I have heard it said that mankind does not want freedom,
that people are happy to be slaves as long as they are entertained and well fed.
[and]  . . . that most Americans have bought into the version of events they are given in the mainstream media
and are perfectly content to be told what to think
—what is good, what is bad,
who is politically acceptable, who is politically unacceptable.

Recently a friend at work remarked as a joke, that the bewildering beliefs from liberals is genetic: they are born confused. I laughed, but I entirely disagree. How liberals, who surely think themselves rational, can swallow absurd frauds like Russiagate, that Covid came from a wet market or that Joe Biden is 'As sharp as a tack', while remaining reasonable on so many other issues, is that like anti-Semites and racists, they see a pattern where there is no pattern. Despite what you have been led to believe, Jews are only 0.2 percent of the world’s population, (two percent of the USA and ten percent of New York City), and American born blacks only 12.5 percent of their populace. Why we think it is much greater than it actually is has everything to do with human Availability Bias. For instance, take the dual beliefs that nationalists are fascists or that the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is greater than dying in a car accident; most of the time nationalists are not autocrats, tyrants or fascists, (often they are populists and conservative democrats), and people are 390 times more likely to die in automobile collisions than terrorist attacks. For instance, one wants to make a general observation on the idea of nationalism, in regards to a problem that Thomas Hobbes initially articulated centuries ago, (1650): while nations do convey key rights, (potentially), to all people within the guarded borders of the nation-state, it does not either solve the problems of the steppes, (1993), nor the genetically hard-wired Lord of the Flies’ effect, (1954), the Us; Them, trait genetically embedded in human nature. It is not a cultural or religious impulse; it is a biological need in men. Indeed, this can be empirically demonstrated, and thus I quote in length from the Nurture Assumption, (1998): “The subjects—twenty-two of them, to be precise—were purposely selected to be as alike as possible. They were all eleven-year-old white Protestant males. Their IQs were all in the average-to-above-average range and so were their school grades. None of them wore glasses. None were fat. None had gotten into any trouble. None were new to the area, so they all spoke with the same Oklahoma accent. And each one came from a different Oklahoma City school, so none of them knew each other before the experiment began.

This homogeneous bunch of twenty-two boys was divided into two smaller groups of eleven. Each group was transported, separately, to a Boy Scout camp in Robbers Cave State Park, a densely wooded, mountainous area in the south-eastern part of Oklahoma. The boys were under the impression that they were being treated to three weeks in summer camp, and so they were. Their experiences at the camp were not noticeably different from the usual camping experiences. Their “counsellors” took pains to conceal the fact that they were researchers in disguise, surreptitiously observing and recording the boys’ words and deeds.

The two groups, the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles” (they picked those names themselves), didn’t know about each other’s presence at first. They had arrived in different buses, they ate in the same mess hall but at different times, and their cabins were in different parts of the campgrounds. The researchers’ plan was to let each group of boys think they were alone in the camp for about a week. Then they would tell each group about the presence of the other, put them into competition with each other, and observe the results. Competition was expected to lead to hostility. But the boys were way ahead of them. Hostility appeared even before the two groups encountered each other directly. The first time the Rattlers heard the Eagles playing in the distance, they wanted to “run them off.”7 And the boys were so impatient to compete with each other—this was an idea they proposed on their own, the adults didn’t have to suggest it—that the researchers had difficulty sticking to their schedule. “Stage 1” was supposed to be the study of within-group behaviour. Between-group competition wasn’t supposed to begin until “Stage 2.”

The scheduled events in Stage 2 were normal activities for a boys’ summer camp. The two groups played baseball, had tugs-of-war and treasure hunts, and competed for prizes. The counsellors acted like real counsellors except that they tried to keep a low profile and to step in only when necessary. But push very quickly came to shove. Name-calling was recorded at the first official meeting (a baseball game) between the Rattlers and the Eagles. Before the game the Rattlers had hung their flag on the backstop of the baseball diamond—they thought of the ball field as “ours”—and after the game the Eagles, who had lost, tore down the flag and burned it. The Rattlers were outraged. Soon the counsellors were breaking up fistfights. It got worse. After the Eagles won at tug-of-war, the Rattlers raided their cabin at night. They turned over beds, ripped mosquito netting, and stole—among other things—a pair of blue jeans, which they made into a new flag. The Eagles retaliated with a daring daytime raid and messed up the Rattlers’ cabin. They didn’t expect to find the Rattlers home at the time but, just in case, they carried sticks and baseball bats. When they got back to their own cabin they prepared a defense against future raids: socks filled with stones and a pailful of additional stones to be used as projectiles. These kids were not just playing at war. In a very short time they had gone from name-calling to sticks and stones.

I can imagine the researchers’ relief when Stage 2 ended and they could move on to Stage 3, in which the plan was to end the hostility and combine the two warring groups into a single peaceful one. But it is a lot easier to divide people up than to put them back together again. The first thing the researchers tried—bringing the two groups together in non-competitive situations—did nothing to lessen the antagonism. Having the Rattlers and the Eagles take meals at the same time led to food fights and a mess in the mess hall. It was necessary to create “super-ordinate goals”—a common enemy too big for either group to fight alone. The researchers were clever in devising such situations. They pretended that there was a problem with the camp water system and told the boys they suspected that vandals—outsiders—had meddled with it. The entire pipeline had to be inspected and it took all the boys from both groups to do it. A supply truck supposedly broke down and wouldn’t start—it was facing uphill and it took the combined pulling power of all the boys to get it moving. The researchers also took the boys away from their familiar camping grounds—grounds the Rattlers and Eagles had fought over—and drove them to a new camping site next to a lake. At the end, a tenuous truce had replaced the open warfare of Stage 2. But if a Rattler had accidentally stepped on an Eagle’s toe, or an Eagle had inadvertently knocked over a Rattler’s Kool-Aid, I suspect that belligerence might have broken out again.”

As regards nationalism and Hobbes, (2010), this bleeds out to our unfounded faith in the innate goodness of humans. We have hardware problems via our lengthy brutal biological-evolution,  (2002), and this Rousseauian belief, (1762), that we are born free and are restricted by corruption from culture, society, nation and repressions of all sorts, is severely limited, if ever true at all. Human beings are flawed, and many people, are exceedingly flawed, (i.e., the psychopaths among us), and looking at civilizations and hunter-gatherer structures present and past, there has never been noble savages, just savages, ones who raped, pillaged, murdered, tortured, and captured slaves whenever they could. They did all their worst to whatever or whomever they could get their hands on when no one was watching, (and often that was no deterrent either), and sometimes even to their own kin.

Inevitably after the enlightenment, a romantic Teutonic philosopher, bitten by visions of the smashing hammer, announced in The Gay Science, (1882), that God was dead. “Where has God gone? I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers . . . when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now?  . . .  Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives.”

Thus the liberalism of the enlightenment was fused to secularism; this belief that rationalism and science were far superior to the primitive reason of religion and not beholding to philosophy. Bereft of authentic religion, this vacuum of belief morphed into an atheistic religion of sacrifice, i.e., communism & socialism masked as science, and first perfected by the penultimate collectivist, Karl Marx, (1818 -1883), the ground having been laid for millenniums by Platonic mysticism. Its intolerance to genuine faith (in God), was immediate and unrelenting, even up onto this very day: a belief that there is no sin, no embedded flaws and no evil in the hearts of humankind that can’t be fixed. Consequently, a conviction rose up through the past few centuries in inevitable progress; that humankind was only an engineering problem. The intelligentsia preached that there were no downsides to the growth of government and sincere liberals everywhere began to ignore unintended outcomes of regulation no matter the empirical evidence. A certainty arose among them that  parasites, free-riders, con-artists gaming the contemporary risk-pooling system, and all moral hazard behaviours never increased in society to be a real threat to civilization itself; additionally, this was followed by a zealous all-out attack on scepticism against any critics of this vision of liberal democracy, (as reactionary, selfish, and backward), and an utter blind faith in liberalism itself, and soon transformed into the adoration of the modern state as a religious idol with the ultimate goal of a singular world-wide government led by the privileged class of globalists. Thus was born the middle-class crises and an absolute disdain of all middle-class belief-systems: i.e., hard-work, possessiveness of the family unit, a belief that female and male were fundamentally different from one another, nationalism, bourgeois desires & romances, and in a word: dreams of the common people.

The truly evil seed inside the birth of liberalism had always been rule utilitarianism, (1859), hiding as the surrender of the one for the happiness of the many; the certainty that human sacrifice is necessary to build any worthwhile society. Faith rose in the last few hundred years that things had grown worse because of runaway industrialization and climate crisis, indeed, especially caused by alleged free-market capitalistic activity and their middle-class supporters. So to correct this, and for this new fascist liberalism to work its magical illusion, it was promoted  as a revolutionary device to generationally right all the mistakes, inequities and grievances of any & all which ‘evil’ laissez-faire capitalism had produced, that people were somehow, some way its victims, (1971), that is, of this insidious mindless unrestricted economic system that operates blindly on human greed where dog eats dog. In short, it was concluded that only a new totalitarian planned economy, (2000), could address the complaints against it. So the engine of bourgeois dignity, (2010), like that of previous devout religious devotion, was relentlessly misaligned, lied about and defamed by power structures with very little evidence. Much of the attack was called economic science, (1940), which was extremely ironical for it is only a science if humans have no free will, (that is, if ultimately human choices are determined), for with real human freedom, economic theories come with only metaphysical speculation and reasoned conjecture, (1963).  That is, if humans can freely choose, then what mathematical predictions of science are left to economics? Not a whit, only a splendid liberal mask of control where there is, underneath, only planned chaos. Money was valuable to the working middle-class when prices were low, (this much we’ve known for an era, but a steady decline in prices over time is also a warning of the unsoundness of fiat money and a likely precursors to underlying economic catastrophe); however, we feed a fantasy of optimism by constantly printing more money (i.e., making the currency unsound, especially to the non-Western world). Now in this current inflationary cycle, people the world-over are scared about a possible looming collapse, (perhaps even the end of Western Civilization itself, a convention and economic system which at this point in time directs most of the world of commerce).

Thus we come to another outcropping of liberalism: democracy and free speech. It was suspected at first that democracy might lead inevitably to socialism, the philosophy of resentment of which clearly, socialism and Marxism belong. Might it encourage, some thinkers wondered, the many to resent the wealthy and those who create it, and then through the government, its taxation apparatuses & the use of state terror, steal the riches for themselves? In the beginning, classic liberalism’s belief in free minds, free markets and especially free speech exploded, as it were, in the West at least, into the never seen before miracle of an unfounded wealth of nations, (2015), but through the Cold War epoch, the real liberals (the libertarians, i.e., classical liberals), began to be shunned and ignored as ideological extremists. The new Liberal doctrines whittled away at the belief in the Night Watchman State like a plague bacillus secretly embedded in all Western universities, and libertarianism was constantly denounced by spoke-persons of Conservative and Liberal Parties in the West as dangerous, uncaring and cruel. Indeed, it was insisted that they speak a doctrinaire of greed, were harbingers of hate speech & all things illiberal, as well as intolerant, closed-minded and not especially intelligent or scientific.  

The belief that most individuals are the best judge of their own self-interest and that everyone should have equality before the law was openly mocked by all the soft branches of intelligentsia in the humanities and social sciences of the corrupted state subsidised universities. That a patriotic, isolationist leader—that is, one who believes in peace through strength & diplomacy, free trade & freedom for the citizens to go where they wish, and lastly, having no desire to rule the world with an iron fist—might know better the voters’ wishes than the global elites was utterly rejected. It became a deep conviction of many liberals that any march to nationalism is evidence that representative democracy no longer worked and that nationalistic candidates must be stopped by any means necessary, including using the intelligent agencies’ dazzling abilities to lie, cheat, and even assassinate political opposition to the Deep State, (2015). After all, they had been doing that all over the world for the last 80 years. Finally, the banner of science, which during COVID 19 was so severely tarnished, became a game-changer: the naked king revealed to the huddled masses as it were. Trust in Western democratic governments rapidly began collapsing all over the NATO alliance. In this, people of the world began to fear the United States and their Western disinformation complexes, (i.e., untrue information from state-spooks meant to mislead), far more than that of any other national state; including China, who hasn’t had a war in 55 years, while in that timeframe, America has been involved in well over a dozen wars, just as in the last 80 years, it has overthrown over 100 governments, many of them, democratically elected in fair supervised voting.

 Now we come to the liberals’ almost sacred view of manifest destiny of the West, (neo-conservatives' 'American exceptionalism'), and a belief in forcing market-style democracy everywhere on the planet, no matter what it takes, even political force if possible. This brought the Military Industrial Complex into play against the beleaguered Isolationists, (as I define them above), and is a modern David and Goliath drama where democracy for one side means a completely different and opposite thing to the other side. The Military Industrial Complex, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Mass Media and lobbyists have banded together in lockstep, (like the herd animals that they have become),  to keep the Western governments all inside the Overton Window, defined here as the ideas you can freely express on the net, (i.e., the official liberal narrative permitted by the complexes of the obese states). They are by way of analogy, like the dog enclosure in parks where pets can roam freely and play together without worry; however, those canines outside of the pen are considered to be dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. As a corollary to the ‘Window’, we identify misinformation as information supplied by independent journalists & truth-tellers which is verboten to the imperialist hegemony of the vast US power complexes, and disinformation as propaganda from the power blocks themselves backed up by evidence supplied by the lying spooks of the USA’s 17 to 22 spy agencies of the Deep State meant to misinform the public. Moreover, we define malinformation & cheap fakes as information that is true but inconvenient to these power complexes controlled by Neocons, Neolibs, liberal billionaires, and anti-nationalist conservatives who have allied with the ‘Overton Window’ liberals to become the new-fangled anti-democratic war parties of the West, i.e., the endorsement of Kamala Harris by the Cheneys and a prominent Kennedy of the Trump campaign.

The shift is now a rift, fueled by this current inflationary cycle.

Defenders of the First Amendment are now called extremists, haters, racists, anti-Semites and accused of secretly attending KKK meetings regularly. The multiple complexes of fraud all use the Military Industrial Complex’s neo-Marxist propaganda tool which states that color-blind working middle-class, (i.e., regular hard-working people) are actually white supremacists, and they no longer even have to be Caucasians to be so tagged. They sincerely believe that democracy is the right to vote, and only vote, for a singular Uni-party that represents the interest of the US Global Empire, (2008). They have the weapons, literally and metaphorically, to impose their definition of dictatorial democracy by force, where the working and middle-classes are left only with one weapon, the vote. At the present, the common people fear that elections will be stolen by the billionaires, globalists and illiberal rulers no matter what the real result is. Liberal’s enemies (i.e., regular working people), see now since COVID and the Twitter Files in modern liberalism only unfolding autocracy, tyranny and constant deception. They’ve become desperate enough to vote for a TV star and billionaire who verbally threatens and taunts the illiberal regime but so far has done nothing to deter; however, he has also questionable moral judgement and is unopposed to Israel’s current genocide of Palestinians as are the Democrats and the RFK Jr., campaigns. Mr. Trump has in the past used language so provocative about immigrants, women and his political opponents, (although they are sometimes funny), that he produces as much hate & division as he does love & unity; although, certainly he is preferred over liberalism. What if for a change there was real competition in the federal US election?

We explained above, that the, us, them, effect, pointed out by Judith Harris, and how it is attached to nationalism, so it needs no further explanation. When a phenomena like the Toronto Maple Leafs face-off against the Detroit Red Wings, or any organized sporting event, we sense by blood, a subcutaneous sort of city-wide or nationwide nationalism, even despite the fact that the Leafs might have more Americans than Canadians on their team and the Wings, vice-versa. Moreover, if there weren’t boards, Plexiglas, police and cameras, then a very emotional contested game like a three, three tie in the best of seven games in the finals for the Stanley Cup, there might be open violence in the crowds which would spill out onto the ice. It has no foundation in reason or logic. It is a genetic impulse easily triggered and is why many liberals fear nationalism. They see it as fundamentally foolish, leading to self-injuring tariff conflicts, economic sanctions, oppression of minorities and even outright war.

Now comes the paradigm shift: the main contradiction in the liberal accounting of the West today: it is the liberal complexes which are now refereeing a wholesale genocide of the Palestinians, fighting a hot-war with Russia via Ukraine, have active troops in Yemen and Syria (as well as many other places), and have China surrounded by American military bases, and who have almost complete control of the Military Industrial Complexes and their powerful security apparatuses. What are we missing in the allegory of the sporting event, i.e., The Lord of the Flies question? Imagine a soccer game broadcast globally between Arabian Muslims and Israeli Jews, if these two ancient enemies would ever even agree to such an event. Imagine the referees are two Americans and two Russians. Imagine being there live in the crowd as an Israeli Jew or an Arabian Muslim and how the us, them, genetic bias would overwhelm you with centuries of hate during the ups and downs of the sporting event.

Now imagine a libertarian or Conservative Christian in America who criticizes these current bloodbaths on their podcasts or platforms and are taken down, de-amplified and de-monetized by YouTube, Apple, Bing, TikTok and Google at the insistence of the security agencies of the government. You are a sports fan being called a hater but you think of yourself just as a player in the sporting area who has been expelled not for cheating but rather by a liberal who is actually a racist against your cultural preferences, like for instance the belief that there are only two sexes, female and male. Your views which seem perfectly reasonable to you are anathema to the liberal, and though they call you a hater, you actually profess love of humankind and they seem like the unhappy ones. This is the new us, them, genetic trait, (i.e., liberals are the good, nationalists are the bad), taken to a global level, and liberals are seizing totalitarian-like political control in all the democracies. In United States, the Bush-era neoconservatives such as Dick Cheney, Dave Frum, Bill Kristol, etcetera, are now all nestled comfortably in the Democratic party, and we are only waiting now, for George Bush Jr., to endorse Kamala Harris. Conclusion, i.e., the paradigm shift: liberals are now becoming the totalitarian oppressors of the Military Industrial Complex's war party. 

Thanks for listening to this article.