In this essay I will, to the best of my current abilities, describe to you what I strongly suspect nobody has before – perhaps ever – the detailed “why” and “how” of broken political processes, institutions, and persons in the United States. I will describe the nature of warfare where the spiritual meets the corporeal, and the social meets the objective. Lastly, I will suggest a basic strategy with which we might resist the enemy, and begin to retake ground, by the controlled demolition of unserviceable politics, and its reorganization into a force capable of achieving victory.
I’ll apologize in advance if any of this seems choppy. This was not easy to conceptualize and record. Settle in - this is not a short one.
There Is No Political Solution to What Ails Us
“No political solution” means that our system of politics is not capable, as it currently exists, of producing solutions to the problems that plague us – at least not within an acceptable timeframe within which total calamity might be avoidable. This doesn’t mean that politics have no import. Politics remains of high import – though perhaps not at the federal level. The federal government is in a state of such muddled corruption and tyranny that a steady sanding of the gears is likely the best achievable outcome through federal politics.
However, states, counties, and localities are another animal entirely. At these levels of organization very much remains theoretically possible, and the levers remain accessible to a varying degree. I use “theoretically possible” advisedly, as right now there exists, within most locales, counties and States, no practical capacity for solutions within government and politics, though for somewhat different reasons than at the federal level.
Small Men and Hollow Words
Have you noticed that politicians, like major corporations, speak in a near-robotic manner of hollow language – sound and fury signifying nothing but “virtue?” Have you noticed which “virtues” are elevated in this hollow-speak? Surely not those of prudence, patience, benevolence, or moderation. Certainly not. Rather, they elevate those anti-virtues of “Pride,” self-aggrandizement, shirking of responsibility, and broadly that of our malevolent cultural colonization.
Have you noticed what happens when a politician, for a moment, forgets to ring hollow and says something of substance? What happens when a man of politics utters an item which betrays the narrative? He is collapsed upon by the media, activists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the broad regime. He is identified as a villain by the powers that be, and he is treated accordingly by the narcissistic mass of The Current Thing. This playbook is little more than weaponized Pavlov for the digital age: teach politicians to expect emotional, social, and perhaps financial pain upon failing to be a hollow-man. The lesson is to keep the language robotic and empty – merely a shell of true speech.
The Destruction of Meaning
Through accomplishing the normalization of this Pavlovian program of socially-enforced empty speech communication of real, true, important and timely things becomes impossible, as every word comes to exist only as an avatar of friend or foe. With this destruction of the capacity for communication also comes the destruction of the capacity for understanding. Words are obfuscated to mean little at all, or perhaps even the opposite of their true meaning: “liberal,” “democracy,” and, most recently, “censorship” have all been redefined through obfuscation by a combination of institutional capture and mass social Pavlovianism to mean the inverse of their true meaning.
Where “liberal” should mean a system of minimizing conflict and tyranny through minimizing government’s role, it instead has been colonized by the word “Progressive,” and Marxian metaphysics, such that “liberal” now refers to those seeking to maximize government’s role towards the perfection of society, and mankind, towards utopian ends of an immanent eschaton.
Where “democracy” should mean a simple majoritarianism, or rule of the majority, it now has been obfuscated into near total obscurity, but often smuggles the presuppositions of “Marxist democracy,” in which “democracy” really means “dictatorship” until such a time that Communist heaven has been achieved, and all persons have been rendered identical.
Where “censorship” has historically meant the improper interference in speech by authorities, and, more recently, private sector “platforms,” it is being redefined in real time, currently in cases pending judicial appeal, to mean the prevention of communications between government and private sector companies meant to deplatform harmful disinformation by citizens. Yes, the government is arguing that preventing the government from telling social media to prevent or remove the speech of citizens is, itself, censorship of the government, and a violation of its rights – and if they’re successful in this dialectical inversion this may become the commonly understood meaning of “censorship” in the coming years, and government may be seen to have “rights” in conflict with the rights of citizens to be adjudicated towards the ”greater good” (i.e. always in favor of government) by the courts.
Strategic Obfuscation Towards Domination
You see, the strategic obfuscation of language yields a state of strategic incomprehension that renders both the populace, and politicians, vulnerable to fictions of all sorts. This has been the most successful work of Communists for nearly two centuries, and that of various secret societies and cults for many, many centuries before.
This speaks to what the philosophers (theologians) of Marxism call libido dominandi: the will to dominate. Without getting into the weeds on what is an only tangentially important term for our purposes, suffice it to know that it speculates all men have a desire to dominate, that all men participate in this attempt to dominate others, that these power relations manifest socially, and that because they presume others are likewise attempting to dominate them, they are justified in attempting to dominate others. Their preferred methodology is alchemical wizardry applied to language.
This is not new. The “New Age” cults of the 1960’s were not “New Age” because they were The Current Thing, they were “New Age” because they sought to bring about the Age of Aquarius, a religious concept akin to Heaven-on-earth that was prophesied at least dating to the medieval period. These cults drew from many different religions but relied heavily on Platonism for their central operating systems. It may surprise you to know that Communism was not, in fact, an entirely new idea created by Marx, but rather yet another largely plagiarized and borrowed set of ideas originating in Platonism as it evolved through the years in various secret societies. The work of these secret societies was, generally, to exert massively outsized influence, and obtain wealth and power, and to dominate, through a combination of corruption utilized to affect institutional capture (like the counter-state model) and the manipulation of language that caused their belief system to parasitize others (think of how they managed to get Christians to redefine the meaning of “love” to “affirmation”).
Marxism, in all its forms, operates as an open secret society and cult. They have a cult structure, they took the institutions – subtly at first, and now openly – and use them to great effect implementing their Pavlovian aufheben (cancel) campaigns. They also have a research and development arm in the universities that constantly create new memetic forms of their religion and release them on the population where they compete for cultural dominance in the nature of memetic evolution. This ensures the progression and adoption of their program at a historically unparalleled rate through highly motivated acolytes. They are not, however, the only secret society out there still wielding, and seeking, outsized power toward your domination.
Simply for your edification I must inform you that I, myself, as part of a training event for legislators, partook in sessions put on by professional psychologists from non-governmental organizations brought in by House leadership (and for which a caucus now exists) towards the ends of “bipartisanship.” The methodology used that day in communications and negotiations was identified as “dialectical behavioral therapy,” and it consisted of purposely adopting the dialectical inversions proposed by the left towards “compromise.” I’ll let you stir with that as you continue to read.
The Dialectic in Praxis
These secret societies – including the open cult of Marxism in all its flavors – employ the weaponized dialectic concept of Hermetic infamy towards these ends. The dialectic, as a theological concept, is one of merging items, or concepts, that appear substantially different (and usually are) by going up levels of categorization until no difference is discernable. A trout and a bass are not the same, but they are both fish, and that higher-level category obscures the differences.
In practice the dialectic is oft applied utilizing the “big ask” strategy. By politically or ideologically making demands of the radical/revolutionary sort (at or near the edge of the Overton Window), the relatively meager demands made by their opposition, when applied to a dialectical negotiation, sees the upward movement of levels increased dramatically in order to obscure the substantial differences. This extreme obfuscation of terms allows the left to consistently pull the socially negotiated settlement in their direction by leaps and bounds through sheer confusion.
An example is the current ridiculous debate about parental rights. America, being founded on the values, presuppositions, and metaphysics of Christianity, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment, clearly evidence the natural ownership of children by parents (those from whom they naturally originated and were birthed), and that belongingness of children to their natural family. It is therefore unquestionably clear under the presuppositions of American ethics that parents have broad, inviolable, and near-total rights over their minor children.
So, to overturn these American ideals of parental rights, as dialectical “big ask” and inversion the concept of “children’s rights” are introduced – not from an American ideal perspective of negative rights, such as the right to be free from abuse, but from the Marxian concept of positive rights, such as the “right” to demand parents “affirm” delusion, perversion, and acquired psychopathologies (conferred purposely, in many cases, by the public educational system). In so doing they obfuscate the nature of “rights,” the natural bonds of affection and hierarchy between parent and child, and, if successful, they achieve domination.
Science vs. “The Science,” Theology Dictates All
The reality of the soft sciences is that they have been dominated from the beginning by the metaphysics of the ancient mystery religions, notably Gnosticism and Hermeticism, and as such most of this “science” isn’t science at all, but a combination of legitimation by paralogy and the purposed seeking of the New Age eschaton through the application of dialectics.
There is a question here about the very nature of the concept of “truth.” The American founding was based on what should be the rather uncontroversial assertion that there exists, outside of human experience, an objective reality. This presupposition applied logically leads to the conclusion that we interact with an objective reality constantly, and we take in information about this objective reality through out senses. It should further be uncontroversial that our senses can err, as can our reason. I make mistakes sometimes. I’m sure you do too.
This combination of imperfect, though generally of reasonable fidelity sensory input, and reason (though likewise imperfect) gives rise to our subjective, individual experience, as mapped onto our existing biological (and spiritual) structures. Naturally, the conclusion to be drawn from this is that while we can individually experience the world, and have faith that an objective world and therefore an objective “truth” exists, we may not be able to grasp it with perfect fidelity due to our own imperfections.
This series of rational beliefs gives rise to the unfortunate truth that those things we assert as “fact,” are, really, just our most assured beliefs about a thing. We hope that these most assured beliefs are of sufficiently high fidelity in representing something real and objective that if we act like we believe these things we will avoid pain and discomfort.
This avoidance of pain and discomfort is where ideas about things, as enacted through our bodies, make contact with an objective world from which we receive feedback about the fidelity of these things through all manner of outcomes we perceive through our senses, from death to life, from pain to pleasure. This is also how proper scientific experiments are designed to function.
It should therefore be clear that there can be no absolute claim to truth outside that of faith – that of the theological realm. Claims to absolute truth by science, therefore, are not representative of science at all, but rather that of a faith smuggled in the name of science. This takes its modern form in both legitimation by paralogy, and peer-review.
The paralogic of postmodernism is, in theory, designed to flatten hierarchy by refusing to allow people to recognize which systems of understanding represent a higher fidelity to reality (they don’t believe in reality). This, in practice according to theory, looks like bringing witch doctors into a pediatric clinic to offer animal sacrifices over children, all the while you’re not allowed to notice the absurdity or malevolence.
The weaponized form of legitimation by paralogy is the utilization of captured institutions to wield institutional credibility to make absurd assertions that must be believed, else be subject to cancellation. Now that “scientific” journals have been largely captured, and the positions at universities filled with acolytes, “peer-review” is taking center stage as the obfuscatory mechanism – held up as unquestionable canon, where it really represents nothing but corruption, social constructivism and malevolent political warfare. Peer-review means nothing at all from a true scientific standpoint. The only thing that means anything at all in true science is repeatability of well-designed studies, and nearly all soft “science” fails this metric. Don’t be swayed by appeals to “the science.” It’s just alchemy.
The one thing “The Science” has legitimately become very good at is confusing people with philosophy towards inducing cognitive dissonance and rendering them vulnerable to the induction of psychopathologies that leave them politically, and theologically (cultishly) actionable. They want acolytes. It’s like a memetic mental virus. It evolves – sometimes naturally, sometimes inorganically. It renders one incapable of seeing things how they really are. It promotes narcissism and paranoia. It breaks people on purpose.
Communication Breakdown
Human understanding and knowledge are best understood as the product of three inputs: instinct (those preprogrammed items), sensory data (that which is taken in through sight, sound, touch, and so on), and communication. The foremost form of factual communication is language. For those knowing the meaning of the word “succinct” you will understand the utility of language, used wisely and prudently, to convey much information in a very short time relative to sensory input data applied to reason.
Categories of things are labeled as to convey very large amounts of information about something rapidly – even though a bit of fidelity is typically lost in the process. A good example of this is the game Charades, wherein a word is selected, and a participant must act out that word until it is correctly guessed by another.
This task of acting out Charades is often quite difficult and time consuming. Imagine if all communications had to work like that. There would simply not be enough time in the day to learn anything even remotely complex. This is a problem known as “bandwidth,” and it refers to how much information may be conveyed through a medium (in this case, speech, or language) in a given period of time.
This is another way the enemy short-circuits the utility of language, obfuscates, and renders you in a state of strategic incomprehension: removing certain language from the realm of acceptable discourse such that your communication falls below that necessary threshold of bandwidth – either in terms of audience attention span, or simply available time to communicate.
Never Attribute Incompetence to That Which Ought be Attributed to Malice
Hanlon’s Razor is a weapon of political warfare meant to negate you by preventing you from discerning truth. Let’s think about that for a moment. What does Hanlon’s Razor say? “Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence.” Okay, let’s break that down. What can you attribute to incompetence? In theory, you can attribute everything for which you do not have an explicit admission of guilt, which is, essentially, everything in politics, to incompetence.
Does Hanlon’s Razor have utility? Perhaps, in a circumstance wherein you are dealing not with an enemy, but merely a loyal opposition, it performs a social role to smooth relations and government operations. It will serve under such circumstances to obfuscate differences and promote social harmony. Perhaps there’s a time for that. We’re not in that circumstance. In our circumstance Hanlon’s Razor acts to entirely prevent you from discerning intentions.
Why is that important? Imagine if George Washington had been prevented, by convention of the rules of combat, from discerning the intentions of Benedict Arnold, or any other spy, saboteur, or traitor. Washington would have had his hands artificially tied, and Arnold, and every other traitor, would have been given a free hand to act against the interests of the burgeoning nation – even if they had been removed from position upon the assumption of incompetence no deterrence against treason would have been established by the enactment of judgement and justice. We would have been crushed by the crown.
Hanlon’s Razor acts as a tool of the enemy that should be abandoned entirely for our purposes. We should not be in the business of making assumptions tilted towards smoothing relations. We should be dispassionately weighing the evidence and judging accordingly. We should be looking first to outcomes, and working backward from there with the baseline assumption that the outcome was intended, and that actions were purposed toward that end. Once may be unlucky, but twice is enemy contact until proven otherwise.
When the GOPe fail you, passes bills against your interests, or even simply allows bills to be passed against your interest, when they fail to remove the enemy through impeachment and prosecution, and when they plead they’ve done their best (if only you’d donated more), you aren’t seeing good ol’ boys putting up the good fight, you’re witnessing enemy contact.
Overcoming a Stacked Deck
If you say the forbidden words you’re labeled “extreme” and, often, successfully negated by the narcissistic mass, but if you do not you cannot convey the idea adequately to formulate a coherent strategic awareness, and plan of action – this is true even if you are wrong, as the wrong idea must be presented such that it can be defeated. So, the conundrum must be overcome by walking with one foot on each side of the divide, and playing just at the edge of the Overton Window such that your forbidden words are received with caution, but the narcissist attacks fall sufficiently flat as to not negate you (and your message).
When we plan our strategic messaging we should consider several other facts as well, and we must understand our strengths and weaknesses, as well as that of the enemy. Firstly, the enemy has captured the culture, and despite us living within an objective reality the unfortunate truth is that most are incapable of escaping their subjective, socially-constructed actuality at present. That does not, however, mean that we can dabble in the world of social constructivism to fight back. The enemy cannot be judoed within their own construct. We must rely on a purposed re-grounding into objectivism.
The enemy’s captivity has rendered the masses largely invulnerable to utilitarian-type argumentation. In fact, it’s largely rendered them invulnerable to any argumentation. We must then rely on moral and emotional argumentation to disrupt that captivity in order to begin to affect cultural change towards the abandonment of radical subjectivity – yes, I know that seems counter-intuitive, but it’s quite well reasoned. Those captured by emotional appeals, initially towards subjectivism, are still susceptible to emotional appeals, but we must do it from an objectivist basis. That means reorienting ourselves inwardly towards a firm moral grounding in traditional Americanism such that we might act out externally the fruits of this conviction, emotionally, and with righteous anger such that it disrupts the loosely imbedded metaphysics of radical subjectivism. This is the essence of the red pill.
This is where the GOPe, those controlled opposition, will begin to expose themselves. They will demand fealty to an imaginary system that says decorum and inoffensive are the highest, inviolable virtues. They will make appeals to marginal tax rates, “it’s the economy, stupid,” and business interests, and demand the culture war be surrendered as beneath their dignity. They will betray their promises and affect the defeat of their own base through loyalty to this imaginary system. They will not fight for you. You will be negated.
This is the nature of political warfare, and this is why there is no political solution. Before there can be a political solution there must be a social solution to politics. That solution is achieved, as outlined above, through enacting emotion, and effective communications, at the edge of the Overton Window, until such a time that the window is either shifted or split in two.
It may then be reoriented towards a victory for objectivism and Americanism by enacting that outrage and emotion directly towards those falling outside the threshold of potential victory, one at a time, until an ideological intensification is achieved that restores American values and metaphysics. However, bear in mind that knowing where the edge of the Overton Window lies requires wisdom and discernment. I did mention that this is a type of warfare – don’t casually jump into the deep end.
As you move forward on this journey to controversy know that you are in good historical company. While I’d suggest you avoid strictly ad hominem style attacks the founders participated in their fair share, with Adams being called a “hideous hermaphrodite,” and another insult leading to a House floor duel with weapons of opportunity – a not uncommon occurrence.
There is certainly no historical precedent in America for limiting one’s speech artificially from labelling an opponent with a particularly cutting, but correct descriptor. Such labels in vogue at this moment include, “groomer,” “Communist (or Marxist),” “traitor,” or even “degenerate” when deployed in the proper context – and that proper context is that in which it is still controversial to say, but readily arguably true, and ready to be received by the base, such that it might shift the Overton Window.
There is likewise no historic American precedent for refusing to discern and highlight the enemy’s intentions and motivations. All human activity is motivated – all language and labels applied will therefore imply motivation, and to attempt to strip our language of such implications is to render ourselves incompetent with hollow words. Such conventions of self-censorship are a modern invention, and a product most proximately of an American Maoism overtaking the culture.
To participate in such self-censorship, or even to allow oneself to be censored under a campaign of aufheben (cancellation), is to fail in the duty to uphold the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, and to hand a victory to a domestic (and/or foreign) enemy. The only answer is to keep communicating truth at the edge of controversy, and to double-down when confronted. To fail here, to apologize, to admit defeat is to lose your moral authority in the public eye – this cannot be readily recovered, and effectively removes you from the information battlefield. It is a kill shot. Do not give in to the mob – ever. What’s needed now is measured irreverence in the face of once renowned institutions, confident smirks in the face of tut-tutting authorities, and one-fingered salutes to the narcissist mass. What you need is courage.
Tremendous article. We are fortunate to have your clear voice piercing the muddle.
There it is. Well articulated. This.. system is dynamic. What has helped me the most to "get it" was when I started studying language and Rhetoric. Wittgenstein, Austin, Burke, Searle.. I came to appreciate language more and its role in society. While I am still learning, I have realized that the understanding of this technology ( language) has been weaponized and is not easily defeated. How you condensed this concept into just this essay was remarkable. I have many other thoughts but first and foremost bravo. Well done.