You'll have to go to the source to watch the videos in the article.

The Culture War Impasse

SIMPLICIUS THE THINKER

Society is at war. The split so monstrous that any perceived commiseration between the two sides is just cheap window dressing. We have become so divided that politics no longer matters. Partisanship has taken the place of genuine disagreement, drawing the battle lines along ideological bounds.

The most striking evocations of this are the now daily examples of the New Left’s flouting of issues and ideas that should unequivocally be nonpartisan, universal concerns—in any normal society, that is. Note I use the term Left as a form of mutually intelligible shorthand. I realize not all “true leftists” or “classical leftists” adhere to the wild excesses of the current lot, but there’s no easier way to quickly and conveniently refer to the group of people presently strangulating society. If I termed them Progressives, then those would complain instead—nor do I even consider myself a “Right-winger” and mostly disavow the arbitrary binary. So the perceived anti-Leftism doesn’t come from a place of partisan malice in the sense of the classic divide. If you have a better suggestion on what to call the psychotic miserables currently occupying the totemic placeholder of the ‘Left’, I’m all ears. But for now, the New Left at least differentiates them from you proud Classical Liberal lot.

Anyway.

In the wake of Jim Caviezel’s Sound of Freedom, “Leftist” commentators have drawn the battle lines, proclaiming their staunch defense of child trafficking and pedophilia:

Each day you can see endless examples of this:

It’s emblematic of a larger campaign that has seen virtually anything associated with conservatives or the right-wing labeled as racist or otherwise ‘bad’ by the dishonest actors of the Left.

It’s led to a cultural deadlock where ideology is supreme. Fine-grained issues are boxed wholesale into the ambit of one side or the other. It reveals a darker truth, which is that truth itself no longer matters—only achieving total subjugation of your ideological opponent, at any and all costs.

The schism approaches pre-genocide levels of hostility and dehumanization, spurring various leading voices to call for a “national divorce.” The two sides have lost not only the ability to understand one another, but more fatefully—and fatally—all possible desire to even do so.

Our current society has often been dubbed the ‘post-truth’ era. In some ways this refers to resentment having reached such critical peaks that we’ve reached the phase of blood-letting, both literal and figurative. People on both sides feel so wronged and befouled by the perceived overstep of the other that ideas now serve only as momentary distractions for the real struggle—a life and death contest against a mortal foe viewed as wanting nothing less than your total extermination.

And that gets to the heart of the matter: the conflict has existential overtones. Partly this is the doing of the corporate media and its controllers, who amplify the rage at every turn, intentionally stirring the pot into an effervescent boil.

But even if we grasp the situation, it still comes as a shock how far and fast the escalations have come. It’s a cold slap in the face to witness an enemy so devoid of morality and honor as to enthusiastically defend the most unconscionable things for cheap point-scoring dunks: child traffickers, pedophilia, racial genocide, etc. Or conversely, attack the sensible and logical with startling vitriol:

Those of us having spent a lifetime cultivating a sense of righteous principles are tipped off-balance by the vicious ruthlessness of this new class of ideological hooliganism. It reminds one of the end of No Country For Old Men, where Tommy Lee Jones’ character faces the realization that the new type of post-modern evil pervading the world is beyond the grasp of old-timers like him; men from a more simple era of clear-cut ideals, who pursued criminals with understandable motivations.

A similarly stark realization stares us down in this dissolute age. We’re up against a new type of evil we can hardly comprehend, can hardly put name to or trace the contours of. It’s something unfathomable, which we weren’t taught to deal with and are not prepared for. The opposition before us appears of a soulless cast of miscreants who verge on an evil to, it seems at times, a biblical degree. Those of us who are sadly of the atheist or agnostic extraction feel even more confounded. We don’t have the luxury, aren’t equipped with the theological or metaphysical rubric, perhaps even the appropriate lexicon, to classify and properly resist such a foe.

One of the reasons that this seeming “evil” has begun to show its true face in such naked form like never before is due to something I’ve talked about at length previously. Modern times, the advancements of technology and the internet, have given us new tools in drawing forth the crimes and transgressions of those who rule over us from the shadows. In the past, they could abide in security, never fearing exposure to the light, save for the odd book some crank might put out once a decade or two—which likewise, without the propulsion of the internet, never develops the legs or reach to keep from fading to oblivion.

But the archons of our present moment have never felt so beset and hectored—so utterly exposed. If this were the 70s, Little St. James Island’s secrets would have never been rooted up like they were during the new era of internet citizen journalism. For proof, consider the long lecherous reigns of creatures like Jimmy Savile and his cohort—never forced to do themselves away like ol’ Jeff; our one small consolation.

But now we’ve stirred the hornet’s nest, shaken them up bad. They’re on the backfoot, retreating and scared for the first time. And when they’re scared, they not only become dangerous, but also unmask the true depths of their bottomless sadism. How is that? Because, to save their hide they’re forced to strike out in any way they can—a cagy animal spitting and clawing at the licking flames of the flambeaux in our hand.

They have no choice but to wage an ‘active-defense’, opportunely striking out at any perceived weak point. But as the desperation reaches fever pitch, they aim their attacks at any possible target, no matter how indefensible. These are the dying shrieks of the culture war phantom, thrashing out to save itself in the hopes that the accumulation of its strikes can offset their comparative inaccuracy.

And why do the blows suddenly err in such a way? It’s a topic I’ve covered before. It boils down to the fact that the culture war requires—or rather, devolves into—an uncontrollable, unending doom-loop as self-feedback mechanism. In the linked article from several months ago, I wrote:

What happens though is, as this patrician class continually decouples from us by way of their rejection of the binding ligatures of our shared existence, they inadvertently back themselves further and further into a corner. It’s a shrinking black box which represents their new reality as divorced from the interconnectedness to the previous substrate. This causes a series of shortened feedback loops for all of their messaging, which initiates a cascade of reciprocity: a mirror simulation where the two mirrors are slowly closing in on each other.

It may sound like a word-goulash without the proper context, but in essence what it means is that by de-coupling their ideologies from those of normal people, and by extension from reality itself, the purveyors of culture poison entomb themselves in an echo-chamber. This necessarily creates shortened feedback loops of messaging, since the message only rebounds from their own networks back onto themselves, which forces a sort of acceleration of iterative development of the given “idea”, like that of a virus subjected by scientists to a rapid replication program in order to study mutations.

The result is an acceleration-cascade of gnarly ideological mutations which stray progressively further from reality such that their attacks on normal folk no longer even resemble rational arguments. Hence when they’re backed into a wall, their dying throes of resistance spur them to unleash any psychic misanthropy imaginable, no matter how irrational or grotesque. In military terms: with little territory left to give, a yawning abyss at their back, they’re left with no choice but to fight doggedly “for every inch.”

This results in a sort of scorched earth policy of attacking their ideological enemies at every conceivable inflection point, no matter how nonsensical or egregious. If the so-called “Right” likes paragliding, they’ll attack paragliding as a racist “Nazi” pastime, if they like celery and oatmeal then turn the lens on oatmeal’s “racist” roots. It doesn’t matter what it is—it must be resisted, no inch of ground yielded without a bitter fight; it’s the ideological equivalent of a ‘Total War’, concomitant to a full “people’s mobilization.”

Just behold the ways the same publications which lauded the film Cuties now derides Sound of Freedom as a ‘dangerous’ right-wing fantasy:

Time and time again we see the people on that side of the fence who are most vocal, hostile, and militant against the perceived “right-wing conspiracies” are infact simply covering up the skeletons in their own closets:

The disturbed miscreants of the Left support increasingly outlandish movements merely out of spite, and a sense of vindictiveness. This is mirrored by the sheer number of movements sprouting from the germ of “rebellion” against something perceived as patriarchal and controlling.

For instance, there’s been mounting evidence that many gender activists choose to identify with an increasingly long and bizarre list of genders merely to spurn what they perceive as the oppressive cisgender “white male hierarchy.” It’s akin to subculture rebels cursing “the man” back in the day. Several of them have made videos openly stating they get a sense of righteous vindication from forcing their ideological foes to utter their preferred pronouns. Some are even aroused by this—a symptom related to autogynephilia.

Partly this stems from decades of “progressive” academia indoctrination, which has taught that all the evils of this world saw their genesis in the cultures of Old Europe. Ignoring of course the inconvenient fact that every known transgressive act was brought to greater pinnacles, at one point or another, elsewhere—the usual examples of the Barbary Coast slave trade coming to mind.

Nevertheless, for these sins the descendants of Europe must pay the price of blame for all the ills of modernity. So now, any thrust which aims to sever the final linkages to that hated bete noire is hailed as a justifiable correction, and everything which bears the remotest ties must be actively resisted with carte blanche viciousness.

So we see the old norms, Christian principles upon which America was rooted, assailed on a daily basis by people who don’t even necessarily believe in the opposing position. For them it’s an apophatic attack—negate the cause without needing a substantive replacement. All that matters is to destroy that which is perceived as the Old Order of the World.

It explains the amoral rootlessness of these radicals: they don’t care about what comes after—they haven’t thought that far head; they likely lack the capacity to even do so. They’re only following attack orders from their corporo-cultural masters.

At the sad root of the human dilemma is the undeniable fact that human beings are exceedingly easy to radicalize. The human mind seems purpose-built for constructing intricate cognitive dissonance models in order to bend and twist its way out of any conceivable mental predicament. This can be seen on a daily basis apropos the Ukrainian conflict, for instance. Hordes of pro-Ukraine Americans and even Jews actively support a patently unapologetic Nazi regime without even a shred of nagging discomfort.

What’s more, legions of Americans devoutly attached to the NAFO group are even avid Republican/conservatives who, if you click through their profiles, are staunchly anti-“deep-state” and appear by all accounts to be aligned with pro-Russians on almost every other issue, besides the war itself. Yet somehow, they’ve been twisted into a psychotic mind-bend which allows them to reconcile the bizarre mental leaps required to side with the corporate establishment on the one issue, while fiercely opposing it everywhere else.

It’s just another in a long line of examples for how ideological things have gotten. Artificial schisms pit people on two opposing sides in what is perceived a “winner take all, no holds barred” zero sum game, regardless of logic, rationale, or pragmatic realities of any kind.

The same outlets that promote the filth that is Barbie and Taylor Swift, attributing to them a “community joy” and “bringing together of people,” decry Oliver Anthony’s new viral hit just a day later as somehow being “disdainful” toward neighbors and “anti-Christian”:

It’s gotten so bad that at times it seems these headlines are A.I. generated, by way of an algorithm programmed to blindly elevate the vulgar and garish while attacking the sincere and uplifting. And though it’s true that many articles are in fact now being churned out by A.I. mills, sadly the examples here are the obvious products of a directed campaign by radicalized humans who live to attack even the barest of ‘conservative’ ideals simply because they’ve been inculcated to hate the opposing side with an existential passion as their blood-sworn enemy.

Part of it, too, is the corporate fear of losing control. Barbie, Taylor Swift, and the like are corporate products, prepackaged fare which is made-to-order as an artificial facsimile of “good things”, whether they be values or the “collective joys” the article above blathers on about. When a genuine expression of these counterfeits appears—someone like Oliver Anthony, for example—the corporate outfits panic and aim their cannons. Anything that challenges their monopoly on conveyor belt human expressions must be eliminated.

Just like Big Pharma strives to destroy naturopathic supplements and anything that could interfere with the market dominance of their chemical-biological experiments as ‘medicine’, so too must the corporate peddlers of manufactured “culture” eliminate competition from real and genuine sources of it. This can only be done in a total way—standard medieval chevauchée tactics. Any even modest inroad is ruthlessly uprooted or suppressed for encroaching on their artificial monopoly.

Just look at Sound of Freedom. A tiny, low budget film is but a minnow in the vast sea of Hollywood tripe. Such a film should have been barely a passing footnote, as it hardly had the mettle or power-broker backing to pose a real challenge to the establishment. Yet they went after it with the Zamzama blazing, sparing no less expense in attacking and smearing it than if it were a summer blockbuster from a rival studio.

Things are at a place where it’s no longer about “convincing” the other side—they don’t care about “the argument,” no matter how rooted in science, fact, or truth. Some naively cling to the belief that if they can just develop a new angle, some nuanced approach in persuasion or presentation that could disarm their ideological foe’s hostility, lower their guard enough to see the light. But they don’t care how well-constructed or “compassionate” your arguments are. These ideologues have been radicalized into the blank-minded discipline of a new age Jihad, with a seething hate in their heart.

So then what’s the path forward? Where do we go from here? One positive development of late comes in the form of a mass societal push back on the craven culture warriors of the New Left. Of course, it’s easy for us to over-exaggerate things. Since Musk took over Twitter/X, those who subsist mainly on that platform as their de rigueur echo-chamber can be deluded into thinking the dissidents have triumphantly struck back, seized the palace and toppled the monarch’s gleaming statue. But Twitter may not be the microcosm of the world it believes itself to be—a larger sampling of reality is needed for cross-referencing.

In the meantime, given the opposition’s strategy of ‘total war’, I believe it can only be challenged with a selfsame approach: fighting fire with fire. Coalitions and solidarity must be formed at every conceivable point—which is being done, thankfully—and the purveyors of grotesquery must be challenged at their every small indiscretion, just as they do with films and media of the ‘Right’. After all, it’s the least and lowest effort thing we can do—continue making a demonstrative display of their crassness. Turn them into the monsters they so gloatingly want to become.

Such mockery of their excesses is doubly effective. It triggers a kind of psychotic break in the already mentally unstable tripe-purveyors, causing them to not only double down, but increase the amplitude of their messaging—more crass, more outrageously warped, inhuman, and demented.

But it’s a classic trap. By goading them into the type of false sense of security enjoyed by squatters occupying the cultural totem pole’s position of primacy, then prodding their ego, we cause them to over-extend and expose themselves in the most unflattering ways possible. This provides fertile ground for demonstrative examples to further heap against the pyre of their impending self-immolation. The over-developed narcissism and unchallenged belief in their own infallibility and cultural dominance allows them to be seduced into displaying their most egregious behaviors and ideas, ultimately turning the tide against them and their indefensible positions.

The final prescription is to be less judgmental against people on your own side. The more things spin out of control, the more extreme and radicalized we all naturally become from the effects of righteous anger. This breeds demagoguery, and a trend toward increasingly harsh “purity tests” for everyone who remotely deviates from the perceived blackest of the “black pill” scriptures. Fractured sectarianism follows, preventing the type of solidarity required to repel the greater enemy.

Not everyone’s going to be on board with your obscure schizo nadsat and extreme views on cultural purity, and things of that nature. But that doesn’t mean the person is not your ally; he or she may be in a different stage of their ‘awakening’ and informational development, or simply not see eye to eye with your every extreme view. There’s nothing wrong with plurality of thought, after all—to a degree. The Western world that most sane people seek to recreate allows for freedom of thought, religion, and ideas. The fight is one against scourges like minority rule and undemocratic governance under the guise of “democracy”. Realistically, we know that almost no policy change in Western countries is ever effected by a truly democratic process—the latest examples of which are the broad and accelerated intersectional/DEI/LGBTQ+/Trans-Rights initiatives rammed through society without nary a permission asked.

Many or most people associated with what’s now fashionably referred to as the “Right” or conservatism believe themselves to be against Liberalism, but in fact modern “Leftists” are as illiberal as it gets and have nothing to do with the ideals of classical Liberalism. That isn’t apologia for classical Liberalism as I don’t personally associate with that ideology either, preferring instead to doff all labels. I tend to remain skeptical of both sides as a general rule, and despise being boxed in. However, there is obviously more common ground with people who consider themselves on the Right and so it happens to be more of the audience to whom I’m speaking.

As such, I refuse to narrow-mindedly cast out someone who may deviate slightly from every little nuance of my belief system. By doing that we merely become like “them,” creating an ever more labyrinthine rule set, which ultimately delimits a stifling totalitarian orthodoxy. After all, you can see it daily on their side; they eat their own, and though they may seem “strong” for now, it will ultimately be their undoing. A staunch liberal feminist like JK Rowling, for example, gets viciously ostracized for refusing to tote the ever-shifting sand-lines and dilating Overton window of conformity. We shouldn’t be this way. Reject labels and align with people who have good intentions, even if they don’t obsessively tick every single one of your boxes.

On the surface that may sound contradictory to my earlier calls for fighting fire with fire against our ideological foe. But the two concepts can coexist. Fighting scrappily for every inch of cultural and intellectual real estate is not the same as becoming them, or remotely like them. Perhaps in that way, the allegorical conceit is inapt; not fire with fire, but water with fire. Match their determinism but not their blind fanaticism.

That being said, I’m curious to hear from people who may believe that the differences can be “settled” amicably, by two sides merely understanding each other or otherwise “coming to terms” in some way. Such people are a dying breed, and the focus of this article is clearly antithetical to such thought—which makes me interested in hearing from such people all the more—if they exist—not to mock but to open our own horizons, and see if perhaps there’s a perspective we’re missing out on.

Does anyone still believe things can be settled civilly, or has the rift become a force of nature, gathering momentum like a boulder or a bison charging down hill, impervious to any human intervention?

Source: Dark Futura