtually every issue, and they demand purity with being on the “right” side of every issue. These dynamics manifest in dichotomies like pure vs. impure, absolutely good vs. absolutely evil, sacred vs. profane, or, specifically in the “social justice” cults like Queer Theory, affirmation vs. existential denial and care vs. “hate.” They are also interested, if not obsessed, with the binary of innocence vs. initiation to various levels of standing within the cult, including inclusion in the cult itself. In the extreme, this demand for purity sets up a dichotomy as stark as “the people” versus “the enemies of the people,” who must be destroyed in the name of “the people.”

Cult of Confession: The demand for purity leads the cult’s victims to readily identify how they fall short of cult perfection, leading them to both fear and desire to confess their failures and evil ways. Cults often encourage this behavior to facilitate the trauma bonding process. The trauma bonding wheel-of-pain is turned through pressuring people to confess—say to homophobia or transphobia or being a made-up gender or sexuality, and then rewarding them when they do—only to later indicate the confession wasn’t sufficiently total or sincere enough, initiating another round.

The milieu control and demand for purity come together to create a uniquely exquisite psychological environment. In this environment, almost everyone believes everyone else is pure while they, themselves, are not. You are the one falling short, even though you see your “classmates” confess to their own failures. You alone have the deepest, darkest failures. The guilt and shame are overwhelming, and they fuel even more accusation (criticism) and confession (self-criticism). This is the part of the environment that does the bulk of the thought-reforming work.

A “Sacred Science”: At the heart of the cult is what Lifton refers to as a “sacred science” that is infallible—though people can and do fail it all the time—into which people are being brainwashed. The point of the cult of confession dynamic is to force people to confess their failure to understand, internalize, enact, and even embody the “sacred science,” while accusing others of their failings as much and often as possible. The point of the confession is to get people to willingly adopt the lens of the sacred science so they can “recognize their crimes” against it and pledge to “do better.” “Do better” means “ideological remolding.” Here, Queer Theory is the correct understanding of sex, gender, sexuality, and all “normal” features of society.

Doctrine over person: Cults place doctrine over people (“History uses people and then discards them.” -Hegel) The person isn’t even a person if they don’t hold and enact the doctrine. “Not to have correct political opinions is like not having a soul.” -Mao)

Loading the language: This is painfully obvious at this point, isn’t it?

Dispensing of existence: At the deepest level, the cult decides whose existence counts and who doesn’t. The punchline is that those who accept the cult doctrine (the “sacred science”) and its application are people, and no one else is. Only the doctrinally legitimate are allowed to exist. Others are “haters,” effectively enemies and non-people, justifying their abuse, disenfranchisement, silencing, etc.

Under the standard Iron Law of Woke Projection, the dispensing of existence aspect of cult environments is why Woke activists say everything is “denying their existence” or a “genocide.” They’re projecting. You don’t have a right to exist if your beliefs “deny their right to exist.” In Queer Theory, this means if you don’t affirm their embodied political activism against the legitimate and the normal, you’re denying their existence. You are therefore beyond the pale of humanity and do not deserve to exist. All totalitarian genocides come from this darkest piece of cult logic.

Frankly, we could go a lot deeper into the cult nature of Queer Theory than this. We could talk about how it’s ultimately a Gnostic and Hermetic conception of the world with “normal society” acting as an evil spirit that imprisons everyone into performing a fake persona for the world so they can never be liberated to be who they truly are. I’ve done that at length elsewhere.

That would require us to talk in depth about one of Queer Theory’s progenitors, Judith Butler, and her belief that gender and sex aren’t actually real but are performances we learn and repeat to satisfy normal society. Her whole body of work could be summarized in six words and a little explanation: “Drag is life; life is drag.” Everyone, always is doing drag in everything they do, whether they realize it or not. Society writes the scripts for how their drag (usually “cishetero”) is to be performed, and that imprisons their souls, which they then have to script physically onto and through their bodies. Becoming aware of the “doingness” of gender and even sex and sexuality opens a door to a “queer horizon” of possibilities beyond the norm.

Judy got those ideas in turn from people like the postmodern philosopher, sadomasochist, and pedophile Michel Foucault, from whose work David Halperin derived his definition from Queer. Foucault was asking what it means to be a homosexual absent society’s definition of the term, absent the homosexual versus heterosexual binary and privileged status of being straight within it, and absent the patterns of discipline and punishment that enforce these definitions on people through society, most frequently through themselves. The idea that it is the soul that imprisons the body, exactly in this way, didn’t originate with Judith Butler. She got it from Foucault.

Interlaced into aspects of Queer Theory from the broader milieu of the sexuality studies and sex-positive radical feminism from which it was born are the ideas of people like John Money and Alfred Kinsey, among others, who sought to divorce sex and “gender identity” completely and to liberate sexuality to the greatest possible extent.

Most of the inspiration, outside of the sexual aspects of Queer Theory, however, derive from gender-critical feminism, as it evolved eventually into the sex-positive branch, which went to war with its prudish sisters primarily through the 1980s and eventually won. That, in turn, means to understand this cult deeply, we’d have to start with the first truly gender-critical feminist, Simone de Beauvoir, who initiated the pressing question of our day way back in 1949: What is a woman? Her point was the same as Foucault’s: what does it mean to be a woman when no one else—and particularly society and patriarchy—are defining it for the people who actually are women?

In short, we are imprisoned by the features of our social reality but can escape with the right hidden insights about who we really are and into what we have been thrown. The thinkers above derived this transformative Sociological Gnosticism from earlier mystics of greater fame. We don’t have time for that now, but it’s not a hard legacy to trace from characters such as Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx through Beauvoir, Foucault, and Butler to arrive at the conclusion that we’re dealing not with social science but social alchemy here. One of its primary laboratories is our children.

Why children? Four reasons, mainly. First, children in schools and even with their entertainment are a captive audience. Second, children have not achieved the necessary cortical development to distinguish reality from fantasy, so the mystifications of Queer Theory can be considered plausible to them where adults would be less interested. Third, children are going through the developmental process of identity formation, which needs to be hijacked for this ideology to take firm root. Finally, children become a gateway and a wedge to other targets, like their families, faiths, and other institutions in which they take part.

So that is Queer Theory. It’s the doctrine of a religious cult. That cult is primarily sex-based. It predominantly targets our children. And it has little to nothing to do with being gay. But what can we do?

Normally, we would turn to our institutions and ask them to see the light and step in. That isn’t working. We face a problem of captured institutions. Our institutions accept and promote Queer Theory. We therefore cannot count on our institutions—educational, psychological, medical, or governmental—to help us here. They are all captured. They are all part of the controlled milieu, creating the mystical manipulation, and peddling the sacred science of Queer Theory.

We find ourselves in the position of a pilot who has lost all of his instrumentation on his aircraft and has to fly it safely to a runway and land. No navigation computer, no altimeter, nothing—just him and his wits and hopefully his ability to see what’s in front of him and do the right thing. Our institutions are like the instruments in the cockpit but for society. Right now, they’re putting out all the wrong information. They cannot help us find the runway or land the plane safely, upon which our lives and the lives of others depend. What would we do? We would use our senses directly to find the runway, line up and lower the plane, and land it. We wouldn’t look to the broken instruments at all. We’d look at reality and navigate without the intermediary. That’s what we need to start finding ways to do at the societal level now—one individual at a time.

What, individually, though? What we must do is start with the truth. Not the mediated “truth” peddled by the corrupt institutions. The plain, simple truth. There are two sexes. Most people are straight. Gay happens. Queer isn’t an identity; it’s a defiant political stance we don’t have to tolerate or accommodate. If someone claims to have an identity or sexuality that requires an explanation, it’s fake and doesn’t demand our respect. Predatory behavior of any kind in any place and perversion outside of the confines of consenting adults acting in private do not deserve our tolerance and shouldn’t be given it. Pornography doesn’t need to exist in children’s libraries, and children do not benefit from its presence there. Enough.

Regarding the truth, though, I want to make a point. It’s important to say the truth, but you actually have to do more. You have to love the truth. You have to love the truth with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength, and then you have to love your neighbor enough as you would yourself to tell him the truth that you love. These are basic commandments.

But you have to love the truth. If you love the truth, you’ll say it. You’ll also seek it and defend it. You’ll defend other people saying it. You have to love the truth because if you don’t, when the pressure mounts, you’ll eventually buckle. You’ll be asked to care and affirm, but there’s no caring and no affirmation that isn’t built upon the truth first. So you must love the truth. Every time you tell a lie to be nice or to fit in, you’re selling a piece of your soul. You have to stop doing that. That takes loving the truth.

When you do this—which is what it means to be based—you break the milieu control. You break the mystical manipulation. You call doubt upon the sacred science. You break the cycles of abuse and confession. You tell people that it is okay to trust their eyes and ears and even their gut intuition that what they’re experiencing from Queer Theory is abusive and manipulative.

Queer Theory is the doctrine of a cult religion based on sex that primarily targets our children. It is our necessary responsibility to learn about it and to oppose it. If you are so inclined, I’m releasing a new book, primarily written by Logan Lancing with my contributions, called The Queering of the American Child. I recommend you pick it up and get in the fight.

Articles

Comments (0) loading...

Like(0)

Dislike(0)

New Discourses

Mar 04, 2024 07:12 pm

Public post

Mao’s Politics of Compliance

by James Lindsay

“Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul.” -Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong took over China with a strategy that will sadly feel unsettlingly familiar to us. Because he was able to mobilize hundreds of millions of people to comply, often enthusiastically, with his catastrophic programs, an adequate name for that strategy would be the politics of compliance. Understanding the basic premises and mechanisms of the politics of compliance is necessary for us today because these same methods are being used maliciously on us, thus require resisting, and because familiarity with these tactics at least partially inoculates a person from their powerful effects.

In general, regarding a politics of compliance strategy, there are three segments of the population. First, there are those who comply. Second, there are those who resist compliance. Third, there are those who aren’t sure what to do. The politics of compliance targets all three groups in different ways with a single set of tactics. The goals of the politics of compliance are simple: to get as many people to comply as possible and to justify the dehumanization and demonization of anyone who refuses to comply.

Mao’s politics of compliance begins by dividing the population not into three but into two. Those who comply are “the people.” Those who resist are “the enemies of the people.” Those in between are treated as representatives of both depending on the circumstances. Everything is done in the name of “the people,” and everything that isn’t working is blamed on “the enemies of the people.” The objective is to force people to see things from the perspective of “the people,” which is to say from the perspective of compliance.

Those who comply have the psychology of their compliance weaponized into hatred for those who refuse to comply and even for those who merely drag their feet. They become the most savage weapon in the hands of the tyrants. The mechanism is essentially hatecraft. They have complied. They have done things they wouldn’t otherwise have done. They have willingly sacrificed their liberties for a cause or a “greater good” defined on the terms of the Regime. They did so because they were promised the bad things would stop, or a better future will arrive, when people comply. The problem is those who won’t comply, especially those who refuse to comply. They are led through these half-bogus promises and the psychology of their own compliance to hate the people who are keeping the promises from being fulfilled.

Take the example of the pandemic, though we have a dozen to choose from. There were those who socially distanced, locked themselves down, wore masks, avoided plausible treatments, wore masks, cleaned everything they owned, and eventually started taking experimental shots. They were promised “two weeks to slow the spread,” and when that didn’t work, it was because not enough people took it seriously or did it right. The suffering of “the people” was caused by the allegedly selfish enemies of the people who refused the new program. This dynamic multiplied through each successive stage, culminating with the shots. Society has to stay closed even after a year and a half, they were told, because too many people refused to get their shots, and the new variants were always coming. Their lives were completely upended, often destroyed, and it wasn’t the Regime’s fault for (deliberately) mishandling the situation; it was on the people who wouldn’t comply with the dictates of mismanagement.

Mao described the application of this formula with the structure “unity, criticism, unity.” “That means,” he said, “starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions through criticism or struggle, and arriving at a new unity on a new basis.” In the pandemic, we were told “we’re all in this together,” a message of unity. “We can get through this.” Or, we would be able to, but some among the population refuse to comply. They’re not masking, they’re not staying home, they’re not locking down, they’re taking off-label drugs, they won’t get their shots, so the nation has to stay closed. They need to be criticized and struggled for their selfish attitudes so we can “move forward together.” We can move into a new unity on a new public-health basis in which the public health authorities and then eventually the World Health Organization have total sovereignty over all “health emergencies” going forward. Only then will things go back to normal, or even become a new, better normal.

The compliant become obsessed in these conditions. They’ve done their part, so others need to do theirs. Things are bad, but there’s a bright future when enough people—maybe everyone—complies. The feet-draggers are pressured into high rates of compliance, at which point many are converted into the compliant zealots. The resistance needs to be crushed. Mao said the full power of the “People’s Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat” was to be unleashed on them, stripping them of their rights to speech, to vote, and to property until they complied. The Biden Administration and a majority of American state governors did and/or threatened exactly this to their people to the fullest extent they were able to do so under the law, and sometimes well outside of it.

This is the essence of the politics of compliance. It’s mechanism is primarily the relentless application of the message of hatecraft through a Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus and a Vertically Integrated Institutional Array. The first of these is the propaganda machine. Every institutional outlet says the same thing, often in the same words, from offices of politics to institutional authorities to media and even education on all levels. There’s only one truth, one “sacred science,” and we all have to agree to it—or else. The second of these is similar but enacts consonant policy in lockstep as broadly, rapidly, and simultaneously as can be achieved. These forces create the power of the politics of compliance.

There is a hope, however. That hope is actually rather simple. A manipulation exposed is a manipulation no longer trusted. A manipulative agency exposed is an agency no longer trusted. A manipulative institution exposed is an institution no longer trusted. Without trust, there is less compliance. Without sufficient compliance in the mobilized segment of the population, there is no successful politics of compliance. It all falls apart.

That’s our role. Our role is to love, seek, share, and defend the truth. It is to expose the mechanisms of hatecraft and the Maoist evil of the politics of compliance. It is to chip away at the trust those institutions no longer deserve until it all collapses around them. It isn’t just that this can be done, either. It’s happening at scale already. It’s our job to keep this fire of truth and liberty burning and spread it as far and wide as possible.

Author’s note: These comments are derived from my remarks given at the fifth International Crisis Summit, held in Washington, D.C., on February 23, 2024.

Articles

Comments (0) loading...

Like(0)

Dislike(0)

New Discourses

Feb 27, 2024 05:24 pm

Public post

Somewhere Over The Rainbow: Introducing The Queering of the American Child

by Logan Lancing

People who have escaped cults all tell a similar story. That story starts with a desire to belong, coupled with a desire for purpose. Strong familial and social bonds are generally preferable to shaky relationships, isolation, and the feeling of being an outcast. Likewise, feeling like one’s life lacks any meaning or purpose is a recipe for anxiety, depression, or even madness. If you talk to people who have escaped cults, they all tell you that they didn’t set out to join a cult—the cult set out to prey on them, offering to fill the voids that we must all grapple with, to varying degrees, throughout our lives. The cult offers inclusion, affirmation, and a secret cult knowledge of life’s purpose. All one must do is take the leap of faith.

Cults are incredibly effective for a variety of reasons, most of which is their ability to lead initiates deeper into the cult, even when those initiates start to sense that the “inclusion,” “affirmation,” and “purpose” offered to them comes with some very nasty conditions and ultimatums. Cult survivors describe how difficult it is to stop placing one foot in front of the other when the cult has total control of one’s physical, social, and emotional environments. Cults work tirelessly to control all information entering an initiate’s eyes and ears. Cults control the books you can read, the news you can watch, the organizations you can trust, the experts you must listen to, and the people you confide in. The cult environment is one of endless propaganda designed to be so effective that one loses control of their own thoughts; loses control over the voice in their head.

Once an initiate finds themselves in the cult’s totalizing environment (see Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton) the cult lifts the veil of love, affirmation, and inclusion and reveals a cycle of psychological abuse designed to drag the initiate deeper into the cult’s doctrine. This abuse is justified through a language of purity—initiates must let go of all the bad influences and contamination of their former lives, revealing their deepest secrets through ritual confessions. The point is to strip the initiate down, leaving them totally vulnerable and exposed. Only then can the cult rebuild the initiate in the cult’s image.

Cult survivors will tell you that they often didn’t know they were in a cult until someone pierced the cult’s totalizing environment with a message from the outside; a tether to a long-lost reality; an invitation to step back into the real world. The Queering of the American Child is one such tether, and I hope parents nationwide will receive the message loud and clear: Education is in the grip of a religious cult—the Queer Cult.

Now, I don’t mean “queer” as in “gay” or “lesbian” or “bisexual.” I mean “queer” as it is defined in the academic literature of the Queer Cult’s doctrine: Queer Theory.

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.[1] (Halperin, 1995, p. 62, italics in original)

Our children are “experiencing the queer,” as Queer Educational Activist Kevin Kumashiro explains in his 2009 book, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice (2nd edition). Specifically, our children are experiencing the “queer” because they have been purposefully placed in a state of psychological crisis. “Crisis,” Kumashiro says, “should be expected in the process of learning, by both the student and the teacher. Like queer activism, queer teaching always works through crisis…the goal is to continue teaching and learning through crisis—to continue experiencing the queer.”[2] (Kumashiro, 2009, p. 55)

The Queer Cult has total control of our national discourse as it relates to sex, “gender,” and sexuality. Our children are fed a steady diet of cult doctrine through mainstream media, social media, popular culture, the psychiatrists they consult, and the doctors their parents trust. Not least of which, our children attend schools that universally push the idea that children can be “born in the wrong body.” America’s children learn that they have “gender identities” that might not match their “sex assigned at birth.” A Medical Industrial Complex waits in the wings with irreversible puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and “gender affirming” surgeries.

The social and emotional pressures to conform to the Queer Cult’s corrupted understanding of reality are hard to bear. Most people know that “radical gender ideology” is insane, but they go along with it because they don’t want to be considered a “bad person,” “on the wrong side of history,” or worst of all, a “conservative.” The cult’s moral extortion racket is designed to drag us deeper into their agenda; deeper into what Queer Activist Michael Warner calls a “queer planet.”[3] However strong the pressure may be, we must remain tethered to reality—not only for ourselves, but especially for our children. As we say in the book,

[Queer Activists] believe they can arrest the steering wheel of History and drive us all off the ledge. Under normal circumstances, all of this nonsense would be cause for endless mockery and laughter. Unfortunately, Queer Activists have proved to be remarkably effective. Today, they already have one hand on the wheel, and our kids are in the car.[4]

In The Queering of the American Child you will learn what Queer Theory is, where it comes from, how it got into schools, and what it’s attempting to do with your children. You will learn that Queer Theory has nothing to do with helping gay kids, and nothing to do with helping troubled children feel “included” in a healthy set of societal norms. Letting the cultists speak for themselves, Dr. James Lindsay and I bring in hundreds of citations to lay bare the Queer Cult’s agenda. Our schools are initiating children into the Queer Cult through psychological manipulation and child abuse. What you read will shock you, and that’s a good thing. Welcome back to reality.

https://youtu.be/4p8wVgEzDpk
---

References

[1] Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford University Press. (p. 61)
[2] Kumashiro, K. K. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice (2nd ed.). Routledge. (p. 55)
[3] Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, (29), 3–17.
[4] Lancing, L. and Lindsay, J (2024) The Queering of the American Child: How A New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids. New Discourses. (p. 65)

Articles

Comments (0) loading...

Like(0)

Dislike(0)

New Discourses

Feb 20, 2024 07:02 pm

Public post

Why to Reject the WHO Over “Gender-Affirming Care”

by James Lindsay and Logan Lancing

Note: This text was lightly expanded from a piece of submitted written testimony to the United States Senate for a hearing regarding the World Health Organization and its current impacts on American life. The information provided herein is primarily derived from the book The Queering of the American Child by Logan Lancing and James Lindsay.

The World Health Organization is currently developing New Guidelines on the provision of gender-affirming care. This should concern every parent and grandparent in America.

The reason for concern is that those guidelines are not based in “any stable reality,” to quote relevant scholars, but in an academic doctrine called Queer Theory. Queer Theory is not a genuine academic theory of the world. It is the doctrine of a cult religion that seeks to initiate and capture American children in particular.

Queer Theory seeks to give our children “queer identities,” like various “gender identities” and “sexual identities”—generally, “queer identities”—and it then seeks to affirm these to lock them into a child’s psyche. The process, in their own words, quoting the Queer Educator Kevin Kumashiro, in a 2002 paper titled “Against Repetition,” meant to induce a crisis in the child and then make sure the teachers “structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively” on the terms set by Queer Theory. To quote Kumashiro directly,

Repeating what is already learned can be comforting and therefore desirable; students’ learning things that question their knowledge and identities can be emotionally upsetting. For example, suppose students think society is meritocratic but learn that it is racist, or think that they themselves are not contributing to homophobia but learn that in fact they are. In such situations, students learn that the ways they think and act are not only limited but also oppressive. Learning about oppression and about the ways they often unknowingly comply with oppression can lead students to feel paralyzed with anger, sadness, anxiety, and guilt; it can lead to a form of emotional crisis. (p. 74)
Once in a crisis, a student can go in many directions, some that may lead to anti-oppressive change, others that may lead to more entrenched resistance. Therefore, educators have a responsibility not only to draw students into a possible crisis, but also to structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively. (pp. 74–75)

This process, in this context, is what they call “gender-affirming care,” which is advocated by the WHO. In Mao’s China, it was called sīxiǎng gǎizào (思想改造), which means “ideological transformation” or “ideological remolding,” or, more bluntly, xǐnǎo (洗腦), which means “brainwashing.” It is no coincidence how often the cult of Queer Theory talks about the transformation of individuals, institutions, and society.

Crucially, however, “queer identities” are not identities at all. That is, they are not essential identities, like sex is an essential identity intrinsic to one’s person and that cannot be changed. They’re not part of the person themselves; they’re a political stance. David Halperin, who defined the word “queer” for Queer Theory in his 1995 book Saint Foucault, writes this, “Queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, ‘queer’ does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant” (p. 62).

Halperin also takes pains to point out that “queer” has virtually nothing to do with what he terms “gay identities.” Those, he insists, are rooted in “homosexual object-choice,” a stable, if not essential, human reality. With “queer identities,” by contrast, “There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers.” He continues, “It is an identity without an essence” (p. 62).

Queer identities that are “affirmed” in our children by “gender-affirming care” are revolutionary political identities that are, by definition, framed as whatever is at odds with the normal and legitimate. They are not based in any positive truth or stable reality. They are the result of putting children into a destabilizing crisis and then affirming them into a destructive politicized sense of self. They are made seemingly concrete in our children through a Maoist process of ideological remolding into an oppositional, defiant new mold.

We therefore don’t need to wait to hear what the implementation guidelines and “evidence-based standards” will entail from the WHO. The WHO has already told us that their objective is to affirm a person’s “gender identity,” which is a political article of the Queer Theory cult, not a genuine essential identity of a human being.

The World Health Organization says that the forthcoming guidance aims to “increase access and utilization” of “gender-affirming care.” So, they have already given the game away: they support the ideological remolding of our children into a destabilizing cult political identity through initiation by means of induced identity crises and confirmation through “affirmation.” Those familiar with cult psychology would recognize this process not as one of “affirmation” but as textbook trauma bonding.

The WHO’s goal is increasing “gender-affirming care” access, not evaluating whether “gender affirming care” might actually cause tremendous harm to many of those that receive it. Deliberately detaching children and their developing senses of self from “any stable reality” and “any positive truth” is guaranteed to cause tremendous harm to the vast majority of those subjected to it.

This is a monumental scandal because Queer Theory explicitly targets children. It does so because children are vulnerable and still forming their core identities as well as their ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Queer Theory offers confused or struggling kids a promise of making them whole—of solving any confusion or pain they may have while treating them like the center of the universe to manipulate them socially and emotionally. The WHO surely knows this, and it either doesn’t care or seeks to take advantage of it. The American public deserves to be protected from this monstrous program, not subjected to it.

Queer Theory intentionally places children into an identity crisis—into “gender dysphoria,” as it is now called—so those children can be convinced to live “queerly.” It isn’t about empathy for homosexuals; it’s about “alternate modes of ‘embodied kinship’” and discovering “queer aspects” of oneself through identity crisis. The WHO recommends medical professionals worldwide affirm this destructive practice. According to the academic literature, all kids are “queer,” they just don’t know it yet. The WHO wants doctors to help them realize it.

Kids are learning all of this in their schools, which, taken with guidance from organizations like the WHO, sets up a school-to-medicalization pipeline that destroys the minds and bodies of our nation’s youth. What is happening here isn’t a civil rights movement. It’s the greatest child abuse scandal in the history of the world, and it’s being perpetrated by precisely the institutions who should be working to protect children from it. If the WHO is set on going this direction, the United States of America should be equally set on taking no further direction or recommendation from the WHO.

---

The Queering of the American Child is available here.

Articles

Comments (0) loading...

Like(0)

Dislike(0)

New Discourses

Feb 01, 2024 08:35 pm

Public post

National Divorce Is National Suicide

by James Lindsay

Should the United States split up? The country is more polarized than it ever has been, at least since the Civil War, having divided not so much geographically but culturally and ideologically. The two broad factions in this split are what we might call the “Red Team” (conservatives) and the “Blue Team” (progressives)—the irony in these color designations not being lost on many. Now that things are so divided, might it just be better to go our separate ways as peacefully as possible so we can get on with life? Might it be time for a “National Divorce”? Blue Team can keep the beach house, and Red Team can have the farm, and we can all move on to live happily ever after on our own terms?

No. National Divorce is National Suicide, and we’re only considering it because we’re being driven into the despair necessary to commit it.

Straight away, we can see that National Divorce means the death of the nation in the most banal and uninteresting way. If the United States splits, it won’t be united anymore, and so the nation we have today will have committed suicide. That’s not what I mean, though. If we were to proceed with a National Divorce, it will not be peaceful, and the ultimate result will be a state I refer to as Game Over—global tyranny under exactly the evil force provoking us to this extreme in the first place.

On Terminology

I’m going to use the term “National Divorce” for a catch-all for anything that breaks up the existing United States into more than one piece. This would include some split of states, like we might imagine, the secession of even a single state, or the outbreak of a second civil war. It also includes attempts to balkanize or “regionalize” the existing United States into contiguous geographical areas that declare some kind of sovereignty apart from the federal union we call the United States. Quibbling over the difference between these circumstances is distracting from the point and would require far too much development.

I have already introduced the terminology “Red Team” (conservatives) and “Blue Team” (progressives). These terms refer to the current rough big-tent political factions in the United States that roughly but inexactly correlate with support for the Republican Party, which is coded red, and Democratic Party, which is coded blue. They are meant to describe even people who tend to lean one way or the other in this rough divide and is not meant to indicate support or alignment with the political parties in any way. Perhaps think of it as “likely to vote ‘red’ or ‘blue’ in a national election.” Since it’s a placeholder, don’t take it too seriously.

These will develop into the terminology “Red State” and “Blue State” following the “National Divorce.” I am using those terms to signify the approximate new political entities after a binary division. Further balkanization doesn’t need to be discussed because it only makes matters worse.

“Game Over,” as indicated, represents the state in which the global tyrannical program, which is roughly enough Communist in its approach and structure, is able to move inexorably to a pan-Western or even global government under its control. It means the death of liberty. To put a finer point on it, if we reach Game Over, your children will grow up to be slaves, and most of your remaining years will suck.

The Case for National Divorce

This section will admittedly be cursory because it’s not the point. A National Divorce is a terrible idea, but, if we’re going to show that, it’s worth reviewing what people believe it will accomplish in the most charitable terms possible. In my opinion, these terms are fantastical, and the primary driver of these ambitions is catharsis—the letting go of pent up frustration against the corrupt regime, which seems to admit no outlet. That is, I want people to understand that “National Divorce” is not a serious or wise option but an emotional outlet for people who feel trapped and desperate. The goal of this essay is to discuss the possibility of a National Divorce in real terms in the world we actually inhabit and to urge people to understand we are making enough progress not to need to follow unrealistic but cathartic paths of action.

There are three primary arguments for National Divorce, one of which isn’t even really an argument. These are (1) to escape tyranny and live on our terms in new states; (2) to allow the Red Team to consolidate resources and power with which to fight back against Blue Team more effectively; and (3) it’s inevitable anyway (the non-argument). As you can imagine, I don’t believe in (3) at all and don’t think it’s doing anyone any good to believe in it, and I think (1) and (2) will not be allowed to occur in reality given the nature of what’s happening in the world and why. The bulk of this essay is dedicated to painting a picture of what I think would really happen instead.

Both (1) and (2) depend on the belief that Red Team will be able to create Red State that is no longer subject to the tyrannical overreaches of the current U.S. federal government. (Last reminder: “Red State” might represent more than one actual state, but we’re staying in the binary situation for simplicity.) Freed from the tyrannical overreaches of the current U.S. federal government and even international organizations like the United Nations, Red State could then chart its own course, build its own economy and society unfettered, build its own military, and engage in all the activities of a functional nation—perhaps even a mature Constitutional republic—which is impossible under the current U.S. federal government. The strongest argument in favor of National Divorce in this vein is that the current U.S. government and global environment present a genuine threat not just to our livelihoods and liberties, but to those of our children. For reasons that aren’t hard to imagine, it would even be able to out-compete its new Blue State neighbor and thus become the thriving nation the United States should be today, or at least something like that. Furthermore, freed from tyranny, it could also consolidate the necessary economic and military power to be a significant player on the world stage, if needed, and keep its enemies at bay.

Proponents of National Divorce often argue that such a move is not only beneficial but necessary. Some, on the more extreme end, posit that the U.S. Constitution, thus the United States itself, is already functionally destroyed with no hope of recovery. National Divorce would therefore allow us to reconstitute a new state (“Red State,” here) that enables us to recover the most of what the United States stood for and preserve the American way of life. This despairing sentiment is common, though not always stated so extremely, throughout the movement. Proponents also tend to argue that we don’t know what will happen and that we may well drastically overestimate the power of the national and global Blue Team, if not also their malice.

The justification for the need for such a split is that our differences, Red Team and Blue Team, are so irreconcilable that it isn’t possible to share a single political entity with one another. Each side finds the other side’s way of life, values, and aspirations inadequate to building a society worth living in, if not repugnant or degenerate. Since the rift is so significant and perhaps permanent, it’s time to go our separate ways as peacefully as possible. They tend to insist the essence of the National Divorce—it’s Geist, so to speak—has already occurred, as evidenced by the irreconcilable differences and irreparable rift between “blue” and “red.” They liken the situation to spouses who are legally still married even though their marriage in all meaningful respects has already died. Certain challenges will arise, but through the normal operation of statecraft, diplomacy, economy, and whatever else, the new states can settle into a new political arrangement on the North American continent and ease the pressure of this extreme, maybe deadly polarization.

National Divorce Lite: The Big Sort

Before moving into National Divorce properly, we need to discuss its precondition, which is known as “The Big Sort.” The reasons we need to discuss it are two: first, it ends in National Divorce, and, second, it’s being encouraged now, especially by elements on Team Red. (Arguably, Team Blue is doing the opposite and trying to infiltrate currently “Red” areas as heavily as it can afford to.) The general idea is that people should move to areas that match their politics, so conservatives should move to “red” areas and states and progressives to “blue” ones. Further, at least in “red” areas, the increased concentration in political power should be leveraged to make those areas more “red.” Everyone generally agrees that “blue” areas will do this kind of consolidation of power by default, though it will be accelerated by increasing their proportions in areas conservatives abandon. Many who encourage National Divorce consider this to be unstoppable anyway, so conservatives might as well circle their wagons in “red” areas, though they would never characterize it as running away. This Big Sort is a terrible idea.

Naturally, there’s already a “Big Sort” in the United States, but it’s not drawn very neatly on state lines except in presidential electoral maps. The divide is much more accurately urban versus rural, and all fifty states at present contain both urban and rural areas that tip either “red” or “blue.” It has been identified for at least fifteen years as a major problem and driver of destabilizing political polarization in the United States. A national Big Sort would amplify that dynamic tremendously and at scale, with the same dialectical conflict playing out in the urban/rural divide within each state, particularly the “red” ones. What this suggests is that a deliberate state-level Big Sort, or even increasing the urban/rural Big Sort (“get out of cities!”) will push us into more polarization, not less, and increase the chances of a National Divorce, which I argue ends in Game Over.

“The Big Sort” is therefore best thought of as “National Divorce Lite.” The term “The Big Sort” actually comes from a book from 2009 by Bill Bishop titled The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded American is Tearing Us Apart. The primary point of the book is to argue that people were already moving to more like-minded areas, though he focused primarily on the urban/rural and urban/suburban divides, and that this dynamic was creating conditions that accelerate political polarization. Bishop was offering a diagnosis for American political polarization, to be clear, not prescribing some globalist plan, and his diagnosis wasn't good. The urban/rural “Big Sort” he identified was characterized as “tearing us apart,” he argued, threatening national unity going forward.

The idea of a “Big Sort” wasn’t limited to a book that only a relative few are aware of. At least as recently as 2022, for example, state propaganda outlet NPR was publishing articles about The Big Sort, by that name, which it insisted was being accelerated at the state-to-state level by Covid-19 policies. “America is growing more geographically polarized—red ZIP codes are getting redder and blue ZIP codes are becoming bluer. People appear to be sorting.” Their conclusion generally agrees with Bishop’s: “‘The Big Sort’ may be making Americans more politically extreme.”

That’s not how the article ends, however. It ends somewhere more encouraging of The Big Sort: “Moving to areas with people you agree with has advantages.” It’s worth reading the final portion of the article in its entirety for how instructive it is about the dynamic:

What a difference a new city makes. Twelve-year-old Mya Wooten is taking a social justice class at her private school in downtown Austin, an opportunity they would not have found in Greenfield.
Mya says a recent assignment was to pick an issue to protest. “It was ocean pollution, women’s rights, or LGBTQ rights,” she says. “So my topic was women’s rights, and I made a poster of an open woman's mouth and it said, ‘I have the right to be heard.’”
By moving to Austin, the Wootens joined The Big Sort. They made Greenfield a tad less purple, and Austin a smidgeon bluer. Tiffany sometimes wonders if they've done the right thing.
“I’m not sure that it’s super healthy for us to be completely putting ourselves in a box and saying, ‘I’m gonna be with the blue people because they think exactly like me.’ We need to be able to communicate with each other even if we do not fully agree with each other.”
The Wootens miss having their ideas challenged and engaging with the other side. On the other hand, she says, “We feel among our people in Austin.”

NPR, in other words, seemed to be encouraging The Big Sort in 2022, even while acknowledging that it increases the political polarization of local, state, and national politics. From this fact, we might conclude that The Big Sort is advantageous to the political objectives pushed by NPR.

Why would that be the case? You might be thrilled to find out there’s a proposed solution to The Big Sort, and it even has a name you’ll likely recognize now. The proposed solution to The Big Sort is called “The Great Reset.”

As it turns out, The (Ze) Great Reset is not just some big evil plan by the executive chairmain of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, means to be initiated and accelerated by Covid-19 after being officially inaugurated by now-King Charles (then Prince). It started out as an innovative new idea in urban planning that could solve The Big Sort, as detailed in a 2009 book by Richard Florida titled The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity. The premise of the book is that “history teaches us that periods of ‘creative destruction,’ like the Great Depression of the 1930s, also present opportunities to remake our economy and society and to generate whole new eras of economic growth and prosperity.” The Big Sort is characterized as part of such an “opportunity,” although the book’s primary focus is the Great Recession of 2008.

“We’ve reached the limits of what George W. Bush used to call the ‘ownership society,’” Florida warns in the earliest pages, after discussing how Karl Marx analyzed the upheavals and “resets” characterizing the birth of that period. Economic polarization between urban centers and suburbs, as well as between cities and rural areas, overlaps with ethnic and sociopolitical polarization under the economic Big Sort. His solution is a “Great Resettle” into the urban centers of what he calls economic “megaregions,” which appear to operate effectively like an early draft of what we would today call SMART 15-Minute Cities.

Of some note, on the cover of the newest edition of The Great Reset, Florida’s 2019 book The Rise of the Creative Class is mentioned and promoted. Of course, “the creative class” is exactly what the World Economic Forum today says will be the upper, or ruling, class of the new world, as opposed to the “useless” class of dispossessed laborers who have all their labor performed by machines and artificial intelligence. Taken as a whole, these points raise some serious red flags about the willful political separation of the United States, however frustrating it is to live nearby complete idiots who hate your way of life.

The Israeli Disengagement Experiment

Big withdrawals of a more extreme kind may also provide some clues as to the wisdom of encouraging The Big Sort. For example, in 2005, Israel formally disengaged from Gaza under a plan proposed by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Israelis dismantled twenty-one settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the “Disengagement Plan Implementation Law,” compensating Israelis living in Gaza to relocate into Israel as residential areas were fully demolished. The rationale was straightforward. Lacking any possibility for a possible peace with the Arabs calling themselves “Palestinians,” who were largely represented by the radical Palestinian Liberation Organization and the terrorist group Hamas, Sharon decided to disengage to strengthen its control in the State of Israel. In other words, this is the same logic as is driving conservatives in the United States toward a National Divorce plan.

The results are, in fact, that Israel was able to consolidate its power, which was already considerable due to U.S. and U.K. support, within the State of Israel, and it was pressured into a permanent defensive posture by allowing a permanent antagonistic terrorist quasi-state to develop on its borders with the chartered intention of destroying Israel completely. As it turns out, the bad guys were able to consolidate power in the unchecked environment too.

There are many parallels to draw from this experiment for an American Big Sort or National Divorce. By fleeing your “blue” state as a conservative—perhaps because Conservative Influencers, some of whom have a financial stake in it—told you to, that “blue” state loses some of the remaining capacity to check the power growing within it. That power is broadly Communist, so it can be expected to operate in a permanently antagonistic and even terroristic way because it hates everything that isn’t Communist, including you. It will be able to do so not just in “blue” states but also from within “blue” cells located inside your “red” state, located heavily in every “blue” city.

Far from weakening the Blue Team, in exchange for some temporary reprieve in your conditions (and, of serious note, safety for your children), this action enables a great consolidation of Communist power in regions under their control and thus weakens and eventually ends any capacity to drive those agendas and develop outward-facing political force. Since free people do not willingly move to Communist regions very often, this migration is effectively one-way, replicating some of the conditions of the Israeli Disengagement Experiment.

In return, you’ll be able to consolidate “Red Team” power in your “red” states, though, right? No. You will not successfully consolidate “Red Team” power anywhere, really. People who aren’t Communists—unless they are Fascists—don’t act like Communists, so they don’t readily consolidate power. Furthermore, the “red” states will remain fully infiltrated since their cities are already “purple” or “blue,” complicating the situation. This leaves “red” states with a constant internal and external pressure dynamic to turn “blue” or to go all bad by embracing Fascism. Supposing those regions want to stay “red,” they eventually therefore have to abandon the Constitution and turn increasingly Fascistic, which, among other things, leads to undermining and throwing out the Constitution and its protections on individual liberty, which just so happens to coincide with the Communist goal on the ever-concentrating Blue Team.

Eventually, in other words, this path results in rupture, which can look like secession of one state or several together or in serial, (civil) war, or National Divorce, which I'm using as a catch-all term for these phenomena. The point is, The Big Sort is a precondition for the Leftist agenda because it ends here, as both the polarizing logic of The Big Sort and the evidence of the Israeli Disengagement Experiment indicate.

National Divorce

What would happen, realistically, if the United States fractured because of Blue Team (Communist) provocation from the federal government, intolerable conditions in “blue” states, foreign interference, and an escape campaign from the Red Team that definition isn’t nice to call “running away from their responsibilities to their own backyards”? Nothing good. First of all, the United States wouldn't exist anymore, and both remnants—Red State and Blue State—would be weaker. This end of the United States is the banal end of the United States mentioned near the start of this discussion, which is not the same as Game Over. The Constitution, however, would be dead, and both Red State and Blue State would have to decide on how to re-constitute themselves.

It isn’t hard to imagine what would happen in the Blue State in that regard. It would immediately modify the Constitution to look rather like Canada or California, in order to “fix” it. Whatever its political construction, which would likely include a drastic increase in executive power, it would almost certainly limit free expression (First Amendment), eliminate the right to bear firearms (Second Amendment), and encode “equity” into the fundamental “rights” of its citizens (Fourteenth Amendment). In other words, it would trend softly Communist immediately. It would also ally itself with the rest of the “civilized” world, including the European Union, the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and very likely China.

For its part, the Red State would likely attempt to maintain something very much like the present Constitution, at least at first, though there would immediately be huge internal strife over whether any liberties should be curtailed in order to prevent turning “blue” or to handle “blue” infiltration, which is already significantly present, entrenched, and incorporated institutionally within its borders. These debates would be furious and polarizing. The Red State would likely be declared a rogue state, and it will find allyship with other nations to be difficult, if not impossible, in the present global environment, which will likely be primed to turn against it, despite economic possibilities. This will suit the isolationists but will not be strongly to the advantage of the Red State in a global political context.

Meanwhile, we can also bet that the rest of the world will not be idle during this turmoil. Lacking the stabilizing presence of the united United States military on the global stage, we can presume nations like China, Iran, and Russia, at the least, will make some significant territorial and other moves to maximize their own advantage during RIP-America’s turn into political chaos and reorganization. Israel may or may not survive. Taiwan almost certainly wouldn’t. South Korea is an open question.

Neglecting the world stage (for the most part), two paths run from here, and both are terrible. Nobody wins this. This “divorce” includes a Communist (narcissistic abuser) side who will not live and let live, so bad stuff is coming. I don't know which of the following two paths is more likely, however, for one specific reason: nuclear weapons exist.

National Divorce Scenario 1, The Fast Option

After divorce, the Red State will find itself in the aforementioned turmoil, with issues internal and external. Getting organized will not necessarily be a smooth process, and elements on at least two factions of the Red Team and at least two locations (internal and external) of the Blue Team will be working against its unity. This circumstance will, at least temporarily, severely cripple Red State, which is not to its advantage.

Another consequential fact also bears here: former U.S. military and nuclear arsenal installations are still on Red State lands. Blue State won't just give them up. In fact, they’ll go to great lengths over them. Conflict rapidly escalates in this scenario, and Blue State will immediately call upon its global allies and the United Nations, at the very least to secure the nukes. Simultaneously, those military bases become a real problem. For context, Fort Sumner in Charleston Harbor played inside this story in 1861, and that specific conflict started the Civil War. Should that happen over a military installation in a National Divorce situation today, we rapidly progress to Game Over for the reasons that will be made clear below, just put on a more urgent timeline.

Because of the nuclear arsenal and the likely standoff over Blue State ("U.S.") military installations inside Red State, the instability of a National Divorce would immediately trigger a global emergency, demanding every possible sanction and pressure on Red State to prevent it from being a nuclear-armed rogue state. The more aggressively Red State works to take over a military base or, worse, secure a nuclear installation, the more urgent and powerful the global response will be against it. At best, the resulting war will be terrible. In reality, Red State has few realistic prospects in such a conflict, even without the massive internal turmoil weakening its chances.

Imagine what such a scenario would look like. The Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus all around the rest of the globe will immediately insist that this is the New Confederacy but with nukes, and it will be the focus of the entire world's resources to break it immediately, even in its new-nation disarray. The military in those bases will be divided, and with the Constitution undermined, their loyalties will be confused. The former United States, which is now Blue State, will insist these are theirs. They also control the necessary operational codes for the nuclear installations. Attempts to seize a nuclear installation will be met with ungodly force with all the urgency that nuclear deterrence demands.

You might be cowboy enough to think Red State could fight its way through that, but that's not likely and would leave a wrecked world. You might die on your feet, but you and your kids still die, and it's not remotely desperate enough a situation in the currently existing United States to justify that risk yet. In fact, however, Red State will almost certainly not be organized or cowboy enough to secure operable nuclear weapons for itself in this scenario. Even tampering with them would demand a global response, including a nuclear response. Red State isn't the US; it's a rogue state, so it would be globally justified. Almost all of the world would declare itself Red State’s enemy with nuclear urgency.

You can imagine it easily. Blue State is allied with the UN, China, and the other Five Eyes nations. The entire West Coast, New England and several Atlantic states, and all of Canada immediately open themselves as water and land routes for a full-scale invasion to secure America’s teetering nuclear arsenal and control Red State as a rogue actor. Supply lines will largely be cut to Red State from the rest of the globe, crippling its nascent economy, supposing it even has a military to equip. The operation would be quick, brutal, and total. Red State would cease to exist with many of its intrepid citizens dead.

This is the “Fast Option” because Red State would likely last only a few months before collapsing under global pressure or all-out war. Then it's over. This is Game Over. Anything in the process that triggers civil war, with a National Divorce formal or not, triggers this outcome, and it will be quick. Nothing is left to stop the Left Globalists, who therefore win. Everyone who survives is a global slave (“global citizen”) and the resistance is destroyed. We all arrive at Game Over.

National Divorce, scenario 2: The Slow Option

There is a more insidious path that is also more typical of the evil we’re dealing with in the world today. A National Divorce leading us onto this path would, as just outlined above, depend upon a more-or-less peaceful full nuclear disarmament of Red State plus the sacrifice of most of its potential military capacity, which it might not make. Supposing it makes the necessary concessions to Blue State and the world to avoid the Fast Option to Game Over, however, it enters onto the Slow Option to Game Over.

In the Slow Option, the states separate somehow or another more or less peacefully into Red and Blue, the Red is forced to let Blue take back most of the former U.S. military and all of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a minimal price of entry to a peaceful divorce. There’s little doubt about that. Otherwise, it will be the fast option to Game Over.

The next two years or so of the Slow Option are going to be awesome for most former U.S. citizens in the two usual ways. Blue State, after rapidly completing its soft Communist revolution will leave the revolutionary phase and enter the phase of “building socialism.” That means it will rapidly clean itself up like San Francisco did and dedicate itself to rapidly building an economy in the model of China. It will likely receive major global help. Things will be much cleaner and efficient. Their alliance with China, the UN, and the rest will be tight. Life will become very good in Blue State. Business will thrive, people will make money, stuff will work again. Blue State residents just have to deal with the Woke “Sustainable and Inclusive” program, but not to the extent that it disrupts business or energy production. Those will be deemed necessary to Build Back Better, given the circumstances.

People from Red State will also have it relatively good, at least psychologically. They will be free from Woke “Sustainability and Inclusion” and able to start growing as a new, freer nation (unless they go Fascist). There will be some internal turmoil, and life will be relatively hard but exciting and largely free again. Of course, Red State residents will be propagandized to the fullest extent Blue State powers can reach to encourage them to move to the seemingly utopian Blue State, which abandoned the worst of its destructive ways. They will be allowed to move to Blue State whenever, but only through thoroughly renouncing their “red” values, and this demand will be reinforced by law, social credit, and a new Constitution that “fixes” the old one. This will be the minimum precondition to enter into the Built Back Better Blue State world. More than a few will leave, but few will come the other way, to Red State.

That’s because for all its potential, Red State will find it difficult to make friends on the world stage and, by demand of the “global community,” will in many ways be sanctioned by the rest of the world. Having lost much of its coastline, it will be limited in trade and national defense. Still, there will be all kinds of building up, Red State style! Homesteading, “making it happen,” developing a new economy, growing up a homegrown militia as the new Red State military—these will all occur more or less unhindered except by the limitations of the global environment. Access to supply lines will be limited, prices will be high, but there won’t be heavy restrictions.

Of course, former Blue Team residents of Red State will be a constant problem, at least those who stay—and many will, as spies, subverters, and infiltrators. Blue State and foreign entities will almost certainly encourage this, and Red State will find it difficult to maintain freedom against this constant internal problem. It may find itself having to jettison many of the Constitutional freedoms it separated specifically to try to preserve, and this will be encouraged by its radical contingent within. It’s likely Red State will become a version of exactly what it sought to escape, just with different priorities, in the need to deal with these issues and under the pressure of its own “redder” radicals.

Nevertheless, Red State will have access to just enough to be able to struggle forward, but life will actually improve. It must be allowed to gain strength, but Blue State will be a far nicer place. This will cause brain drain, population issues, talent issues, etc., for Red State. Again, at the same time, Red State is likely to drift or even lurch at times further “red,” which is to say toward Fascism. The Constitutional protections of the United States that Red State presumably sought to preserve somewhere will mostly be lost by necessity. All of this will be amplified by the global community’s Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus into relentless propaganda against Red State, which it will destroy your social credit to question or challenge.

Red State must be allowed to consolidate and grow in strength, maybe even with a Fascist-style government that has no use for “lib’rals” and throws them out, strengthening Blue State, which would already be beyond tolerating useless radicals—but that would fund them to be exactly that while they remain in Red State. Constitutional protections will be jettisoned to prevent re-subversion, and this will keep conflict high inside, and the “global community” will be forced to become more and more wary of Red State and its trajectory. Sanctions and other international issues would likely mount for Red State, adding to its challenges.

A few years down the road, notably after Red State develops a functional semblance of its own military, the world together with Blue State will simply provoke a war with Red State. The pretext might be the increasingly Fascistic turn Red State was forced to take. It might be that Red State feels a bit of its new strength and decides it’s time to take action to remedy the unfairness of its global standing. In any case, it will come about in the typical Blue Team way: through a provocation that sets Red State up to be the first militant actor. Now the world has to act and it must act decisively to “preserve democracy” on “the global stage,” or some such rhetoric.

This event, which immediately becomes an urgent global emergency against the rogue Red State launches the world back onto the Fast Option pathway to Game Over. Maybe Red State can put up more of a fight in the short term, but it will be the entire world against Red State, which hasn’t had a chance to organize sufficiently to deal with such an onslaught. The world will be led to believe through the by-then-very-sophisticated Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus that Red State is the aggressor it was always painted out to be. The Slow Option therefore also ends at Game Over and gets there at full velocity.

National Divorce Is National Suicide

National Divorce, which starts with The Big Sort and through pushing desperation into foolish action even before such a sort could be accomplished, results in Regime Change (Game Over) ultimately, and the Red Team has no realistic pathways to coming out on top. We might feel great for a little while, but it’s a short road to Game Over.

To divide the United States and break the reach of its Constitution and Bill of Rights will create a scenario in which all the power tips to the Global Enemy. You, no matter where you find yourself in that world, will not have a future unless you brainwash yourself and join the Global Collective. Your children will not have a future unless they are part of the Global Collective. This is not a peaceful path to restoring anyone’s way of life. This isn’t 1776. These aren’t the British. We are dealing with Global Communists who have already entrenched themselves in massive arrays of power and are making a legitimate bid for global control.

You might believe, like mentioned near the beginning of this discussion, that what is described above is inevitable, so we might as well “rip the Band-Aid off.” That’s not true. A National Divorce is not inevitable. In fact, it's completely avoidable, allowing us to assert the power of the Constitution of the United States to secure the rights of our people and then to be a beacon of freedom and life to the world again, the world’s “last best hope.” We’re already making incredible strides in that direction, and rather than directing our enmity at our complicit countrymen as new challenges arise, we can continue to channel that into justification to expose and ultimately dismantle the revolution banging against our doors. Every evil move they make can be turned into discrediting them with a far broader audience. The rats orchestrating the revolution will jump ship if the deal looks like it’s going bad, and then they can be incentivized to talk. When they talk, the Enemy—not the country—goes into a downward spiral. The Constitution can prevail, and American can be made great again, with the rest of the free world behind it.

We are already making progress, even in hard states like California. The Courts are siding with us more and more. People are awakening. DEI and ESG are damaged badly. We know how they play their games and do their tricks. We realize how much bait they put in front of us. Their scams and schemes are backfiring. Inconvenient truths for their continued power surface week by week. The tide is turning.

The way out begins with faith in our nation, its Constitution, and most of all its good people. Faith in God, including the sacrifices you need to make and courage you need to show to prove that faith, is also warranted. Winning, though, also means taking the difficult road of sticking up for the place you live.

If you live in a “blue” place, and being as much sand in the gears against the Communists as you can. By organizing—which is impossible if you leave—you can consolidate local-level and eventually greater power that can keep the Communists from taking another inch. Look at Take Back Alberta in Canada, which is a country worse off than the U.S. Look at Garry Tan and his stand for San Francisco. Look to the millions of Americans waking up to the fact that they have to win back control over their back yards by standing and fighting, not retreating to some desperate last stand for them and their kids. Groups like Moms for Liberty are activating parents in almost every state and making progress, taking the fights to the local and state levels first so that we can keep all fifty stars on our Star-Spangled Banner. These examples are the real stuff. Be careful with what ideas you get from influencers. Edge sells but loses. Not all of them are even honest. Communists infiltrate and then rise up from within, leading patriots into traps.

Keep faith and fight for the integrity of the US and its Constitution! A National Divorce is National Suicide. Suicides are deaths of despair. The Communists are provoking us to despair so we’ll, as a nation, take our own life. They want us thinking this is Cowboys versus Communists so they can get us to make the very mistakes outlined in this discussion. It’s not. It’s those who have faith in the integrity and strength in this nation and its founding ideals against those who do not, and we’re showing up far too successfully to throw it all away with delusional fantasies of a “National Divorce.”

Articles

Comments (0) loading...

Like(1)

Dislike(0)

View previous posts (6/88)

Share

Subscription Tiers

Features

Recent posts

Marxism is a Cult Religion

Queer Theory is the Doctrine of a Sex-Based Cult

Mao’s Politics of Compliance

Somewhere Over The Rainbow: Introducing The Queering of the American Child

Why to Reject the WHO Over “Gender-Affirming Care”

National Divorce Is National Suicide

Star Stats

Goals

Other stars