As usual, one is hard-pressed to develop original ideas or thoughts. However, the brilliance of others occasionally sheds light in darkened corners that have been ignored but can be explored. Such is the case with the work of recent writers, Robert Malone (
) and (The Plague Chronicles) on Substack and Donavan Lingerfelt on Mises.org. Lingerfelt distills the essence of physical eugenicide in the Twentieth Century. I find direct links to Malone’s broader concerns regarding our current socio-cultural chaos derived from a seeming governmental-corporate coalition of coincident goals. These “accidental” collusions are moving us kicking and screaming (whimpering?) towards the Global Reset, a Fourth Industrial Revolution of green energy-based Artificial Intelligence, and a redistribution of identity from the evolved tribalism of race, ethnicity, and nationhood to newly defined categories based on anything but those prior unjust phobic factors. Those with global wealth, position, and “foresight” seek to fulfill our every desire, shoveling us into an inescapable global harmony of trans-sexuality and transhumanism. A singularity of sameness as defined by them. The globalist technobureaucracy, self-empowered, will quench every pre-approved thirst worldwide with an orgy of regulated, rationalized, righteous redistribution. For our own good, not theirs. This is a new guided form of human evolution, Sociobiology. E.O. Wilson defined sociobiology as “the extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organizations.” As practiced by our transhumanist elites, it is Sociocultural Eugenicide.Malone has, along with
(Substack), dissected the hidden organs of this movement to show their evolutionary origins and current functionality. Desmet has popularized the concept of “mass formation” wherein large numbers of people become convinced of certain points of view despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The result is always a version of totalitarianism. Examples abound in history, such as public acceptance of the Inquisition, the German peoples’ silent acquiescence to the Holocaust, and America’s promulgation of Jim Crow. Malone, a medical scientist with extensive background as a government consultant, clarifies the methods whereby media organizations, corporations, and especially governments manipulate a population’s beliefs away from the facts and to a convinced agreement with a preferred “truth”. He refers to this process, rampant in media- and government-sponsored public discourse, as 5th Generation Warfare, a kind of domestic Psyops. Under its ever more far reaching and sophisticated tutelage, we have become convinced of the necessity of endless overseas wars, the treasonous corruption of Presidents, and the absolute necessity to extinguish parts of the American economy and many civil rights in service to ending a pandemic originating in an accident of our own intended production. Having successfully demonstrated the creation of artificial consensus serving their own purposes, these same forces now broaden their horizons to encompass worldwide homogenization by eliminating “inferior” societal norms.This innate drive for power by individuals, corporate entities, and governments has a long and accelerating history in biologic eugenics. Paraphrasing traditionalist commentator Ben Shapiro, the basis of all society is the family, not the individual. When Homo Sapiens progenitors first established families by persistent relationship between males and females beyond mating season, they may have instituted biologic eugenics in a passive and active form. Lingerfelt’s succinct Mises.org essay on the Twentieth Century Eugenics Movement quotes Paul Popenoe’s book Applied Eugenics about the improvement in humankind achievable through “the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold.... or by bodily deficiency.” Indeed, the major agent of biologic eugenics for most of hominid history was environmental. The latter 19th century into the early 20th century massively abridged this agency with the spread of sanitation, clean water, expansion of the food supply, and more readily available energy. But coincident with passive biologic eugenics was the development of active biologic eugenics. Beyond the curtain of history, hominids began to purposefully eliminate some amongst themselves. Deliberate infanticide of the physically deformed, infanticide or homicide of individuals who could no longer be supported or support themselves, cannibalism, competitive eliminations when some families or groups were forcefully denied access to life-sustaining resources, and finally the evolution of warfare with other families, groups, or tribes seen not only as competitors but as inferiors, introduced non-environmental modifications of the human gene pool. Admixture did occur when the vanquished were absorbed as slaves or members of the victor group. Rape as a method of warfare was another kind of assimilation, another kind of biologic eugenics.
Paul Popenoe, along with a host of others detailed by Lingerfelt, was an early active promoter of another biological method to change or “improve” humankind—forced sterilization. This was aimed exclusively at women, as the number of fertile uteri was the ultimate limiting factor in production of inferior or master races. Males could be eliminated but this was too direct and threatening to Western paternalistic societies. David Starr Jordan of Stanford University was against the U.S. entering WW I “because physically fit men would die, and America would breed only second-rate men.” Lingerfelt calls “the inhumane pseudoscience of eugenics” a basic belief and feature of American progressivism widely propagandized by our academic elite during the early 20th century. This most distinguished class of Americans worked with willing legislators and governors to regulate marriage to avoid unfit children, limit immigration of inferior races, enact sterilization bills, exclude blacks from universities, and proselytize efforts to eliminate “hopelessly defective and criminal classes.” One staunch advocate was President Woodrow Wilson who ironically ended his term as a hopelessly defective stroke victim.
The influence of that era’s progressives was international. Famine in India was lauded as an opportunity for “race improvement.” Stalin practiced an active variant of this with the forced starvation of 3.5 to 10 million Ukrainians during the Holodomor. Sweden had a highly active, successful program of sterilization up until the 1970’s. But no country or government matched the enthusiasm for American progressive biologic eugenics beliefs with that of Germany’s Nazis and Mussolini’s Italy. Lingerfelt crystallizes the philosophical kinship of these three comrades in human “progress.” He cites the direct communications between Hitler’s Nazi regime, Mussolini’s fascist government, and prominent members and groups of the progressive American Eugenics Movement. Hitler acknowledged one American book, The Passing of the Great Race, as his “bible.” This same book was later used by one Nazi as a defense during the Nuremberg trials. Those same trials finally brought the reality, the horrors, of progressive ideals of selective human improvement through active elimination of some humans (or prevention of procreation) home to Western, even worldwide, civilization. Both mass media and government reversed course from the feigned ignorance of FDR and American mass media regarding the Holodomor and the Holocaust to a righteous condemnation of these ideas. The mass formation of biologic eugenics evaporated.
Neither the progressive ideals of human improvement guided by academic or governmental elites nor the methods of convincing the populace of their inevitable necessity disappeared. Worldwide we became engrossed in individual economic and social improvements, and recovery from the two World Wars. An ongoing Cold War with a fully totalitarian collectivist philosophy embodied by the Soviet Union and China served to imprison any legitimacy for centrally defined, involuntary, forced means of improvement in the species at least in the biological sense. But the subliminal irresistible urge to improve and equalize human outcomes, if not humanity itself, was nascent. The seed bed for this new progressive movement was a populace that no longer struggled for biological existence or comfort. Americans especially became WEIRD. That acronym, coined by several of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s students, defines our modern culture as Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. Compared to much of the rest of the world we have a relatively narrow moral domain as seen below. That seed bed’s watering can has become the gently expanding shower of easy social communication.
The post-WW II globe exploded with a vibrant new middle class. America had fully mobilized both genders in a massive expansion of industrial production. Returning troops re-assumed the factory floors previously dominated by women and, with those traditionally minded but newly capable women, flourished in procreation. Wartime American production changed with the peace dividend. The productive capacities of Europe and other developed countries had been destroyed. As America’s middle class developed and expanded, so did that of Europe under American tutelage and monetary/cultural dominance. Many other countries, or colonies of exhausted European powers, birthed and grew their own versions of a middle class appropriate to their culture and new economic status. The vacuous artificially constructed nation states of much of the post-colonial world were inflated with American dollars, investment, language, culture, and political philosophy regardless of its appropriateness to their level of development or history. These new campaigns of economic and political advancement established the new Cold War as one of battling ideals. Both adversaries began developing novel delivery methods for their weaponized philosophies. While Communism had long used dialectic to disarm capitalism as inherently oppressive and un-equalizing, America and its western allies learned more than rocketry from their former opponents, the Nazis. That group had convinced, through masterful propaganda and misrepresentation, a highly civilized and previously ethical people of their inherent superiority and right to take whatever lands they felt they needed while disposing of undesirables in the most industrially efficient way possible. All media and all communications by every level of government had been directed to this sole purpose. For the U.S.A., Radio Free Europe was transformed into a worldwide beacon of “good” propaganda. Our international agencies, the State Department, and the CIA, began to learn and use productive methods of pro-American consensus building. They extended this with other methods to “modify” foreign regimes to our way of thinking, or at least to an anti-Communist ideology. Our military saw the wisdom in psychological operations as an adjunct use of power before, during, and after armed conflict, and gradually its extreme effectiveness over time as a substitute for actual battle. Domestically our media largely reported factual narratives, even if foreign happenings were seen through red/white/blue colored glasses. The American public had achieved and maintained a consensus on what America was and what it represented, even as we continued to overlook the residuals of prior Civil War and the Great Depression. That consensus, an agreement in principle if not in fact, changed with another war, in Vietnam.
The war in Vietnam, unlike the “police action” in Korea, was the first war that had to be sold to the American public by its government. In our hubris we failed to heed the French collapse, and gradually took over lordship of Southeast Asia, not for colonial profit but for halting that string of Communist dominoes. Post-colonial South Vietnam, with no true populace-based experience in self-governance, could not merely be supported in their own efforts to repel a committed effective authoritarian people from North Vietnam. The North had been forcefully seduced into the consensus of Communism. Their most basic drive was to affirm all Vietnamese as one people free of foreign dominance (if not influence). As the heat rose, the U.S.A. brought in ever more frogs to slowly sauté. More and more young Americans were yanked out of complacent lives into the conflict by an inherently unjust draft system. The justice of that system had been “adjusted” purposefully to minimize backlash from the wealthier or more accomplished of our country. The ongoing failures and inadequacies of our military and social warfare in Vietnam now required the use of tactics and methods of information modification or prevarication to “sell” our endlessly expanding expenses of money and blood to a newly skeptical American public. We had forgiven a prior President for the Bay of Pigs precisely because he had promptly recognized its immediate failure and impossibility of success and told the public those facts clearly, accepting full responsibility. In the interim, despite that example and prior warnings from President Eisenhower, our civilian institutions of government had been captured by a military- industrial globalist complex. That loose but ever tightening collaborative had convinced itself, via its pro-America/anti-Communism rhetoric, that the U.S.A. was the sole guiding principle for the world. It turned its well-honed tools so effectively used internationally inward to work on the American public. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, our government’s predicate for open unlimited war with North Vietnam, was a foundational lie of the new era of domestic demagoguery. A fragile consensus in American public support for the war was maintained, as Robert Malone has written about a more recent campaign of falsehoods, by “Layers upon layers of interlocking liars and their lies.”
Yet those privileged, more accomplished, and wealthier who had been purposefully protected from the draft were the ones who once again acted to free us, this time not from our foreign colonial overlord, but from our new domestic overlords. University students and faculty, freer from daily efforts to sustain routine life needs, invested themselves in learning deeper truths about that war and our role in it as well as the methods used to convince us of its absolute necessity. A few in the media returned to an older tradition of battlefield reporting, did not like what they saw, and refused in growing numbers to modify reporting reality “to support our boys”. However, most domestic media battled on behalf of the establishment as adversaries to the protesters. The first crack in the narrative may have been Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to run for another term. He tacitly admitted that the war efforts of the establishment had not and would not succeed. He did not have the courage of his predecessor to openly admit the bloody error over which he had presided, nor to end it. There may have been wisdom in that latter decision, as to “cut and run” at that time, as we did later in Afghanistan, could have resulted in a violent dissolution of our republic. The anti-war faction had already exhibited violence in both spontaneous and coordinated fashion, and those regular persons who remained (despite growing evidence to the contrary) convinced of the war’s rectitude were overtly hostile to those who saw the facts on the ground rather than the “truths” from the government via the media. That media, after all, had ignored Wilson’s and FDR’s physical disability as well as that of Kennedy and his minimally covert philandering. Such ignorance, they thought, served the bliss of the people. The final fracture between the media and the governmental establishment was Richard Nixon’s Watergate.
Nixon’s political criminality required a relatively minor absolute crime, breaking and entering. However, he injected himself deeply into further real criminality by attempting to cover it all up, adding the considerations of bribery and obstruction of justice to his collection of hubris. Given his long history of enmity with the media, their enthusiastic pursuit and documentation of his wrongdoing was not surprising. His inevitable fall from grace was a coup d’état of public opinion armed by media archangels. They were now flushed with a newly discovered power of direct manipulation of the public and the government. Coincident with this new power of finding and reporting what had previously been redacted by the media (in tacit consent with the establishment) arose two new breeds of journalists, the investigators and the opinionators. Journalism ceased to resemble reporting and became narration, a deliberated intent to influence our views of reality.
The Vietnam war and the Nixon debacle had transformed “the influencing class” into uniformly skeptical editorializing critics. This coincided with a massive influx of younger Boomers coddled in the relatively comfortable aftermath of WW II and dedicated to remaking America and the world as had The Greatest Generation. This they would do not through war but through breaking down all the mechanisms of history that led to war. Traditionalists, still largely in control, gradually aged out of academia, business, journalism, and government. The younger rejectionist generation chose to forget older episodes of democratic ascendancy in favor of its more recent missteps and errors. Those were proof, in the new arising ethos, that all the mechanisms of freedom were flawed and required forceful immediate replacement. This was all clearly revealed by the newly active and corrosive influence of the media. Replacement of the traditional would require destruction of the old ethos and its symbols. That destruction came to be viewed as “equalizing all”. Was that not the overlooked foundational meaning of democratic freedom?
That equalization of all must be extended by our better angels of the media and government (as the influencer class eroded their way into its ranks) to the globe. This redirected our international interferences in a more acceptable manner. Soon our proliferating pundits, realizing that this was disrupting the lives of the still restive population at large, figured out that this effort required a very traditional method of persuasion. Paraphrasing J.P. Sears’ recent video blog, “commonism” (forcing us all to accept all and everyone as equally common) requires “destroying the perception of objective truth in people’s minds”. This is done, again paraphrasing Sears, by “capturing, degenerating, and then controlling the minds…” of the people. The coalescence of media opinion, previously inimical to the bureaucratic/military/industrial/governmental complex, coincided with the ascension of those indoctrinated younger Boomers (under even more comfortable socioeconomic lifestyles) into the controlling positions of that complex. A second “Big Bang” of human existence began in 2007, as the first internet-capable cellphones enabled ever more instant and pervasive anonymous social communication devoid of any behavioral clues to veracity or intent. Social media began its desocialization as we became ever more tribalized, rather than communized. The resulting and ongoing collapse of traditional media structures metastasized the work of the new influencer class. The fading Gerontocracy was all too willing to ride the crest of this new wave to maintain influence and power as long as possible. All societies’ elites always have only one guiding principle: self-preservation at the expense of everyone else’s future. That self-preservation, as well as broad acceptance of a new commonality through destroying the fruits of personal ambition and attainment, requires acceptance of the new “relative” truths underlying it. History is not repeated by those who fail to study it; human behavior has basic potential flaws that recreate historical errors. Destroying the old bad ways requires, ironically, use of anciently bad methods. Destroying the perceptions of objective truth through capturing, degenerating, and then controlling minds requires skillfully constructed and emphatically repeated lies. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, “They lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.” That is the root of socio-cultural eugenicide. We accept eliminating the best in our society and culture instead of acknowledging the worst and aspiring for better, hoping for the better to be given to us by others.
Key to maintaining the new elitism by expanding commonality has become the goal of the Great Reset. We have seen this before. Robert Malone, in asking “Is the Nation State Obsolete?” reminds us that “…the growing willingness of citizens to concede personal autonomy, free agency, and sovereignty to a technocratic elite…” is not new. What is new is that elite’s extensions of its power and influence, through “…its hands on the levers of the IT tools of the surveillance state, ‘big data’, and Artificial Intelligence/deep learning…”. Paralleling the current deliberate fractionalizing of our populace, as Malone quotes another author Dagupta, is that occurring spontaneously globally. “…the suppressed consequences of 20th-century recklessness in the once-colonized world are erupting, cracking nations into fragments and forcing populations into post-national solidarities: roving tribal militias, ethnic and religious sub-states and super-states.” While America whole-heartedly participated in that recklessness, its directly expressed intent in its foundational documents were not the communalization of multiple tribes, ethnics, and religions into one forced false nationhood. We established ourselves as a nation intent on recognizing and accepting all different peoples, cultures, ethnicities, and religions who voluntarily choose to join in our commonality of purpose and recognize, not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity before commonly agreed upon laws through commonly agreed upon methods. As Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire has said, “the basic structure of any society is the family”. We are the first and only nation to establish itself by openly and deliberately inviting any and all to join that family by accepting and abiding by its rules.
Shapiro also has said that “the family is the only successful example of communism…. from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. But the current efforts of sociocultural eugenicide seek the destruction of familial communism in favor of societal communism, despite history’s recurrent demonstrations of its failure. WOKE may be based in a single subliminal opinion- “White Oppressors Kill (relatively speaking) Everyone (else)”. Its adherents are, in transposition of their favorite abbreviation, the new DEIsts. They work in every venue to cause all our current societal and cultural norms to DIE via forced change to Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. Curiously, our national intent, admittedly not yet successful, has been to fully accept, not “recognize”, diversity, and seek its inclusion in all aspects of our national public life. No legal, social, or cultural norms can overcome the automatic human belief in caution when meeting those of another “group”, however defined—this is based in prehistoric hominid tribalism. But we can insist, in our personal and public activities, that we not behave so. A large part of the otherness we might deliberately ignore in our more thoughtful moments is defined by socioeconomic status, not race or creed or self-defined gender. The new eugenicists seek to amalgamate all their newly created minorities as part of the “lower classes”, which now no longer refers strictly to economic status. They are now automatically considered amongst those other cultural minorities whose ostensibly unalterable fate remains oppression by the basket of deplorables. The latter are for the most part middle class. Their status must be eliminated from the population to create the new America of equalized, redistributed social and cultural consensus. All, as possible, must be brought down to the inclusive diversity of mediocrity. They, the newly defined equitable in lower class, are more easily controlled and shaped by the techno-elite who remain in place to guide the purification of the sociocultural population. Even Marx recognized the need for a temporary “dictatorship of the proletariat”. This lower class is, under non-interventional capitalism, highly unstable, as many seek to and do escape to higher socioeconomic status despite the residual obstacles of our country’s history. That very instability is weaponized by the new eugenicists.
As German commentator Eugyppius has written in his Substack column @The Plague Chronicles, “The highly unstable nature of the lower classes in modern society, driven <now> by mass migration and rapid economic change, accounts for the volatility and malleability of <progressivism>, which is the ideological cluster that is primarily responsible for articulating and justifying… high-low alliances” of these lower classes with their new elite sponsors. Those elites are busy promising to rescue the lower classes from any sociocultural dislocation and redistribute from the “haves” to the “have nots”. Reparations require confiscations. That alone goes a long way to eliminating the unjustifiably “fit” from the sociocultural milieu. Not mentioned is the numerical mismatch. When all that which is unjustly “held” is divided amongst the far more numerous “denied”, each will receive very little. But at least the status of all will be minimized equally. That is equity. Beyond economics, Eugyppius notes “the growing political obsession with the rainbow identities also arises from a growing, unhealthy demand for low-side allies that outstrips supply, because the most salient feature of these identities is that one can opt into them”. That is, one can choose to be as many socially and culturally disadvantaged minorities, intersecting, as desired, and even include new one(s) that are currently more advantageous. Also, membership in multiple intersecting social and cultural minorities multiplies the apparent numbers and amplifies their voices, giving their status more credence. But how are the unjustifiably and progressively defined oppressed sociocultural new subclasses to eliminate the mainstream, paternalistic, misogynist, xenophobic oppressors from propagating and maintaining or expanding their population and power? While one may not kill physically, one can use the vastly more sophisticated and powerful tools of communication to suppress, repress, eliminate, and thus essentially cancel the existence of those now deemed unfit for further concourse. Regression to the ancient power strategy of complete message control is, in our social media age, the nuclear weapon of progressivism.
The adoption of this new sociocultural genetic code of fitness has spread widely and quickly, like a highly contagious respiratory virus. Our defenses are rapidly disarmed or defeated. Instead, we are involuntarily vaccinated with what Samuel Clemens called “lies, damned lies, and statistics”. The concept and reality of a national border has become obsolete, as new millions flood the country from every other nation of the world, exploding the lower economic echelons of our society for some long unforeseeable future. They are no different from us new Americans of past generations who had to endure long hardship to get to our promised land. But their expectations have been changed by the propaganda of the new progressive eugenicists. Prior waves of non-English speaking persons of alternate cultures knew they would be required to meet many criteria to be accepted into the nation. They all knew that they, despite the country’s wealth, were entering into a sociocultural frontier where they would have to assure their own survival to flourish. Their only impediment was our native xenophobia, a common fault of any nation. But the intent of our society, expressed in its Constitution, to treat all equally before the law, did much to enable them to become an active ingredient in the American stew. Now they are told, via international social media, activists, and cartel coyotes as well as our own compatriots, that by merely arriving here their entry into the country is assured and all basic life needs will be provided, including employment. Their mere presence on our soil effortlessly entitles them to the privileges and rights of Americanism. All they need to do is support their supporters socially, culturally, and especially politically now and forever, so help them we all. To paraphrase Eugyppius once again, “politicians who preside over countries with(out) substantial immigration restrictions (gain) the opportunity to import regime clients. Anybody advocating for the (maintenance) of these defensive barriers is almost surely a serious enemy, for in the modern world, changes at the bottom—however they are advertised—presage systemwide revolution within the space of a generation”. One does not wish to be on the wrong side of that revolution.
That same infectious infantilism has spread throughout our educational, governmental, and media systems. Universities that, acceding to shrill demands, only appoint faculty based on intersectional status rather than demonstrated talent will have “a pool of loudly vocal but unpublished diversity hires”. That pool will be “eager to cut deals with power-hungry administrators” (Eugyppius). No reputational worries, though, as we have seen during and now after Covid. Academic publications give sway to the demands of the DEIsts and publish only works approving their theses while censoring any dissent. Media and government actively overlook their past errors, misinformation, disinformation, and lies. Some gained Pulitzers, others higher office, and many cushy new commentator positions with media or corporate sinecures. Progressives insist on the right of “politically correct” free speech and ignore Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s dictum that the other equally important half of the First Amendment is the right to hear. Hearing unapproved opinions is only harmful if one chooses to feel harmed. Yet now any speech not conforming to progressive approval and programs is at least microaggression. When one cannot explain an opinion with reasoned coherent logic, one now merely invents new terms to provide the appearance of logical coherence and establish that opinion as inarguable fact. Those new terms become the universal daily catchphrases of the media, along with other catastrophists. When we hear and read the same words or phrases used by many different sources, the Goebbels method is in full swing. When a spokesperson for government, corporations, or media begins with the phrase, “Let me be clear…” we know we are about to be told a bald-faced lie.
Invention and forced acceptance of new sociocultural language is key to eliminating past reasoning now judged unfit for continued existence. Codification of new language and logic requires rulemaking and law. Government is now more rapidly responsive than at any time in our nation’s history. Our newly invented minorities gain official legal as well as social recognition. That automatically births new rights and privileges as well as new crimes of discrimination. Even social shunning can now be a discriminatory act that defines as a hate crime. Free speech of certain unapproved varieties can now be violence equivalent to physical assault and battery. Like-minded people whose beliefs are to be eliminated may exercise their freedom of assembly and thereby become domestic terrorists. All these features and more have been actively embraced by our military, desperate to maintain recruitment through “relevance” and reengineering warrior culture. They fail to recognize how such efforts further erode our collapsing sociocultural sense of responsibility. Social missteps in the remote past uncovered in legacy or new media now tar and feather any person indefinitely. Asymmetrical domestic evangelistic warfare through unequal applications of law to past and incumbent officials is a public method of the new Psyops. These 5th Generation Warriors, as Victor David Hanson has written, “repeatedly break laws and long-held customs with impunity by weaponizing federal offices and bureaus”. Justice itself has become hostage to eugenicists culling out all but progressivism. Mobs of “demonstrators”, a self-confessed assassin, and the majority leader of our Senate all have threatened our Supreme Court Justices. Traditionalists imperfect in word or deed are now subject to permanent guilt by association or accusation. Their words, deeds, and reputations, even their monuments, are to be cancelled and removed. All levels of government have been participating in this public purge, worthy of ancient Pharaohs and modern Communist dictators. Since our version of capitalism is interventional and more like that of the CCP than free, this purge has also spread to our corporate world.
Our corporations, now international in loyalty and globalist in desire, participate wholeheartedly in the deliberate selective forceful elimination of the newly socially unfit and their cultural progeny. Perhaps the greatest single error of our Supreme Court was the granting of full political personhood to corporations. Established to pool resources and minimize the financial risks of individuals, while financing the exploration and colonization of our country, corporations now have political and sociocultural influence exponentially greater than the sum of their investors. Routinely, some of the profits made on their citizen-customers are plowed into ESG and DEI officers, training programs, efforts, and public campaigns promoting these new species of thought-belief (see Anheuser-Busch.com). Often some of the dollars hard earned on behalf of shareholders are donated to organizations whose beliefs openly seek to dismantle the United States (see Target.com). Generally, these corporate actions are largely unknown to those shareholders. Corporate boards have done this not from some grand moral and ethical awakening but because of fear of implied cancellation of their brand via boycotts, demonstrations, and even looting or burning of their facilities. Other greenmailers include giant corporate investment funds who are more closely allied in long term positioning and profiteering from globalist transhumanism. The influence of these corporate bodies, answerable to no one except a growing interlocking directorate of financial elites eager to belong to the World Economic Forum, may be more pervasive than that of government or academia. As Elon Musk, possibly an infiltrator amongst them, has said, “Corporations are the artificial intelligence that currently influences all voters.”
All our institutions of sociocultural commonality and commerce have been thoroughly infected by the new eugenicist influencers. What Malone and others have called 5th Generation Warfare using all the Psyops lessons learned by our covert and overt intelligence and military agencies during the Cold War and the War on Terrorism are now applied on a “whole of society” model, the “One Health” concept of the World Health Organization and strangely like that of the CCP. What the WHO and CCP intend to do economically, politically, and strategically, the progressive eugenicists intend to do socially and culturally. America’s bright fires of freedom, ambition, and accomplishment are to be quenched with the small blanket of its faults and failings. @Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist, has seen this all before. In his recent essay “Indict One—And All?”, he foresees the results of unopposed sociocultural eugenicide. Those promoting it have “…assumed the role of the spoiled teen who feels he has a blank check of lawless behavior that his parents would not dare emulate, given that for adults to do so would destroy the family” of the nation. They believe they are “…so morally superior to <all> that <they> can and must employ any means necessary to achieve <their> unpopular political ends.” They know the broad majority of the public and its institutions will not resort to their same tactics, as “…the resulting disorder would undermine the republic. And that is something <we> will not dare do <because> the republic would quickly descend into a spiral of illegality and chaos analogous to what ended the late Roman Republic….”.
We are not “the enemies of democracy”. They are the enemies of our Republic. True, we cannot and must not resort to their tactics. But we can and must resist, constantly and continuously, each and all their efforts to distort reality to their new holographic horror. Accepting Solzhenitsyn’s statement of the obvious is not enough. We must not pretend to believe those intent on convincing us that our nation must be resolved into their warped vision. As
wrote on Twitter July 30,2018, “One of the most pathetic—and dangerous—signs of our times is the growing number of individuals and groups who believe that no one can possibly disagree with them for any honest reason.” Our resistance must be at all levels on all days, from interpersonal interactions to active attention and participation in local, state, and national affairs. The blowback of our capitalistic civilization can be firm, reasoned, empathetic, and unwavering. As Boghossian and Lindsay wrote in their excellent practical guidebook for effective opposition to the committed, How to Have Impossible Conversations, the master level resistance and opportunity for correction comes from “Learning to speak moral dialects”. That is because we are dealing not with honest brokers of alternative opinion, but idealogues. “An idealogue <is> ‘one who is unwilling or unable to revise their (moral) beliefs’”. Paraphrasing them further, all idealogues’ sense of morality relates to their personal identity. Since “morality and identity issues operate invisibly at the level of emotion rather than reason”, “challenging <those> beliefs triggers the same responses as putting someone in physical danger.” This may be the main cause of violent language and violent behavior amongst the sociocultural eugenicists and their followers.How can progressive idealogues be so limited in their moral universe, and why does emotion trump reason?
, a social psychologist and researcher, has pinpointed the answers in his review of clinical research and hypotheses, The Righteous Mind. His experiments, and that of many others, indicates that we all operate from a Moral Intuition that is emotional in origin. We justify and apply that Moral Intuition with reason, after the fact. “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second”. Because of our obsessive concern with our reputation, we each become the teller and the told in Solzhenitsyn’s parable. Because we are WEIRD (see above), our culture has a narrow moral domain, “largely limited to the ethic of autonomy…concerns about individuals harming, oppressing, or cheating other individuals.” Within this narrow domain Haidt finds Six Moral Foundations. Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, Fairness, Care, and most importantly, Liberty. He finds that modern liberals, which I will label as progressive social eugenicists, base their morality almost exclusively on Fairness and Care, opposing the obverse of cheating and harm. Conservatives, in Haidt’s extensive research, use all six foundations with a focus on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. That focus by both liberals and conservatives, “binds and blinds” them to alternative viewpoints and compromise. Recognizing this, we have the opportunity and means to offer alternative reasoning to sociocultural eugenicists and to their potential victims—all of us.Careful listening yields understanding of even their most grossly unrealistic points of view. Gentle but firm corrective questioning and countering can often move even the most committed True Believer incrementally. Attempts at incremental change towards their perceived nirvana of sameness based in differences in speech, actions, rules, and laws can be openly recognized and firmly rejected rather than accepted. At many times and on many occasions, we may have to figuratively walk away from their efforts. Appeasement breeds defeat, not safety from conflict. As Winston Churchill said about nuclear weapons, mere “safety is the sturdy child of terror”. A blitzkrieg of sociocultural terror is the current weapon of those who wish to eradicate Americanism. The arguments of the sociocultural eugenicists always fail on close examination. As Withey and Zang wrote in Mastering Logical Fallacies, “in a good argument, the conclusion follows from the premises. <the conclusion falls when> the premises are weak …<or the conclusion is> stronger than the premises allow…<or> it requires violating the basic rules of logic.” “When an argument goes wrong, it’s because its proponent has committed a fallacy.” Our daily role is to see and point out those many fallacies whenever and wherever they are assumed and proselytized.