Any politically astute observer who has been following American politics for the last few decades will have observed odd, often incomprehensible, political shifts that have occurred in the political ecosystem. Only the most informed amongst audiences will know that American politics, like politics in large swathes of the world, are not organic people-powered ideologies but carefully controlled political dynamics defined by astroturf ideology crafted by think tanks and private foundations. Most Americans who are still caught in the “left-right” paradigm will vehemently disagree with this assertion largely due to their unfamiliarity with the web of partisan and non-partisan think tanks responsible for the design of ideology and the crafting of policy which is then disseminated nationwide and implemented at all levels. These unelected organizations funded by corporations and the ruling establishment ultimately engineer political thought and steer the politics of the United States as they influence the politics internationally under the American hegemon.
One of the most useful indicators of totalitarian systems of control in any political system is homogeneity of thought. Human beings are naturally inclined towards dissimilar opinions and are apt to have a wide and eclectic spectrum of thought on any given issue. For one to see such homogeneity and uniformity in any body politic requires magnificent efforts in propaganda necessary to engineer ideopolitical conformity. Of course, the American system is in truth a neoimperial soft-totalitarian empire and being such it does not leave such important aspects of governance such as the dynamics of political thought in the heart of the empire to be shaped by free-thinkers, firebrands, upstarts, and idealists. To this end, the entirety of the American political ecosystem as well as the non-political milieu of ideology and philosophy found in popular society and academia is heavily controlled by the neoimperial web of influence. The most important element in the shaping of the minds of the masses is the impressive American propaganda apparatus that stretches beyond the borders of the United States proper.
The historical trends of American politics are especially interesting in large part due to the monochromatic nature of American political thought. The historical duopoly of American politics (in which there has been for all intents and purposes only two parties) has led to the comical distillation of all issues (regardless of complexity or nuance) into simplistic “black and white” perspectives which rarely takes into account the comprehensive spectrum of opinion or the possible range of coherent ideology. This has been especially helpful since the initial foray of the American republic into the dark enterprise of imperialism. The ludicrous portrayal of every meaningful issue into a simplistic and noncompromising binary choice has been magnificently helpful in setting the citizenry against one another and fomenting zealous and asinine divisions. These internal divisions are especially important in distracting the public away from scrutiny and condemnation of American imperial agendas.
While there had been historical issues of corruption in American politics and undue influence by powerful interests, there had always been variable degrees of authentic politics. However, there had only ever existed a binary choice in terms of political parties. Despite the binary options the political arena had not exhibited such controlled divisions of thought and there had been a broader spectrum of political orientations. The political ecosystem had mostly been defined by authentic political discourse, natural political evolution, and it had produced many genuine politicians uncorrupted by the political machines of the two major parties. It is also necessary to emphasize that the parties were not always in their current form and that their evolution in ideopolitical paradigms were mostly a consequence of organic political evolution for much of US history.
Whatever organic political dynamics existed in the United States, these were effectively undone following the creation of organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). From their very beginnings, these agencies began to exert undue influence over American politics and began to directly interfere with the political evolution of the American republic.
As early as the 1960s there were expansions of government control over social dynamics and social mobilization which began to have a suffocating effect on efforts in applied democracy. In time these covert efforts led to the complete denial of the citizenry of organic grassroots organization which were either infiltrated or coopted by the government with no political movement being free of the neoimperial systems of control. Increasingly this control took the form of actively shaping political thought and steering political movements in desired directions. This covert control of politics increasingly manifested as artificial political paradigms which were often decidedly incongruous and internally inconsistent.
Post-1990s there had been the increasing trend towards the elimination of moderate politicians of any stripe with the radicalization of political thought into extreme polar opposites. All political thought had been divided with not a single area of political thought allowed to enjoy universal bilateral support. Another global trend was the bilateral shift of both major parties in a traditional rightward political direction with both parties increasingly being “far right” with only divisive wedge issues being used as pretenses of meaningful differentiation. In truth, both parties were united in their support of powerful corporate interests and bipartisan in their championing of imperial interests.
These trends were primarily responsible for the development of ideopolitical platforms which were increasingly illogical and internally inconsistent. A meaningful exploration of the hodgepodge that is American politics is far too in-depth to cover meaningfully in this discussion. However, perhaps the most illustrative example of the unnecessary confusion of political issues is that of “gun control” and the disarmament of the citizenry. This issue is incredibly complex, but the core issue at the heart of the matter is that the ownership of arms is enshrined as a core American civil right not to be abridged and the right to self-defense is considered an intrinsic human right by international law. Why this right is critical requires extensive knowledge of history, law, and civics with any meaningful knowledge of these subjects clearly demonstrating why such rights should under no circumstance be curtailed or infringed.
Liberalism has as its ideological foundation the principles of liberty and human rights with the championing of civil rights being at the core of true liberal ideology. It would naturally be expected that liberalism in any of its forms would be unwavering in the defense of the right to bear arms as it is fundamentally a human rights issue. If a people are unable to exercise this basic right, they cannot be expected to mount a meaningful defense of their person nor can they be expected to mount an effective collective defense against the predations of a violent tyrannical government engaging in human rights abuses. Disarmed populations have been systematically slaughtered in the many millions during the 20th century with the disarmament of populations often being a precursor to genocide. Furthermore, if a people are not able to exercise such core rights, they cannot be expected to maintain their liberty for any meaningful length of time during situations in which previously legitimate governments experience totalitarian transformation.
One would under normal circumstances expect that being pro-the human right to self-defense would be a non-partisan universal position held by the entirety of the citizenry with the “leftists” or “liberals” being the most ardent defenders of this right. This would be especially the case if liberals of any era had an in-depth knowledge of the past and how fascist, imperial, and totalitarian systems have mercilessly crushed liberal movements throughout the 20th century. Under normal circumstances it should be the imperative of any citizen ascribing to liberal thought to support the right to bear arms as well as be inspired to exercise that right personally.
These kinds of contradictions are plentiful in the American political duopoly with no issue being championed by the entirety of the citizenry regardless of how clearly it should merit universal support. There are obvious reasons for this, doing so:
- Foments unnecessary divisions.
- Reduces the otherwise intelligent analysis of any subject into simplistic extremes which blinds the citizenry to critical and nuanced issues.
- Is critically necessary in order to engineer support for agendas which are antagonistic to the common interest of the people.
- Allows for the government to encroach on any human rights or civil liberties by having one party who is blindly antagonistic towards any given right, liberty, or privilege. When such a party is in power, that party will be responsible for the “death by a thousand cuts” of those rights and liberties. The other “opposing” party will pretend to champion those same rights but when they are in power, they do not undo the unconstitutional infringements and the authoritarian expansions of power.
This dynamic allows for the neoimperial system to introduce slowly and systematically new paradigms of totalitarianism over an extended period of time. When one party is in power it infringes on one set of rights and liberties and when the other is in power it infringes on a different set of rights and liberties. Because neither party (even when they have total control over the branches of government) undoes the totalitarian and unconstitutional laws of the other party, collectively over time there is the slow movement towards totalitarianism. Despite this coordinated betrayal of the citiznery both parties engage in political theater and accuse the other of being responsible for tyranny and abuse. In truth, they are both criminal collaborators in crimes against the republic.
The neoimperial apparatus has performed some interesting maneuvers in recent decades, some of which are logical and others which are intriguing and not readily decipherable. One major one has been the decades long coopting and politization of religions within the United States. Another interesting development was the engineered radicalization of the Republican Party circa 2008 during the presidential election of that year. This latter trend saw the senator John McCain take an especially rightward direction which greatly eroded his popular support.
Senator John McCain was a politician in the political right who was absolute in his support of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), US neoimperialism, and corporate power. However, McCain fashioned himself as a political moderate or even “American left”-like leaning on other social issues which generally did not materially affect economic or power relations. For the purposes of the American political spectrum McCain was considered center-right. So extreme and so radical was the Republican descent into political extremism at that time that there were many who were of the opinion that this was the beginning of the end for American conservatism and the Republican Party. Of course, such a view does not take into account that the whole point of the American political oligopoly is to keep the people divided and that it was highly improbable that the Republican Party would be allowed to become obsolete as this would undermine the theater of American politics.
In 2016 it was the Democratic Party’s turn to engineer extremism and corral its partisans into the absurd and the radical. The Democratic Party had been “riding high” off the popularity of the outgoing Obama presidency and was expected to continue holding the presidency if an adequate Democratic candidate was chosen. In the clearly corrupt internal politics, Hillary Clinton was essentially given the nomination sidelining populist choices such as senator Bernie Sanders. The loss of candidate Hillary Clinton in the presidential elections heralded the initiation of trends which would in time begin to dominate the entire sphere of American “leftist” thought.
The year 2017 saw the artificial resurrection of the specter of Communism undoubtedly due to the efforts of the CIA and the perennial necessities of engineering perceived threats to the American people. Furthermore, the specter of another Communist “boogeyman” (reminiscent of the hysteria of the 1950s) has likely been deemed necessary in order to engineer new sets of rabid internal divisions in the American citizenry. Due to the national security politics, war economics of the United States, and the necessities of psychological warfare campaigns the CIA is perpetually “looking for enemies” and engineering threats to the American public which necessitate domestic expansions of totalitarian power and obscene war profiteering.
Post-2017 there has been a radical reorientation of priorities by the American “left” which has been mirrored by the international “left-leaning” parties. While the extent of its current corrupted ideopolitical platform requires an extended discussion, in brief it can be summarized as the aggressive championing of oligarchic interests while hiding this betrayal of the working class with an obsessive emphasis on weaponized identity politics. Indeed, the contemporary “leftist” movements are rabidly hostile to basic human rights and are enthusiastic in their efforts to crush the working class.
For the purposes of these theoretical analyses, this current political phenomenon is referred to as “oligarchic pseudoliberalism” as it is a set of Trojan Horse ideopolitical paradigms which are pseudoliberal and fundamentally a vehicle for the furtherance of oligarchic interests. In truth this current perversion of historical liberalism is itself fascist, far right, and totalitarian despite the histrionic efforts of propagandists and pundits to mis-portray this reality. Any meaningful exploration of its political bona fides demonstrates token “championing” of identity politics, shameful apologetics of neoimperialism, and the unabashed empowerment of corporate interests. The “championing” of minorities itself is in truth the weaponization of sexuality and identity and the exploitation of subpopulations for the purposes of divide and rule tactics. Oligarchic pseudoliberalism encompasses what is colloquially referred to as “woke” but also includes a whole new set of toxic astroturf ideologies carefully crafted as a weapon of sociocultural destabilization and ideopolitical subversion.
The Coronavirus Inversion
The coronavirus weaponized crisis has merely seen this political inversion continue with the Democratic Party being especially fascistic in their drive towards vaccine mandates and their curtailing of human rights. Great efforts are taken to confuse partisans and engineer support for agendas which are anathema to historical liberalism. In true fascistic form, much of these agendas are carried out by the traditional fascist tactics of perceptual inversion and accusing political opponents of that which the fascist leadership is truly guilty of. The range of assaults on human freedoms are extensive. The assault on civil rights has included thus far:
- The loss of body sovereignty.
- Violations of the right to work.
- Arbitrary detention.
- Interference and infringement of privacy.
- Violations of the right to freedom of movement.
- Violations of freedom of speech and free expression.
- Violations of the freedom of opinion with special emphasis on interference with seeking, receiving, and imparting information and ideas through media.
- Violations of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
- Violations of the right to equal access to public services.
- Violations of the right to education.
- Violations of the right to freely participate in cultural life and community.
- Violations of freedom of religion.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive. These totalitarian infringements are further complemented by an aggressive assault on medical ethics and the rights of patients. These crimes against humanity are “justified” by apologists as being necessary for public health concerns while in truth constituting the introduction of the biosecurity state paradigms. The new biosecurity state systems themselves constituting highly invasive infringements of the physical self and of the superstructure of human rights. Of course, this totalitarianism is inherently anathema to the historical trends of liberalism and is a far cry from the grounded and congruous liberalism of the 1960s and 70s. And because American politics must always be polar opposites, American conservatists and key ideological sheepdogs in the American right have taken up the mantle of fighting for human rights, body sovereignty, and basic human liberties.
This choice to invert liberalism and conservatism is an interesting decision by the American neoimperial apparatus. One can only speculate why it has been specifically done in this manner, however certain realities are undeniable. The likely reason this has been done is:
- Doing so represents the corruption of the ideological core of liberalism at an especially crucial juncture in which a defense of human rights is especially urgent. This betrayal neutralizes the partisans and parties which have historically been bulwarks against tyranny and totalitarianism. This corruption of the ethical core of liberalism greatly neutralizes the ideological and philosophical foundations upon which the architecture of human rights rests and is critical for the further totalitarian transformation of civilizations.
- The American Right is relatively unpracticed in the championing of civil rights save for a few constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms. The relative unfamiliarity of the America Right in fighting for human rights was perhaps expected to cause the Right to be feckless and ineffective in mounting a defense of the human rights that are slated to be permanently curtailed.
There of course is great irony in such a current state of affairs. The once august American Left has been turned into a weapon of totalitarianism which blindly supports the tyrannical biosecurity state paradigms. These new paradigms themselves are merely a more domestically oppressive addition to the existing national security state paradigms which were introduced following the 9/11 weaponized crisis. In doing so, the contemporary American “left” is supporting the corporatocracy, criminal actors, and the massive expansions of totalitarian power by the already nigh omnipotent Federal government. Many “liberal” partisans will judge themselves to be ideologically coherent because they support sexual minorities while simultaneously being ardent supporters of agendas which universally crush the framework of human rights in a manner which makes no distinction of any kind. This is not to say that the American “left” does not still have a few political stances that are objectively sensible, but rather that their core ethics have been corrupted and made malleable to the whims of the totalitarian ruling apparatus.
In truth, opposition to the mandates should be universal and any citizen possessing an iota of reason should oppose these totalitarian paradigms regardless of the hundreds of hours of psychological warfare they have been exposed to during the course of the weaponized crisis. Undoubtedly, there remain millions to billions of people who are decidedly dissonant in their ethics and ideology as a consequence of having been exposed to such the unceasing torrent of propaganda over the last 2 years. But even in the depths of their fear and confusion, what is being pushed is an oppressive and reprehensible totalitarianism which is difficult to beautify even with the most scientific and advanced public relations campaign in the history of mankind.
The coronavirus weaponized crisis has merely illustrated the disturbing nature of political control and the engineering of political ideology. This serves as a lesson for the American citizenry as well as the citizenry of the world in that they must be firm in their ethical and ideological core and must always deeply analyze political issues and make rational independent assessments especially when confronted with propaganda campaigns intended to manufacture consent. Ethics are to the psychology what the skeletal frame is to the human body: it gives it form and function. When ethics can be so thoroughly corrupted by psychological warfare then that resolute and firm ethical superstructure becomes little more than liquid clay to be decanted into any shape that the totalitarian systems of power desire. Indeed, the psychological construct of most people can be reshaped at will by psychological warfare and social engineering in little time into conformations which are distinctly antithetical to who the citizens used to be.
The weaponization of crisis is the new “trick” with which the international ruling establishment will usher in new paradigms and new systems of control. These confidence tricks will involve the weaponization of ethics and the weaponization of the sensibilities of normal people in order to recruit them into championing agendas which are ultimately intended to crush them. That they do not fully understand these agendas does not change the nature of these Trojan Horse tactics. Those in the future who will be championing these heinous paradigms may fancy defenders of human rights and bulwarks of liberty even as these concepts are twisted into unrecognizable Orwellian abominations which seek to crush the very things they purportedly champion.
Undoubtedly, there will be another inversion of the political dynamics in the following decade or so to “rebalance” the controlled political ecosystem. Such an inversion will again make the “left” sensible and the “right” extremists. Whenever such political corralling and engineering of mass psychology occurs, the citizens would be wise to remember these examples of the ethical betrayal by ideopolitical sheepdogs and the extreme folly of being led into incoherent paradigms conducive to state power. If the citizenry will be able to profit from the lessons learned from such extreme developments is yet to be determined. The very minimum that should arise from these experiences is the decision by the citizenry that there are issues that are simply too important to be sullied by partisanship or divide and rule tactics. Issues concerning human rights, liberties, dignity, and the collective defense of the citizenry should in no way be compromised.
If you enjoyed this discourse, please share this work as it helps grow the readership. You can follow these publications by subscribing to the primary site or through Substack (https://modernmontaigne.substack.com/).