Category: Uncategorized

According to PEN America, over the course of 2021, and continuing into the new year, legislatures across the United States introduced dozens of separate bills that portend the restriction of teaching of children and adults, as well as the training of administrators and teachers, in K-12 schools and higher education. Included in these bills are are restrictions on training in public institutions and state agencies. “The majority of these bills target discussions of race, racism, gender, and American history,” PEN warns, “banning a series of ‘prohibited’ or ‘divisive’ concepts for teachers and trainers operating in K-12 schools, public universities, and workplace settings. These bills appear designed to chill academic and educational discussions and impose government dictates on teaching and learning. In short: They are educational gag orders.”

It is true that some of the bills go to far. However, we have to keep in mind that efforts to impose “content- and viewpoint-based censorship,” have as counterparts efforts to impose content- and viewpoint-based ideologies on children, college students, and workers. There is indeed a potential problem in signaling “that specific ideas, arguments, theories, and opinions may not be tolerated by the government.” But this depends on what those ideas are and who is targeted to receive them. PEN contends that, while the legislation includes “language that purports to uphold free speech and academic inquiry. This language, intended to help safeguard these bills from legal and constitutional scrutiny, does little or nothing to change the essential nature of these bills as instruments of censorship.” This is a claim of which we must be skeptical. The problem lies in the deployment of the term “censorship.” It is not censorship to prevent an institution of public instruction to indoctrinate those under its charge in particular ideologies.

There are things that administrators and teachers wish to expose children to that should be age-restricted. If you don’t understand this then you don’t understand basic developmental psychology. Preventing teachers from discussing with five-years-olds the possibility that may not be the sex indicated by the chromosome and gonads should be uncontroversial. Little kids don’t get abstractions, They have vivid imaginations and are often unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. They are highly impressionable and suggestible. If you know about the satanic ritual hysteria of the 1980s and, more broadly, the problem of social contagion, then you understand why we have to be careful about what we introduce to a captive audience of children. We also have to understand that the desire to expose young children to gender ideology is a political project. Those pushing the ideology don’t deny this.

As for the things administrators and teachers wish to expose to older children, in high school and middle school, there is a difference between debating and discussing ideas about race and gender and compelling children or creating an environment in which children feel compelled to receive as true and to adopt as personal commitment particular political-ideological lines. In its totality, the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights protects freedom of conscience, speech, and association. A necessary part of that fundamental freedom is freedom from compelled thought. Indeed, one difference—perhaps the biggest difference—between a free society and an authoritarian one is the right to freely choose what one believes and says.

It is one thing to teach high school students in a social studies class about world religions. It is quite another thing to have them to repeat slogans associated with a particular religious doctrine. You can no more obligate a student to list the pillars of faith in Islam than to chant that the only path to salvation and ever-lasting life is through Jesus Christ. The same is true with partisan political ideologies. There can be no attempt to recruit students to any political party. The same is true with gender and race doctrines. Gender and race doctrines are ideological in the same way that religion is ideological. Compelling children or making children feel compelled to adopt a gender or race doctrine violates the very essence of the First Amendment. It is moreover a violation of their fundamental human rights under international law. A public school’s task is not the climb into a child’s head and either install or uninstall ideologies. Public schools are not to be reeducation camps or a series of programming/deprogramming sessions.

This problem has nothing to do with requiring students to produce the correct answer on a math or science text, use correct grammar and spelling in their essays, or even state accurately the facts of history as reached through consensus (open to revision) by professional historians. However, if you indoctrinate students in the belief that that math, science, and language rules are ideological systems, say the expression of “white supremacy,” or that historical understandings hailing from the standpoint of marginalized groups must be given epistemic privilege, then you run afoul of the First Amendment (and the norms of objectivity). If you teach children as fact that some of them live on stolen land, that some of them bear historical responsibility for the actions of their ancestors, or that some of them enjoy racial privilege at the expense of other children with a different skin color, then you run afoul of the First Amendment, not to mention the truth. You are not teaching in these instances. You are engaged in indoctrination.

As a matter of democratic principle, almost everything public educators do should be transparent to parents and taxpayers. This does not mean that teachers should not enjoy academic freedom or freedom of conscience, or that in the case of abusive relations at home children should not enjoy some expectation of confidence with a counselor (admittedly a tricky area, there are extraordinary cases). Rather, it means curricula and pedagogical techniques should be available for review by parents and concerned and interested citizens.

In a democracy, the people have a right to know what the institutions that serve them and their communities (and I mean here actual communities, not abstract or rhetorical ones) are doing and to criticize those policies and practices—and to reform them if they do not meet constitutional standards. Public education should not be a black box. Public education should not consist of programs to indoctrinate children in the ideologies consuming the professional-managerial class that has captured the institutions of our republic.

I am writing this today because the flood of bills coming out of the states concerning race and gender ideology are uniformly met by progressives as violative of academic freedom—a sentiment reflected in the PEN document I have shared with you. To be sure, some of the bills go too far by essentially banning discussion of ideas that may, in an age-appropriate manner, and in an even-handed and objective manner, be entertained in a classroom. But the blanket condemnation of these bills is knee-jerk. It does not reflect what is actually in many of them. Moreover, a lot of what will follow passage of these bills will work itself out in practice. There will be court challenges. There will be an emerging consensus. But something must be done to stifle the woke turn corrupting public education. Public education has become clearly ideological and in a particular direction. It shouldn’t be ideological at all. It may not be possible to get ideology out of everything, but this should be the goal.

I have heard the righteous indignation from teachers about these bills (remember, I am a college teacher). Administrators and teachers as functionaries of a public institutions really don’t have a right be get defensive over calls for transparency. When it comes to the rights of individuals before state power, then the notion that, if one has nothing to hide, then one should not remain silent, has purchase. But this principle is not true for the government and its institutions and its functionaries. Government actors who attempt to conceal the operation of public institutions deserve suspicion and are subject to review. The burden switches in these respective situations. If they’re doing nothing wrong, then there is no reason to hide curricula and pedagogy from parents and the public generally—and administrators and teachers shouldn’t be the ones deciding what’s right and wrong in a democracy. That’s for the people to decide where not limited by the inherent rights of the individual. When it comes to children, parents have a special right to know what is going on and to object if they believe it is harming their children.

What you can do as a defender of democratic and liberal freedoms is tell your legislators where these bills go too far and how they can be improved, and then help your neighbor understand the importance of transparency and public and parental oversight in curricular and pedagogical matters.

(For more about the training piece of this problem see Can I Get an “Amen” to That? No, But Here’s Some Fairy Dust; The Woke Church and the Threat to Free Speech and Religious Liberty. For more on critical race theory, see Critical Race Theory: A New Racism. I have written quite a lot on this topic, but that should give some idea of the spirit of my writing.)

From the Communist Manifesto: “Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.”

I am lecturing on the Communist Manifesto in a few days and I anticipate a question about the progressive income tax plank of that famous what-is-to-be-done list. There are also planks about free public education and central banking that might stir student curiosity. Several of these other planks have come to pass in some partial form or another. Are we a communist society? A socialist society? We’re neither, and the indication is that the realization of these planks in practice move society towards a socialist end, which is a means to communism, but do not complete the transition (the final destination is never clearly defined in Karl Marx’s work). Planks 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 if achieved would signal a clear path to socialism. Planks 2, 4, 7, and 10 less so (obviously). Why are so many planks at least partially institutionalized in a capitalist system? Based on what I have argued on Freedom and Reason, the problem of capitalist crises and the emergence of the corporate state necessitate many of these appearances. The ultimate question in all of this concerns social class, not one of innovations from an itemized list generated more than 170 years ago.

In preparing for these questions I have been looking at recent facts and trends and found information on the question of income taxes that I want to blog about today. Also, Tax Day is not that far off and records are already arriving in the mail. The Internal Revenue Service is slower with data dumps than the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but these are fairly recent (2018 and 2019 numbers). These statistics come from the Tax Foundation. First, the United States sits atop a huge economy. Income captures only part of it. In 2019, taxpayers reported earning almost 12 trillion dollars in adjusted gross income. They paid some paid some 1.6 trillion trillion in individual income taxes. The top one percent of taxpayers paid an average individual income tax rate of 25.6 percent, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (which is 3.5 percent). The share of the federal individual income paid by the top one percent was nearly 40 percent of all revenue. The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes (the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent). The top one percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (at nearly 40 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (just over 29 percent).

Does this mean the tax structure is progressive? Not nearly as progressive as it was under Eisenhower (I am sidestepping the matter of wages versus income, earned and unearned, to keep things simple). Johnson slashed taxes in the 1960s, fulfilling Kennedy’s promise the Chambers of Commerce and the globalists and kicking off the trend towards less progressivity. Clinton raised taxes in the early 1990s (within only a few years, the nation started running budget surpluses) but then, beginning with G.W. Bush, a new wave of tax cutting was initiated. To capture these changes, I share a chart from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez from a few years ago published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Given the long throw of history covered in this blog, the article is recent enough for our purposes today, which are, admittedly, not very ambitious. The charts cover other forms of taxes, so this will allow me to make a point about progressivity overall.

As you can seem the system remains substantially progressive on the income side. The pattern has not changed much since 2004, so, as I said, this article will do (if it doesn’t, please let me know in the comment section). What was sharply reduced after 1960 were corporate taxes and estate taxes. Moreover, payroll taxes have expanded, and these impact workers the most. Thus, despite the retention of a substantially progressive income tax scheme, the overall system of taxation has become rather regressive. Deeper questions remain unexplored: what and who generates income and how do we reckon wealth in discussions of inequality? The superrich have stores of natural wealth and the social surplus that income tax statistics don’t capture. This means looking at estates, etc.. But this must be said about the taxation of income: one would expect to see the rich and well off paying most of income tax revenues given that, by definition, the rich and well off take most of the income—and most of everything else.

Yesterday, just before the fourth NTAS expired (which is today), Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin regarding “the continued heightened threat environment across the United States.” The threats in question are not the continuing coercive behavioral and medical programs of the public health apparatus. Nor are they the drastic rise in criminal violence occurring in American cities. What are those threats? This is the subject of today’s blog. Here’s the spoiler: For the most part, citizens who dissent from the transnationalist program of managed decline of the American Republic constitute the “continuing heighten threat environment.”

The current NTAS reports (for much of this I am quoting from the press release as the actual document is a tedious series of bullet-points): “The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM)….” You may be unfamiliar with the latter term, as it is not one usually deployed in such an open manner. Although meaning different things, the first two are often carelessly used interchangeably. So let’s clarify. The standard definition of the terms are these respectively: sincerely held but false beliefs (misinformation); purposeful dissemination of false belief (disinformation); circulation of true or false information to sow division and destabilize the status quo (mal-information). The DHS lumps these together as MDM.

Those engaged in MDM are referred to as “threat actors.” You have to grasp the consciousness of the New Fascism to fully understand to whom they are referring. We know Antifa and BLM are not among the “threat actors” who moved the Biden-Harris regime to establish (the move was announced on the first day of Biden’s presidency) the new domestic terrorism branch within DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis “dedicated to producing sound, timely intelligence needed to counter domestic terrorism-related threats”—even while those entities represented the forces of chaos throughout the nation during the summer and fall of 2020 (and one suspects those forces will return). Spokespersons for the security state apparatus will point to January 6, 2021 Capitol affair as the reason, but it’s a claim that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It’s much broader than those who walked through the Capitol building that day.

The bulletin identifies “foreign terrorist organizations” (which must by now include the Canadian trucker convoy). Based on the “soft targets” identified one presumes that the small number of white supremacists at the margins of US society are also on the list. But the bulletin’s rhetoric concerning what is at stake must necessarily includes another, much larger group. According to the press release, “These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.” The discord and unrest sought by foreign terrorists organization is only in the heads of jihadis. The vast majority of Americans find Islamism repugnant, and those who don’t are the last persons to concern the DHS. Likewise, the white supremacists enjoy no significant support among the American population.

It’s clear from the pattern of words spoken and actions taken of late that those who actually comprise the “threat environment” are patriotic Americans who, as did the American Revolutionaries, question government action and call for reigning in state power. The first items in the bulletin itself include “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.” Since when did concerns for election integrity and fraud and mass vaccination programs constitute domestic terrorism? “Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021,” the document claims. Was the United States subject to violent extremists attacks through the previous year? Is the bulletin referring to parents at school board meetings objecting to mask mandates and the indoctrination of their children in racist ideology? The tens of thousands who attended MAGA rallies? The tens of millions of downloads of the War Room: Pandemic?

These manifestations and more indeed represent something terrifying to elites. Consider these words from our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Against the odds, the American Revolution achieved this state of affairs. It was accomplished with unity and purpose—and, as a historical fact, violence. However, with the ascendancy of the corporate state following Reconstruction, the republic became corrupted and was derailed. Progressive Democrats installed a new government—a technocracy. What governs today is the imposition of counterrevolutionary forces. In the demand to defend of life and liberty and the human desire to pursue happiness, the objective of the patriot is clear: dismantle the corporate state and its technocracy and restore and renew the republic. To the ears of oligopolists and globalists, criticisms of corporate governance and the administrative state, calls for popular action against the tyranny of the power elite and the restoration of the republic sound discordant and destabilizing. People demanding back their country is a scary sound to the elites who stole it.

This is a nation founded on the principle of limited government and the elevation of the rights and liberties of creative and productive individuals above the desires of mobs and the powerful minorities who inspire and direct them. This is a Constitutional Republic that, in its Bill of Rights, explicitly protects religious liberty and the rights to speech, the press, assembly, and association (First Amendment), the right to be armed (Second Amendment), the right to be secure in one’s person, papers, and effects (Fourth Amendment), as well as in the sanctuary of one’s own mind (Fifth Amendment), the right to be treated with dignity (Eight Amendment), the recognition of negative liberty (Ninth Amendment), and the right to a federal system of republic states (Tenth Amendment). The corporate state negates these liberties and rights. Republican freedom is not possible in a transnational system under corporate rule and centralized state power. Corporate state rule is established through coercion, intimidation, surveillance, and violence.

Review the bullet points towards the end of the press release. Here’s a summary for your convenience: The CP3 provides “communities” with “resources and tools” to prevent “individuals from radicalizing to violence.” DHS’s Homeland Security Grant Program now designates “domestic violent extremism” as a “National Priority Area.” Tens of millions of dollars have been allocated for “target hardening and other physical security enhancements.” And there are “increased efforts to identify and evaluate MDM, including false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories spread on social media and other online platforms.” These efforts involve “enhanced collaboration with public and private sector partners [to] increase the Nation’s cybersecurity through the Department’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).”

In all this, DHS wants to reassure Americans that the Department of Homeland Security “has renewed its commitment to ensure that all efforts to combat domestic violent extremism are conducted in ways consistent with privacy protections, civil rights and civil liberties, and all applicable laws.” I can hear those who know the history of the DHS and the organizations orbiting its sun laughing through the Internet. But laughter will come to an end in the coming months. “The months preceding the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” warns the bulletin, “could provide additional opportunities for these extremists and other individuals to call for violence directed at democratic institutions, political candidates, party offices, election events, and election workers.” It should be obvious from this and other actions that the ground is being prepared for efforts to undermine the populist movement. The see the Red Tide coming and they mean to mitigate its effects.

The press release warns the nation: “Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation.” What are the ideological beliefs and grievances to which they refer? If you are ever unclear as to what motivates the tyranny of corporate state action refer to the items enumerated in the previous paragraph. Liberty is the antithesis of totalitarianism.

I’ve been studying fascism for longer than I have studied most other things. My life-long commitment to libertarian principles periodically forces the problem of authoritarianism front-and-center in my thinking. Especially lately. It’s no fantastical worry; the objective and reactionary character of the current period should alarm all rational persons. What I have learned over these many years of study is that the core emotional and psychical preconditions for the development or manifestation of the authoritarian personality are fear, hate, and resentment. However, these do not also manifest in the same obvious ways. So, in the same way the critique of political economy must be renewed in light of changing appearances, so must the analysis of fascism. Indeed, these are inextricably linked. Fascism is a superstructure.

Fascists seek power and control—and to be controlled—because the inevitable perils of life terrify them and because they possess a deep-seated misanthropy, the latter deceptively coded as humanitarianism. They are especially fearful of those who lie outside of the the tribe with which they identity, which need not necessarily be based on race. The fascist who has climbed into their head instructs them to see their fellow human beings as threats to health and safety, especially as disease vectors, even with ideas a contagion. It is not that health and safety are rational concerns; they are highly selective in predictable ways. Violence, for example, is not objectionable from the standpoint of an ideology that seeks to limit autonomy. Indeed, in this case, it is righteous.

In a recent podcast, I discussed how Whoopi Goldberg got into trouble by suggesting that the Holocaust wasn’t about race. Of course, she was wrong. At the same time, the Holocaust wasn’t only about race. When people center the Judeocide exclusively a myopia is obtained that obscures the pathological obsession with hygiene that marks Nazi ideology. Indeed, this bears on an intrinsic piece of the deeper motivational character behind the Judeocide. Jews and Gypsies, who were white, were seen by ethic Germans and other whites as the bearers of disease, and this was translated into racial terms (this is actually why Goldberg was suspended). But don’t forget about Aktion T4, the Nazi program of involuntary euthanasia of the aged, the incurably sick, and the mentally and physically defective. Don’t forget about the persecution of religious, political, and sexual deviants and “special treatment.” Remember the medical experiments, the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg.

Nazism was in its day the apogee of the biosecurity state. With a deadly fetish for hygiene, every individual was put under the administrative control of the public health apparatus. Every individual was required to accept the terms of health from standpoint of the regime or suffer the consequences. Sometimes submission wasn’t even good enough. Jimmy Dore is incredulous that he was so hated after being injured by the Pfizer shot. There is a reason for that. Dore and the scores of other injured persons contradict the narrative. They are the worst. (See Biden’s Biofascist Regime; Fascism Becoming Under Cover of COVID-19 Hysteria.)

This pathology—an instantiation of mass formation psychosis—redirects the angst and anxiety felt at the conditions of alienation, anomie, depersonalization, and disenchantment that come about as loss of control in a class-segmented society, manifest as trepidation of disease, death, and deviation, by identifying concrete manifestations of manufactured concerns by selectively targeting concrete individuals. Classes of people are invented and labeled (“unvaccinated,” “domestic terrorist”) and subjected to marginalization in order to generate popular support for state control. Rather than blame the powerful entities that actually control their lives, namely the corporation and the state and technocracy it directs, a segment of the population is instead induced to blame those who are like themselves but who have been separated from them and marked as different. The blame game prepares obedient for integration with the corporate state. (A version of this is seen in the Mao’s Cultural Revolution, a fascistic moment in what would become a corporate state.)

The authoritarian personality finds especially loathsome the unafraid, those who are calm, rational, and self-assured, because such persons represent the antithesis to the neuroticism of the fascist mind—the latter that is the actual object of their loathing (more on this in a moment). The fascist sees those outside the tribal boundaries, the bearers of disease and chaos (not their chaos, of course) as their enemy, as pariah, witches and racists, and deploy with little or no prompting the politics of personal destruction and reputational ruination. They poison the well by accusing those who expose corporate state propaganda and machinations as themselves spreading disinformation and misinformation and disorder. They accuse them of “putting lives at risk,” while at the same time rationalizing extreme impositions on freedom as necessary and trivial. The fascist personality is at once an inquisitorial mentality, always searching out those who deviate from prevailing doctrine and narrative, using persecution of others to signal virtue. This is the character of modern-day progressivism.

It is crucial to recognize that fascism is in its emotional and psychical elements, certainly among the masses, but often even among the leaders of the countermovement (fascism is always moving counter to autonomy, democracy, liberty, and personal sovereignty), ultimately an expression of self-loathing. One sees this in in the way the white progressive eagerly steps up to the altar of social justice to confess her racism and seek atonement for her sins—even as she later screams at the unmasked (and presumably unvaccinated) black man on the elevator or the poor Hispanic man at the supermarket. Fascism conveys the circumstances of a people having fallen from grace, an existential condition for which redemption is sought albeit never consistently. Redemptive desire always finds its satisfaction in an escape from freedom, as it always misspecifies the problem. It is a false consciousness. Thus the tribal identity for progressive whites involves a rhetorical subordination to the myth of black subjection, a ritual that drags into its vortex the many blacks who object to being used by elites in this manner. (See why it is so important to renew the analysis from time-to-time?)

This is why the sacred word has become the moral panic of the moment. It is no coincidence that those with Black Lives Matter yard signs are the same people who live in terror of one of the dozens of cold virus that circulate the planet every year, who see children as such a grave threat to their health that they mask them up, put them in plexiglass boxes, and beg the state to let them inject into their little bodies gene therapies for a disease that presents no reasonable threat to them—therapies that ultimately won’t protect the adults from the disease anyway. It’s no coincidence that such a countermovement would reimagine an external cultural imposition as an internal and essentialist force requiring the modifications of bodies with immature and still plastic minds. Don’t bother pointing out the contradictions. Fascism is not rational. As political scientist Michael Parenti told us years go, fascism is the rational manipulation of irrationality. 

See important update below!

Pro tip (literally): Scientists and experts disagree about stuff all the time. True consensus in science is reached very rarely and only after a lengthy period of study and replication. Even then, the consensus can unravel with a novel interpretation or in light of discovery. That’s why we don’t censor arguments and disagreements in science. Ever. Argument and disagreement are what make science work. In censoring information and corrupting knowledge, the corporate state is engaged in anti-scientific practice.

The corporate state is acting like a fundamentalist religious institution where speech contrary to doctrine is heresy and those who persist in it are punished and excommunicated. The heterodox are treated as heretics. Those who do not accept opinion handed down from on high are treated as infidels. They are marginalized and ridiculed. Instead of objectivity and reason, the corporate state resorts to authoritarianism and the politics of reputational destruction and character assassination. These attitudes and practices are the diametric opposite of science.

What the corporate state portrays as science, along with the anti-scientific attitude and practices described above, is what I call “scientism.” Scientism is ideology pitched as science. The rational person has every justification in doubting claims made by those hailing from this ideological standpoint in the same way the rational person has reason to doubt the preachments of religious clerics. Indeed, a rational person should be very suspicious of such behavior, as it strongly suggests the actor does not have the science to back up his claims. When authorities do not want you to see what they are doing or to hear challenges to their claims, that strongly indicates deception.

If the authorities want to understand vaccine hesitancy and skepticism, they should take a long hard look at their own statements and conduct.

Scientism is an ideology used to legitimize control over a population in the name of public health, a major component of the technocracy. Taken on its face, the construct “unvaccinated” is absurd, since everybody is unvaccinated in one way or another. I haven’t had the smallpox vaccine. Nor have I been vaccinated for rabies. And there are others I have not had. The term is not really about public health but is a novel category being used to create a new class of people who can be subjected to corporate state control.

I am happy to see more people speaking up about the emerging control system, but we could see this coming from a long way off and folks are a bit late to struggle. It should never have gotten this far.

* * *

Update!

The CDC is now admitting what I have been telling you for months. Natural immunity is far superior to vaccination. I have natural immunity! Yay!

According the case numbers, there have now been over 65 million people that have recovered from COVID-19 in the United States. This number is much larger in reality given that there are likely between 4-5 infections that are never recorded as cases. Some of these are reinfections. Nonetheless, it is likely that most people in the United States have had COVID-19. Many of them would never know it because they are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms.

With the failure of mass vaccination in halting the spread of the new variant, even in those who are vaccinated, the CDC is finally acknowledging the strong protection provided from immunity after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

That’s right, the CDC is finally admitting that natural immunity is superior to immunity produced by the vaccines.

In the report, researchers analyzed COVID-19 cases in California and New York from May 30 to November 20, comparing the risk of new SARS-CoV-2 infection among several groups. They found that with the emergence of the delta variant, natural immunity was more protective against infection than vaccination.

And not by a little. By a lot. Hold on to your hats, these are gale-force numbers:

Infection rates among those with natural immunity were 29-fold lower in California and almost 15-fold lower in New York compared to the vaccinated (6-fold lower and 4.5-fold lower respectively). Crucially, hospitalization tracked infection rates. In other words, those with natural immunity were less likely to be hospitalized from infection than those who were vaccinated.

Why? For precisely the reason I told you: natural immunity is more robust and durable than the vaccine. When a person is infected with a virus, the immune system is exposed to all parts of the virus (including the spike protein). This means that the immune response is faster and more comprehensive.

Moreover, the immune system is able to respond effectively to a greater range of variants (or mutants). When the virus changes its spike, the vaccines don’t work because they were narrowly engineered to respond just to the spike—and a particular structure of spike at that (what a stupid vaccine). Natural immunity is not neutralized by mutations in the spike. It knows the genome.

Why am I right about this? Because I understand the science and I am not owned by Big Pharma. I knew this all along. It’s a matter of public records over at Freedom and Reason.

But if I knew this all along, then the experts knew this all along. Clearly I don’t know more than they do. So if they knew this all along, then why didn’t they tell you about natural immunity? Because they want you to take the vaccines. Why do they want you to take the vaccine? Power and profit.

How can they demand vaccine passports if those who have better immunity from natural infection are sqfer to be around than the vaccinated?

Please spread the “news.” Now that the CDC admits it, you can hopefully share the information without being called “antivaxxers.” Nah, who am I kidding. They’ll call you that anyway. But let them. After all, you’re already a racist. What more can they say about you than that?

That there is a major labor uprising in Canada right now that is either ignored or maligned by progressives, who tell you they stand with working people, coupled with the fact that the left (and I mean here the so-called left) is not up in arms about the way labor is being portrayed (as racists and whatnot), tells you just about everything you need to know about the authenticity of the left today. The truth of today’s left is this: it is aligned with corporate power and the administrative state.

You should find remarkable that a party calling itself the Liberal Party could be so profoundly illiberal as to mandate that truckers self-isolate upon crossing the border. The demand is damned unscientific, too. The virus is in Canada. What do these politicians think they’re keeping out? Of course, unscientific thinking is characteristically illiberal, as well. What we are witnessing is why I am so particular about language. You cannot be this illiberal and still call yourself liberal. I’m not having it.

I explained this in my recent essay The Democratic Party is Not the Party of Liberal Politics, but I want to take another whack at it (and I am almost certain this won’t be my last whack). A liberal is an strong advocate of liberalism. Here we can trust the Internet: liberalism is “relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.” (We might qualify democracy as specifically republicanism, but this is basically it. I deal with the free enterprise question in my January 2017 essay The Contradiction in Liberalism. That something is internally contradicted does not make it relative.)

A politician’s stance with respect to censorship is a useful test of authenticity. Censorship is an illiberal desire or action. It indicates authoritarianism. By definition, a liberal wouldn’t support censorship. Free speech is quintessentially liberal. You cannot have an authoritarian attitude and be authentically liberal. There are many others tests of authoritarianism like this. If you believe in vaccines mandates, then you are not a liberal. If you believe in privileging some persons over others on the basis of skin color, then you are not a liberal. Justin Trudeau is not a liberal.

As I pointed out in the November essay, some folks say that liberalism changes like any political ideology. No, liberalism doesn’t change in that way. It evolves, sure. More importantly, it colonizes a person’s lifeworld and ethnical sensibilities—if the person welcomes it in. There were slave owners who expressed liberal views. Slavery obviously stands in contradiction to liberalism. If they quit slavery because of their liberal views, then they became more liberal. Principle and values don’t change because persons and parties change. If a person who claims to be liberal advocates or tolerates slavery, then the person is not fully liberal.

Think about it this way: Christianity is not what self-professing Christians say it is. A Christian is a defender of the faith. Those of you who are Christians know people who claim to be Christian but are not really. They wear the tag but not the commitment. This is not a perfect analogy since Christianity has different sects, doctrines, etc., whereas liberalism is a more monolithic set of principles, but I think the comparison still works to convey the point that it will not do to just say you are Christian if you reject the teachings of Jesus or the core Christian doctrine of salvation.

It’s like the BLM leaders who talked proletarian lingo and then took the money and bought a mansion. They’re fakes. To be sure, their cause was fake, too. But that is beside the point. They weren’t even true to their own ideology.

We have to recognize that what a person says about himself is not the truth. People make all sorts of claims about themselves. People lie and deceive (sometimes they lie to and deceive themselves). People are ignorant. People are wrong. The truth has its own integrity. We judge authenticity based on commitment to the truth of the thing not personal convenience or whimsy. Justin Trudeau is one or more of these things. But he is not a liberal.

It’s not the liberal who’s the authoritarian thorn in our side. It’s the progressive. It’s politicians like Trudeau. Progressivism is the ideology of corporate statism, or the administrative state of the technocracy. Progressives do not believe in individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, or free enterprise. Progressives are illiberal. Liberals have a completely different view of government and corporate power.

So here’s my ask: stop calling progressives liberals. It’s not a benign misuse of language. It perpetuates a lie about the current order of things. It participates in the campaign of confusion the elites push. If you are really a liberal, then you will oppose lockdowns, mandates, and masks. You will defend the rights associated with a free state of existence.

It’s super cold outside. The sun is blasting through my dining room window. It’s a beautiful day to tell you all some good news. This Monday I saw my doctor for my post-COVID checkup. It’s as if COVID-19, which I had late November 2021, cured my diabetes and hypertension—this despite me having put on fifteen pounds and not walking daily (not waking at all, honestly). My cholesterol and triglyceride numbers are much improved. My kidney function is outstanding. My lungs are completely clear. No more inhaler for my asthma.

I’m going to get back to diet and exercise. I don’t like being fat. Not that I’m vain. Fat doesn’t look good and it’s not healthy. But I no longer feel the urgency to starve myself and pound the pavement that I felt before when my labs were poor. That I have acquired robust natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 gives me added confidence. I have been exposed to omicron in the meantime and I had a stuffy nose for a day. Who knows what that was. Who cares? It’s time for the world to stop worrying and move on.

What was COVID-19 like? My bout was during the delta variant period and it wasn’t fun. I was sick for several days. Alongside what felt like a severe sinus infection, fatigue was the main symptom. For a few days I had what they call “COVID voice,” which means that my larynx was infected. Because of the protocol I followed (which I describe in a previous blog post), the only pharmaceutical I needed was a steroid inhaler. That was phoned in. I never entered a doctor’s office. I never missed a day of work. Sorry. Not sorry.

I know that others have had different experiences, and I feel bad for those families who lost loved ones to this disease, but my case is hardly exceptional and you need to know that. You need to hear the stories of all those who contracted this disease and survived because these are the stories of the vast majority of people and the corporate media isn’t going to tell you about them. Don’t let the exceptional cases hyped by the fear machine push you into a false reality. For most people who get COVID-19, the experience doesn’t rise to the severity of my situation, which was a really bad cold-like illness. I had a fever for maybe half a day.

I’m happy I didn’t die, mostly because being alive is fun (albeit I have no idea what it’s like being dead—or stupid). But I am also happy I didn’t die because, had I died, the mocking of my death would haunt my family. The main reason I’m even sharing my experience is to taunt the hateful progressive type who revels in the death of those who didn’t get the COVID shot. I’m still here, fucker.

I will be sixty years old this March. I have several comorbidities that put me at special risk. I was never as fearful of this virus as were so many of those around me. I did my research and knew what my chances were—I knew they were good. It is not as if I wasn’t worried about this virus. I knew masks didn’t work, so I avoided public spaces during peak periods. I didn’t want to catch it. But in the end I know I could not avoid it. My wife teaches at Head Start. My youngest son is a high school student. My odds weren’t good with respect to being exposed.

When my PCR test came back positive, and I was already sick, as was my wife, who would get her results later that day, it felt like being at the top of a rollercoaster. Sitting up in bed looking at my positive results, I told my wife, “Here we go. Now we get to find out what this is all about.” Honestly, I was relieved. I finally had it for sure and soon I would know for myself.

My message to you is simple: Don’t be scared. This is a virus among hundreds (at least). Those other viruses can kill you, too (I feel bad for all those families who have lost loved ones to influenza, etcetera). We must refuse to live in fear. As I said at the beginning of the mess, life is more than just existing. Life is about living. And living under the constant stress of panic is a very difficult thing to do.

The powers that be either grossly mishandled the situation or the COVID-19 pandemic is part of a grand agenda. Either way, the solution is obvious: we have to overthrow the status quo.

“The explanation of the relationship between the phenomenon of ‘mass formation’ and the production and circulation of ideologies must take into account both the social dimension as well as the intrapsychic structure of the ideological.”—Max Hernandez, The International Journal of Psychoanalysis (1988).

“Examples of illusions which have proved true are not easy to find, but the illusion of the alchemists that all metals can be turned into gold might be one of them.” —Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927).

“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” —W. I. Thomas, The Child in America (1928).

“If it seems to you that the rest of the world has gone mad, the truth is, yes they have.” —Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA platform, on The Joe Rogan Experience (2021).

In this essay, I elaborate on the phenomenon of mass formation psychosis (MFP) and its relationship to totalitarian monopoly capitalism (TMC). Recently, the topic of MFP was trending across social media thanks to the intrepid Dr. Robert Malone raising the matter in an interview with Joe Rogan on the latter’s popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, and the ignorance of the establishment media of basic social psychological literature—and of course their function in running interference for the power elite. Surprising was how many psychologists seemed as ignorant as journalists about the phenomenon. Although I cannot know this for sure, the sense I got from reviewing remarks by those interviewed by various news outlets was feigned denial that assisted the media in marginalizing the concept of mass formation psychosis. Whether intentional or not, thanks to appeal to authority, the concept has been successfully marginalized and the media has moved on to other matters.

I wrote this entry in the midst of the controversy. In my desire to be thorough, it turned into a long essay. By the time I was readying it for publication, the controversy had passed and there were other things to blog about. But I didn’t want to let this issue go, especially since it continues to be used to dismiss Malone. Moreover, the phenomenon of MFP is related to arguments covered in numerous essays published on my blog over the last two years, arguments that have appeared in my lectures to students for decades. Recent essays of mine examining the moral panic surrounding one of the grand illusions of our times: By Learning to Let Go of Mass Hysteria, We Can Bring an End to the Destructive COVID-19 Panic; Priming for Control: How Mass Psychology is Used to Transform Lifeworlds; Panic and Paranoia Deaden Humanity and Sabotage Its Future. 

The concept of MFP finds its present formulation in the mind of Mattias Desmet, a Belgian clinical psychologist and statistician on the faculty of Ghent University. As indicated, he is not the first scholar to have identified the phenomenon. However, in attempting to prevent mass consciousness about the idea from developing, the establishment sicced its flying monkeys (the media) on a straw man. I will take up that matter first. Then, to deepen understanding of MFP and its antecedents, I synthesize work by, among others, Franz Neumann (Behemoth: The Practice and Structure of National Socialism), C. Wright Mills (The Power Elite), Sheldon Wolin (Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism), as well as Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom), Sigmund Freud (Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego and The Future of an Illusion), and the arguments of Peruvian psychoanalyst and historian Max Hernandez concerning mass formation and phenomenon of transference.

"Mass formation psychosis," an unfounded theory spreading online, suggests millions of people have been “hypnotized” into believing mainstream ideas to combat COVID-19. Psychology experts say the concept is not supported by evidence. Get the facts @AP. https://t.co/TT61pPFtwL

— AP Fact Check (@APFactCheck) January 8, 2022

Before moving to an analysis of MFP, where I dispel the claims that, as defined and operationalized, MFP is not a valid theory, I must address the nature of the frenzy of press accounts claiming no such thing as mass formation psychosis exists—not just to defend those the establishment is attacking, but to expose the purpose of the attack, namely to keep the corporate state project going. A charitable and unbiased commentator, even if he disagreed with the concept of MFP, would have to acknowledge that Desmet’s terminology is essentially a specification of such well-understood social psychological concepts as mass psychogenic illness (MPI), mass hysteria, mass psychosis, and social contagion. Psychiatrist Mark McDonald, in his 2021 book United States of Fear, calls it “mass delusional psychosis” (the phrase is in the book’s subtitle).

As elites and their propagandists would have it, because the psychologists they’ve selected for interviewing are unfamiliar or feign the same with Desmet’s exact phrasing, there’s no such thing as MFP. It’s hard to believe that this is an error. Indeed, many of those interviewed did not even bother to find out or at least tell readers from where Malone got the phrase, implying that he just made it up. The only reason I can think of why they would do such a thing is to mystify the very real phenomenon he is describing—and to scare others away from agreeing with him. I’m not scared. I have to speak up because I know too much about the phenomenon.

Let me be very clear about what happened here. This was a smear campaign to delegitimize the inventor of the mRNA platform currently being mass deployed in the form of COVID-19 vaccines because his criticisms of mass vaccination programs interferes with the elite project to impose upon western populations a comprehensive social credit system rooted in a biosecurity scheme. The project is real, and in this essay—in many essays on my blog—I will show readers how this is happening. Elite also have in their sights podcaster superstar Joe Rogan. Rogan uses his powerful platform to give voice to those who, usually excluded from mainstream forums, expose the machinations of the corporate state. In the weeks following the Malone interview, the attempt to push Spotify into dropping The Joe Rogan Experience for “misinformation” has even involved the White House.

The concept of MFP is an obvious threat to the elite agenda. The frenzy itself is compelling evidence of the agenda. If Rogan and Malone’s conversation didn’t potentially compromise the project, or there was no such project, the public would know nothing about Desmet’s argument. Elites are trying to thread the needle here. In having to confront the problem of mass formation psychosis, they have to deny the literature and ignore other voices. They have to marginalize the concept without arousing too much public curiosity. It appears they have been effective in this case.

The following is illustrative of the pattern of elite media disinformation. Jay Van Bavel, an associate professor of psychology at New York University, tells the Associated Press (AP) that “he had never encountered the phrase ‘mass formation psychosis’ in his years of research, nor could he find it in any peer-reviewed literature.” Bavel can’t be telling the truth. Either he knows what I am about to tell you and is lying about it—or he is lying about trying to find references in the peer-reviewed literature. It took me only a few seconds to find the article, “Group formation and Ideology,” by Max Hernandez, published in 1988 in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis (adapted from a paper presented at the 35th International Psychoanalytical Congress in Montreal, Canada, in 1987), where Hernandez, operating from a Freudian standpoint, emphasizes the importance of analyzing “[t]he relationship between the phenomenon of ‘mass formation’ (Massenbildung) and the production and circulation of ideologies.” Even a passing familiarity with Freud’s mature work would produce a more charitable comment than Bavel’s.

Bavel isn’t a nobody. He has an extensive publication record. His area of expertise is how group identities and political beliefs shape brain and behavior, so this should be his wheelhouse. Yet he makes no effort to help AP understand what Desmet is talking about. How is his ignorance not feigned and dishonest?

Representative of the posture of the corporate media in this affair, the AP accurately explains MFP while deploying the journalism’s favorite discrediting adjective, namely “unfounded.” You know, as in “unfounded claims of voter fraud.” It is a rather crude propaganda technique that makes the sentence assume what requires proving. The AP tells its audience that MFP, “an unfounded theory spreading online, suggests millions of people have been ‘hypnotized’ into believing mainstream ideas to combat COVID-19.” Indeed, that is the claim: that a mass of the population has become hysterical and, in their hysteria, is obeying rules that are not in their interests but in the interests of the elites who are oppressing them. Just leave out the adjective “unfounded” and you have it. Because that is what’s going on.

The AP, not wanting to look like they themselves are discrediting a scientific concept, asserts, “Psychology experts say the concept is not supported by evidence.” Really? As if Desmet, a trained psychologist with an extensive publication record, is not an expert, or that Malone, a physician and scientist, is incapable of understanding and explaining a well-established social psychological phenomenon—or that you, my brother, need to stop trusting your lying eyes.

Following the Snopes script, the AP (follow the linked url in the above tweet to read the entire mess) scoffs at a popular tweet from a non-expert: “I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure healthy people spending hours in line to get a virus test is mass formation psychosis in action.” Indeed, those longs lines are concrete instantiations of the phenomenon Desmet and Malone are talking about. How many of you have watched videos of lines stretching for blocks of people shivering in the cold and rain, possibly sick with a virus of some sort, and thought to yourself, “How can so many people be this delusional?” Mass formation psychosis, maybe? Nah. According to the AP, there’s no such thing. What’s the proof the AP is right? The entire establishment news apparatus joined them in lockstep calling the theory “debunked.” Debunked that quickly. The world only heard the term for the first time in January and scientists had already debunked it. Except they hadn’t.

The AP wants you to ask yourself why such a thought would even cross your mind. What’s wrong with you? Perhaps you’re the one suffering from a psychosis. You really should be better at crimestop, the habit of mind explained by Emmanuel Goldstein, despised author of the subversive pamphlet The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four as “the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.” Crimestop “includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments.” It’s the power to be “bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.” The establishment propagandists holding the line are among the most prolific practitioners of crimestop.

The AP ought to consider debunking another pop psychological concept, namely gaslighting, a form of manipulation occurring in abusive relationships where abusers manufacture false narratives in order to induce psychoses in their targets. That is precisely what the establishment media is doing here. You’re supported to forget that you ever knew about the power of hypnosis and suggestibility, of the astonishing effects of faith healing, of the millions giddy over Hitler (and the Beatles), that you never tapped your foot along with others in unison with the beat, a phenomenon scientists know as entrainment. This is the same establishment media that told you, among their many other lies, about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, and that you were the crazy one for doubting these lies.

Is it the establishment media’s contention that children at McMartin and dozens of other preschool across the United States and Canada during the 1980s really were the victims of Satanic ritual abuse? So there really were witches in the Middle Ages and that’s what prompted the Inquisition where mobs killed Homosexuals, Jews, women, and even animals (demons can possess animals, too) by burning them at the stake and crushing the beneath heavy stones? Why did all those hundreds of people drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid at Jonestown? Have you read accounts of the lynch mobs in the Jim Crow South?

In psychology and sociology, we have a better explanation for what happened at McMartin Preschool, Massachusetts Bay Colony, the People’s Temple, and to Sam Hose. The phenomenon is known by many terms, among them mass hysteria, mass delusion, and mass psychosis. There is a vast literature on the subject. Dr. Malone is right, you’re not crazy. The establishment media is lying to you. And that’s the point. They want you to disbelieve the science because they’re using these techniques to manipulate you into suspending disbelief in their lies.

* * *

With the matter of media machinations somewhat squared away, let’s talk about the corporate state project to generates the conditions rendering a significant proportion of the population susceptible to mass psychosis. We will begin with the problem of managed democracy. As the reader will see, understanding managed democracy is crucial to grasp in order to understand MFP and why the establishment is so desperate to discredit the idea.

With the concept of managed democracy, Shelton Wolin, the late and sorely missed professor of politics at Princeton University, is describing a government that, while appearing democratic in form, for example, by holding regular elections, declared free and fair by establishment propagandists, functions in an essentially authoritarian manner. (He presents this argument in Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.)

A key element in producing the illusion of democracy under these conditions, Wolin contends, is the reconstruction of the citizen as consumer, replacing civil rights and civic responsibilities with consumer choice in apparently free markets. Wolin’s analysis resonates with Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s arguments presented in several independent and collaborative works, especially concerning the administrative state and the culture industry.

Common to Wolin’s work and that of Horkheimer and Adorno are Max Weber’s observations about the rationalization of society under industrial capitalist arrangements, with its emphasis on efficiency, uniformity, and hierarchy, and the effect that has on humanity. The social logic of bureaucratic control is the diametric opposite of that of democracy; as rationalization proceeds, freedom, which Weber defines as individually differentiated conduct, recede.

Managed democracy is an expression corporate statism, also known as corporatocracy, a juridical and political superstructure organized around primarily corporate interests, in contrast to a democratic republic emphasizing liberal values. The evolution of the corporate state is detailed by Richard Grossman, co-director of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy, in various speeches and essays, so I will send you there for details (see “Defining the Corporation, Defining Ourselves”; “Challenging Corporate Law and Lore”).

It will suffice here to explain that, under corporate state arrangements, regulatory agencies manage organized opposition to capitalist exploitation and its discontents, while propaganda and psychological operations, which appear as marketing and public relations campaigns, mislead and redirect an atomized public away from politics organized by their class and status interests, steering them instead towards a politics and sentiments subservient to elite interests (see Edward Bernays, Propaganda; Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion; Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent).

A chief empirical indicator of this state of affairs is the failure of government to make and enforce law and policy that function to serve the interests of the majority while protecting the rights of all (liberal democracy). In their 2014 article “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” published in Perspectives on Politics, wherein they evaluate four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics, namely majoritarian electoral democracy, economic-elite domination, majoritarian pluralism, and biased pluralism (two types of interest-group politics), Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page find substantial support for theories of economic-elite domination and biased pluralism but not for those theories that convey the narrative of the United States as a democratic society. (For this reason, the term “illiberal democracy” is often used to describe present-day United States.)

Gilens and Page’s study is powerful confirmation of C. Wright Mills’ thesis advanced in his 1956 The Power Elite. Gilens and Page write, “Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” Were those previous studies out of date, i.e., have things changed, or were they wrongly specified? Either way, the current situation is one in which corporations and the wealthy dominate politics and policy-making.

Things have changed since Gilens and Page published their article. The situation is worse now. The central features central to democratic government the authors identify are now more ideal than real—an ideal in a vanishing subset of minds. In a short amount of time, democratic freedom, election integrity, and assembly, privacy, and speech rights have been compromised or sharply curtailed. Especially terrifying is that it appears as much of the public doesn’t care. Indeed, many are asking for more restrictions, more surveillance, and more censorship.

Under corporate state rule, those who challenge policy and criticize government power are depicted as “threats to democracy,” and are marginalized or neutralized in some fashion. The corporate state wages perpetual psychological warfare against the citizens of the republic, casting opposition and resistance to status quo power arrangements as “deplorables” and “insurgents.”

As we have seen with the US Department of Justice labeling parents at school board meetings speaking out against critical race theory and mask as “domestic terrorists,” difference of opinion is elevated to the level of threats to national security. One sees such tagging in the January 6 Commission organized by Democrats in Congress and in commemorations of the alleged coup, the putsch, to overthrow the United States government and save Donald Trump’s presidency, spectacles where the representatives of the people are delegitimized while the legitimacy of the establishment is ritually elevated.

We see this in the constant characterization of populist nationalism, with Steve Bannon as the boogieman of progressive nightmares, as “authoritarianism,” while the true authoritarian menace—the inverted totalitarianism of the corporate state—is portrayed as the democratic ideal made concrete. Democracy in the inversion is code for the established order of things—an Orwellian attempt to keep alive the illusions of democratic republicanism and liberal society. The inversion desires verticality.

With these circumstances sketched, I now take up the matter of mass formation psychosis, which I have suggested is a reworking of large literature of established ideas. Inspired by the crowd psychology of Gustave Le Bon, Desmet sees MFP as a form of crowd hypnosis or mass trance, achieved by inducing psychosis in a significant proportion of the population.

If you don’t like Desmet’s term, then pick another. As I noted, there are many in the literature. I reiterate, whatever you call it, MFP is a well-known mass psychological phenomenon. What is less well known, however, is that it facilitates the entrenchment and perpetuation of the managed democracy I have just described. This is why the establishment media is so frenzied. It’s not that the facts of MFP are not obvious. It’s that the people are to have an explanation for those facts. The people experiencing MFP are being organized as the popular forces of corporate statism.

Desmet estimates the proportion of the population under the spell of MFP to be between 20-30 percent, a proportion large enough to carry significant societal effects. The obvious historical analogy is Germany under the Nazis. (This is the comparison that likely led to YouTube removing the Rogan-Malone interview for violating its “community standards,” as only certain persons and groups, principally those advancing the corporate state interests, are allowed to make Nazi comparisons. Only useful analogies, however false, are permitted.) The idea here is that, while not every German believed Nazi state propaganda, enough of them did. Combined with regime control over German institutions, this allowed the Nazis to take the population into catastrophic war and to carry out democide and genocide against various populations.

As noted earlier, the concept of mass formation appears in the work of Peruvian psychiatrist Max Hernandez. Although not a household name in the United States, Hernandez is celebrated around the world. Hernandez uses another of Freud’s concepts, namely transference. Transference provide us with a term to describe the mass psychic element useful for controlling populations.

Transference is a phenomenon in which a person unconsciously redirects his feelings from one person or source to another. There occurs a displacement of emotions in which the individual becomes highly vulnerable to suggestion. In Freud’s formulation, a mass forms when the individual puts the leader in place of his ego ideal (Ichideal), that is the inner image of oneself as he wishes to be or to become. Hernandez specifies this process.

Hernandez’s work is thus extremely important to understanding mass social phenomenon, so we might understand why the psychology experts consulted by AP and other media pretended as if this work doesn’t exist. If they are not familiar with Hernandez’s work, are we really supposed to trust their claims of expertise in the field?

Hernandez’s methodology works from Erich Fromm’s demand, inspired by Freud’s mature writings (see Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents), that interpretation involve the “continuous and constant comparison of the psychoanalytic viewpoint, which asserts the radical individuality of man, with that of sociology, which takes into account the totality of social relationships” (see Fromm’s 1966 Marxism, Psychoanalysis and Reality).

From this dialectical standpoint, Hernandez synthesizes Freud’s ideas on group psychology, incorporating definitions of ideology proposed by, among others, Paul Ricœur and Jürgen Habermas in order to explain mass formation. (If you are unfamiliar with these names, do an Internet search. Fromm, Ricœur, and Habermas are intellectual giants. The establishment media is attempting to wall off a vast store of philosophical and scientific knowledge.)

Hernandez explains that “the processes of idealization is vital to the understanding of the ideological in the same way that the understanding of vicissitudes of identification is crucial to gain insight into mass formation.” It was Freud and Fromm’s contention that mental disorders are usually related to disordered interpersonal and social arrangements. Hernandez tells his audience, “The understanding of mass psychology and ideology calls for an examination of social realities.” In understanding “[t]he relationship between the phenomenon of ‘mass formation’ (Massenbildung) and the production and circulation of ideologies,” Hernandez stresses, the explanation “must take into account both the social dimension as well as the intrapsychic structure of the ideological.”

This approach is not dissimilar from that advocated by the political sociologist C. Wright Mills, the empirical substantiation of his work noted earlier, where the analysis of the intersection of biography and history is crucial for the explanation of character and personality in light of social structure from which one derives an explanation of motive and action (in addition to The Power Elite, see C. Wright Mills 1940 essay “Situated Action and Vocabularies of Motives,” published in the American Sociological Review). Both approaches resist treating as causally independent inter-psychic conflict (or George Herbert Mead’s sociological psychology in Mills’ work) and social antagonisms and struggles.

I hope this review impressed upon the reader that the propaganda from the fact-checking exercises that are popping up in our newsfeeds that the phenomenon of mass formation is unfounded is designed to hide the fact that the phenomenon is well-founded and, moreover, that it explains our current circumstances. The foregoing—I hope—helps with understanding the mass formation piece of MFP and to dispel the disinformation being pumped out of the organs of the establishment attempting to discredit.

So what about the psychosis piece? A psychosis is a mental state in which normal cognitive and emotional functioning are so impaired that the subject loses touch with reality; a psychotic person has difficulty differentiating the real and the unreal. Symptoms of psychosis include delusions or false beliefs. Are we to deny this phenomenon as well? Are we to ignore the fact of mass hysteria, moral panic, and social contagion? We can’t. We know there are such things. McMartin and Salem happened. Those who ask you to deny that which you know exists is an attempt to gaslight you.

Enter the Associated Press again. According to that same “fact-check,” after correctly defining psychosis as “conditions that involve some disconnect from reality,” the article cites a National Institutes of Health estimate of “about 3% of people experience some form of psychosis at some time in their lives.” Really? A 2017 national survey of Americans by Gallup finds that, while 87 percent of respondents answer “Yes” to the question “Do you believe in God?”, 64 percent of respondents are convinced God exist. The actual percent of Americans who are conditioned to suffer some disconnect from reality is much greater than three percent.

The very reason the AP and others can’t wrap their mind around mass formation psychosis (and many of the rank-and-file propaganda workers genuinely believe there is no such thing) is because the level of abstraction of the phenomenon typically has it manifesting at an individual level. But the concept of psychosis has never ruled out its appearance as a mass phenomenon. Indeed, the existence of mass hysteria, moral panic, and social contagion (I could develop long and incontrovertible lists of all of these phenomena) testify to the reality that psychosis can manifest collectively, as well as individually. Perhaps the self-evident truth of this is so self-evident that it escapes the observer the way water escapes the fish that takes it for granted.

I realize that my using religion as an example of mass psychosis will rub many readers the wrong way. But my using this example is not novel. Freud pursued this matter in his 1927 critique of religious faith, The Future of an Illusion. While Freud suggests we reserve the term delusion for the content of the individual psychotic’s mind and describe a system of belief in the improbable or probably impossible held by a mass of people as illusion, he hints here and there that this is a distinction without much of a difference, certainly concerning mass formation.

“What is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes,” Freud writes, “In this respect they come near to psychiatric delusions. But they differ from them, too, apart from the more complicated structure of delusions. In the case of delusions, we emphasize as essential their being in contradiction with reality. Illusions need not necessarily be false—that is to say, unrealizable or in contradiction to reality. For instance, a middle-class girl may have the illusion that a prince will come and marry her. This is possible; and a few such cases have occurred. That the Messiah will come and found a golden age is much less likely.” In other words, religion is not necessarily in contradiction to reality (albeit, as we will see, he later suggests just that); religion is rather a nonfalsifiable proposition—it’s very design makes it impossible for refute definitively.

At least that’s the faithful’s safety belt. That Freud operates with a bit of sarcasm in his essay is difficult to miss. I suspect he knows he has to proceed in a way aware and cautious of his surroundings, i.e., life in a Christian society. But to be sure the reader gets his point, Freud adds this (which I included in the epigraphs to this essay): “Examples of illusions which have proved true are not easy to find, but the illusion of the alchemists that all metals can be turned into gold might be one of them.” By taking on religion, Freud is deconstructing the greatest mass formation psychosis in history. Of these faiths, he writes, “all of them are illusions and insusceptible of proof. No one can be compelled to think them true, to believe in them. Some of them are so improbable, so incompatible with everything we have laboriously discovered about the reality of the world, that we may compare them—if we pay proper regard to the psycho­logical differences—to delusions.”

Freud is not saying anything new, of course. Ludwig Feuerbach and his admirer Karl Marx had told us in the mid-nineteenth century, explicitly adding a materialist dimension, that religion is an ideology, a belief system simultaneously rooted in and at odds with reality. It is therefore easy enough to expand the concept of delusion to cover any system of belief that refuses to align with objective reality. This makes the problem of delusion rather ordinary. In this way, the problem may be understood in collective terms.

This fact reveals how widely the NIH’s estimate misses the mark. Indeed, as I have demonstrated, history attests to the perennial character of mass psychosis. But, if we take them at their word, the psychologists the AP sought out for its purposes are bereft of any critical consciousness or even knowledge of the history of their own discipline and its context. Their denials are the expressions of the “organic intellectuals” Antonio Gramsci describes in his Prison Notebooks. Those who report their (what amount to) denials to you fall in the same camp.

Since psychological states are, at least in part, and really for the most part, related to the individual’s social environment (infants don’t worship God), even more so with mass psychological states and mass action, which are by definition collective phenomena, the conditions that give rise to mass psychosis must be identified. This is Hernandez’s point. This is the value of Desmet’s formulation, which I prepared with the discussion of managed democracy. So let’s now turn our attention to that matter. It should all make sense now.

Desmet finds that MFP obtains when large numbers of people become isolated from one another (emotionally, physically, socially), disconnected from reality by the culture industry and mass media, their common knowledge (viz. valid belief) disrupted, and their attention commandeered and concentrated on a singular threat, achieved via perpetual disruption of normal life and normal understanding (mass gaslighting), their trust redirected (transference) towards a single authority, although not necessary a personality. Under these circumstance, people are highly suggestible and effectively hypnotized, their cognition and emotions easily manipulated, made resistant to the evidence and reason that contradicts the illusion (or delusion) that enthralls them.

Those who have escaped the trance state, or who never fell for the con, and raise their voice against the illusion, who question the established or official narrative, are attacked, disregarded, or marginalized. It doesn’t matter if they are experts in their relevant subject areas. The truth that the earth orbits the sun is scandalous. Many do not speak up precisely because they fear attack, disregard, and marginalization. Those who do not suffer quietly (and this is no noble suffering in any case) adjust their consciousness to the content of the delusion or the contagion to avoid feelings of anxiety that come with cognitive dissonance and being branded a public enemy or insane. This dynamic is directly analogous to heretical opposition to religion faith. Some openly declare their apostasy and infidelity from faith-belief. Many more disbelieve but do not speak up for fear of ostracization. They are surrounded by zealots who speak the faith loudly enough to scare skepticism to the corners. Some believe but are not convinced. This is not actually analogous. It’s the thing itself. This is the problem of belief in belief. The antidote to mass delusion is mutual knowledge of the reality. The emperor is naked. The establishment media is his invisible clothing.

Thus mass formation psychosis depends on several social and cultural conditions having been established or having developed (if you are uncomfortable with the degree of human agency in the explanation) through a convergence of trends. National and popular consciousness is fractured, the population atomized and some even reorganized into tribes, establishing a cocooned existence with variable “truths,” the postmodern crisis disrupting the culture of the modern nation-state and the Enlightenment. The constant disruption of daily life—lockdowns and obsessive testing—produces generalized anxiety, which is in turn easily focused on selected threats, for example a virus. Widespread anger, frustration, and discontent is focused on particular humans given a status or stigma; the “unvaccinated” become vectors of disease and then disloyal citizens. They aren’t doing their part. Ordinary behavior such as coughing, sniffles, throat clearing, etc., are not incidental but signs of plague. The population is made neurotic and the neurotic are put in a highly suggestible place, susceptible to the temptations of the safetyism that marks progressive mentality, primed to submit to the dictates of the technocracy, to trust “official authorities” associated with the trustworthy tribe—all of which makes the trance state ever easier to induce and to entrench. They are entrained to the rhythm of totalitarianism.

I am covering a lot of ground here, so let’s be very specific. There are four key preconditions typically sufficient for producing a mass formation psychosis identified by Desmet: (1) disruption of associations or connections, what may also be described as the breaking or weakening of social bonds, achieved by physical and social distancing and isolation, for example lockdowns and quarantines, and persistent and sophisticated gaslighting; (2) disruption of ordinary understanding via distortion or loss of meaning or sense-making, what Émile Durkheim terms anomie, which is described as a collective state of normlessness (meaninglessness, purposelessness, senselessness); (3) generalized or free-floating anxiety (already well established considering the popularity of psychiatric drugs, such as benzodiazepines and SSRIs, as well as painkillers); and (4) widespread and free-floating discontent. By free-floating is meant that the sense of uneasiness clinically described as anxiety is not tied to any concrete or particular person, situation, or thing. In this way, anxiety, and well as discontent, may be channeled towards particular persons, situations, and things (as they say, fear sees a threat, anxiety imagines one).

A certain percentage of the population under these conditions will fall into a mass psychosis. They will become pathologically resistant to evidence and reason that contradicts or negate the illusion (or delusion) in which their emotions and cognitions are shaped, felt, and expressed. They will become irrational (Marx describes this psychosocial state as alienation; Weber describes it as depersonalization.) Some of them become dangerous, prepared to perpetrate violence on those who question the narrative. Their disconnectedness from reality is thus substituted with an intense devotion to an ideology. People resort to magical thinking and in-group/out-group thinking to make sense of and reorder the world. What is ritual but sense-making action when things don’t make sense, structured behavior to reduce uncertainty when certainty is nowhere to be found. Typifications fulfill the same need, to reduce the complexity and disorientation of a disordered world, made disordered by moral panic and mass hysteria, which is at the same time its expression. Trepidation is a contagion to which a focus is easily attached and to which the people are entrained. Anxiety becomes fear and fear seeks security. The corporate state, eager to establish its role as parens patria, is waiting with open arms.

In his Sacred Canopy, perhaps the master work on the sociology of religion, Peter Berger describes the state of normlessness Durkheim called anomie as the nightmare par excellence. Some individuals prefer death to anomie, he reports, and so suicides and other acts of self-harm will increase with growing normlessness. Those who do not escape their lives with death, cut themselves in search of the real. They seek to transform their bodies to release their soul in transcendence and transition. Many turn to drugs to feed the hunger of starving neural pathways (often suicide by other means). But most will seek the security of authoritarianism. They will, as Erich Fromm puts it, escape from freedom. A segment of the masses thus transfers its trust to the corporate state. Don’t be deceived. That the New Fascism lacks a cult of personality makes its control over the psychotic even more effective. The liberal businessman from New York City was portrayed as a fascist to distract the public from the real fascism that sought to and succeeded in removing populism from the White House.

In “We are Standing at the Gates of Authoritarian Hell,” I write that “the authoritarian personality is not only the possession of the tyrant. The authoritarian personality is the possession of all those who assent to tyranny. Authoritarian regimes depends on popular support.” “The authoritarian desires to make the state the parent,” I continue. “The state monopolizes the use of force in order to leave powerless the citizens who, in a republic, organize the state to represent and protect individual and familial liberty and rights and interests, [but under totalitarianism willingly become] cradle-to-grave dependent on the state for everything.” I observe that to want this is to want to be a slave. While the rank-and-file authoritarian (today’s rank-and-file progressive Democrat) “may be loud and obnoxious,” and indeed they often are, “their bravado betrays a truth: these are weak people who want to be told what to think, what to say, what to do, how to live.”

But are they weak? The intensity of bullying dissenters encounter suggests that I may not be quite right about that. Then again, bullies have often been exposed as cowardly. Perhaps I should have said that they are frightened—frightened by individuality, by freedom and democracy. At the very least they don’t trust other people with such things. But really they don’t trust themselves; they subject themselves to much of the same unfreedom as everybody else (they can afford a bit of comfort instead), purchasing a privilege here and there by subjecting themselves to state surveillance and scientific experimentation. The myopic focus on the virus, the obsession with it, settling for conditions that induce mass hypnosis, which indicate a desire for control. This sets up a vicious circle. Comfort to assuage working people to be unfree.

Have you wondered why they never doubt the narrative even when the narrative changes often, sometimes daily? Have you wondered why people demand a vaccine that does not confer immunity? How they will have two shots and a booster, get sick, and then thank the vaccine and demand others take it? In a hypnotic state, where the individual is in a permanent state of suggestibility, rational judgment is suspended or sharply diminished. In this condition, the anxiety the targets are experiencing is given a fetish (the virus), the discontent they are experiencing is given an enemy (the unvaccinated). The corporate state tells the people it will protect them and control the personified object of their fear (scapegoating) and so they flock to the shepherd. Once in his arms they offer up to the state ever more areas of their lives for control. They embrace the biometric ID. They even have it surgically implanted in their hand. They thank the corporate state for the convenience of a cashless economy. The corporate state becomes the lord and savior.

* * *

Today’s corporate state is a transformational force powered by global finance and the transnational corporation (TNC). (For more on the TNC, see David Korten’s prophetic When Corporations Rule the Earth. For the longue durée of this development, in addition to Grossman, see and Michael Tigar’s Law and the Rise of Capitalism.) The inverted totalitarianism of the corporate state society is in contrast to the open totalitarianism of the People’s Republic of China. Some distinguish these as “soft” verses “hard” totalitarianism. Whatever the terminology, both forms of totalitarianism are on a convergent path, which explains, for example, the rollout of CCP-style pandemic lockdowns across Europe and North America.

Conservatives and the political right err by mistaking TMC and corporate state arrangements for communism. Corporatists are not communists; however, the system that develops from the bureaucratic collectivism established by the corporate state is highly similar to the system established by the CCP. Alongside the lockdowns, COVID-19 is being used to implement a Chinese-style social credit system in the West (see Fascism Becoming Under Cover of COVID-19 Hysteria; Torches of Freedom, Vaccine Cards, and Our Civilian Lives; Biden’s Biofascist Regime; ). The European corporatist thinks much the same way as the Chinese communist because of parallel social logics.

What we are experiencing, then, is the merging of eastern and western style tyrannies into one global system. This fusion does not require communists (i.e., Chinese government operatives) in Western governments and institutions (although they are here); rather it is a product of the similarity in the social logics of bureaucratic collectivist systems. When democratic-republic governments are overthrown by corporate power (which I will argue in a pending essay occurs in the United States in the late 19th century), it is inevitable that the spirit of government will increasingly resemble that of a communist dictatorship as popularly understood.

Those culturally and politically inclined to identify as on the left don’t see it because it has clever labels, for example “progressivism” or “social democracy.” We might consider another soft label that conveys meaning more precisely, namely “friendly fascism” (albeit I am not endorsing Bertram Gross’s book of the same name).

Adding to the confusion on the right, as well as among disillusioned leftists, the character of the People’s Republic of China is not actually communistic at all, if by communism one means stateless, classless society, which we should if we wish words to remain meaningful and not propagandistic. Indeed, unlike the Soviet Union, China isn’t even state socialist in character. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics,” as CCP propagandists advertise their system, is really state capitalist in character.

It is important to get the concepts straight; only then does it become obvious that state capitalism is the common source of the New Fascism I describe in my essays. (For a lengthy treatment of the New Fascism, see my essays Totalitarian Monopoly Capitalism: Fascism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow and From Inverted to Naked Totalitarianism: The West in Crisis.)

The New York Times is reporting on an experiment that finds that providing poor mothers with cash stipends for the first year of their children’s lives appears to have changed the babies’ brain activity in ways associated with stronger cognitive development. This finding, the Times emphasizes, carries potential implications for safety net policy.

“This is a big scientific finding,” said Martha J. Farah, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted a review of the study for the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. “It’s proof that just giving the families more money, even a modest amount of more money, leads to better brain development.”

I have been telling students for a quarter-century that it is a well known fact that poverty is associated with poor brain development and lower intelligence across the life-course, with downstream effects on academic performance, initiative, resourcefulness, and a myriad of other life chances. It follows that cash support should ameliorate these effects of poverty—if that support is carefully monitored to make sure it goes towards the cognitive development of children.

I have no problem with making sure babies are taken care of. If a parent cannot provide the necessary support, then there is a role for government. For those who are disparaging of social welfare, consider that cash support can be a smart investment; babies with poor brain development become not merely a burden on society, with poor academic achievement and poor labor force attachment, but a menace, as low intelligence is associated with low frustration tolerance, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminal behavior.

At the same time, we need to have a serious conversation about why mothers are poor in the first place and why, while recognizing that there are absolutely more poor white mothers than black mothers, there are proportionally so many more poor black mothers than white mothers. Indeed, as we will see, that there are absolutely more poor white mothers than black mothers, but a much smaller percentage of white mothers who are poor relative to black mothers is a revealing fact, one that cannot be explained away by social class or racism.

Class effects are important to consider. Part of the explanation for poverty generally is the systematic generation of inequality inherent in the capitalist mode of production. This the result of capitalist accumulation, i.e., the exploitation of labor, and its discontents. But this does not explain all of it. There is a big difference in poverty rates between women who are married and women who not married. Having a man in the house reduces household poverty, even among low-wage working families. Thus the fact of poor mothers is substantially a function of the decline in marriage and the rise of its substitution: the welfare state, or, to capture its function, the custodial state.

Perhaps this was an unintended effect, but the custodial state incentivizes single-parent households. Social welfare means that a woman no longer needs to marry a man for financial support. Nor does she need to work herself. The state provides support for her children. Children born in neighborhoods with high rates of single-mother households have limited access to working adults as role models. From these circumstances, a culture of idleness emerges. The downside of cash support is the maintenance of conditions requiring cash support.

Because of racial disparities in poverty, black mothers are proportionately more likely than white mothers to need cash support for their babies. The dynamic of the custodial state thus disproportionately effects the fate of black women and their children. Social class cannot explain racial disparities; capitalism is not to blame for this development. Since systemic racism was dismantled alongside the rise of the custodial state, neither does racism explain the disparities. The fact of racial disparities does not explain itself.

We have to turn to culture and the role the custodial state plays in generating culture associated with poverty. It’s not only because of black overrepresentation in poverty areas that these disproportionalities exist. The proportion of out-of-wedlock births for blacks is more than 70 percent, whereas for whites less than 30 percent. In light of this, without a comprehensive program of restoring the black family, it’s hard to imagine cash support will help the situation of black children over the long haul. What alternatives to cash support might we pursue that can reduce child poverty?

How the black family became overrepresented among those families dependent upon the state is a complex question, one requiring a study of the history of segregation, internal migration patterns, the interaction of the split-labor market with the emergence of transnationalism, especially the off-shoring of low-wage manufacturing and the importation of cheap foreign labor. The historical record indicates that these developments are the result of measures largely advocated by Democrats, who have attempted to address the racially disparate outcomes of progressive policy with more progressive policy, in this case the custodial state. The custodial state established the conditions for the emergence of a culture associated with high rates of out-of-wedlock births. However, while blame is important to reckon, we need to focus now on how to unwind the mess Democrats and progressive policy have made of the black family. We need to get fathers back in the home and married to the mothers of their children.

The problem of the disintegration of the black family is not just child poverty and its effects on brain development. Father absence is associated with higher rates of conduct disorder, juvenile delinquency, and adult crime than we see in father-present households. So while it may be true that part of the reason for overrepresentation in crime by blacks is due to poor brain development caused by poverty (this may explain the differences we see in measurable intelligence on IQ tests between blacks and whites that in the past has been attributed to genetically-based racial differences), this cannot explain all of it. The absence of fathers is the absence of discipline and role models for boys. In the absence of fathers, boys seek solidarity in gangs and surrogate fathers in their leaders.

Small brains, low intelligence, rapid maturation, behavioral problems, inadequate moral development, differential associations—all these are associated with the decline in marriage and father-presence.

These effects have implications for one of our chief concerns: the problem of racial disparities in the American penitentiary system. I’m sure readers know by now that black men are overrepresented in prison compared to whites. There is a call from the social justice crowd to reform the system equitably, which means reducing the racial disproportionality in admissions and sentencing. This is a laudable goal.

However, as I have shown in numerous essays, racial disparities in imprisonment reflect racial disparities in serious criminal involvement and are not the result of a racially unjust criminal justice system. Thus calls for racial equity would result in practice in effective anti-white racism (according to the terms of antiracism) by involving, relatively speaking, punishing whites more harshly than blacks by punishing blacks less harshly. This absurd solution to the problem of racial disparities in crime is cover for the failure of progressive policy to address the problems confronting black Americans. (We might also consider whether those failures are functional to the perpetuation of progressive politics, something I have suggested in past essays.)

The solution to the problem of racial disproportionally in America’s prisons ultimately lies in solving the problem of racial disproportionality in involvement in serious criminal offending. Reducing racial disproportionality in criminal offending means fostering neighborhood conditions conducive to proper brain development and moral training. It is unlikely that cash support to poor mothers will foster these conditions. Indeed, it is likely that cash support will contribute to the problem of the culture of idleness that undermines initiative and the two-parent family by perpetuating the effects of the custodial state. These communities need investments, but these investments need to come in different forms. I could make a long list of investments, but the first of them would be jobs and work requirements.

Last year at this time, as Joe Biden was assuming office, I had a warning for my Facebook friends: “Getting rid of the filibuster—like getting rid of the electoral college—is a desire for tyranny of the majority. This is a republic. But I fear the people are losing their virtue. Without that, we are not a nation. We cannot—we must not—subject our destiny to the mob. Democracy is a local affair. The attempt to relocate collective decision-making to the administrative state is a totalitarian wish. It prepares the ground for world government on their terms. And that is an invitation to empire and feudalism and subjection. The federal government is meant to protect our rights and manage affairs with other nations.” I added, “People, you have got to know what time it is. There are do-or-die moments. This is an inflection point.”

The struggle for our republic is apparent in a lot of things, but perhaps no more so in the attempt by Democrats to nationalize the electoral process. In pursuing his goal of fundamentally transforming America, President Joe Biden compared Americans who disagreed with the plan to our past racists, segregationists, and slaveowners, absurdly asking whether lawmakers wanted to side with “Dr. King or George Wallace,” “John Lewis or Bull Connor” or “Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis.” If that wasn’t offensive enough, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi worried out loud that the American public is too ignorant to appreciate Biden’s references (maybe she doesn’t appreciate them). Nobody knows who Bull Connor is,” she remarked. “You know, if we’re making the case to say, ‘We’re going to be with Martin Luther King or Bull Connor’—who’s that?” Vice President Kamala Harris defended the comparisons Thursday, calling them “apt.”

NBC News usefully informs us of what’s in Democrats’ latest voting legislation, and what the bills do. Senate Democrats are pushing measures that advocates say would reverse some Republican-backed state laws. These are laws that were passed in the wake of 2020, in which Democrats rigged an election to remove Trump from office, effectively the culmination of a four-year coup. However, Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virgina and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona announced their opposition to changing the Senate rule that has long represented a powerful institutional safeguard and then followed through with their intention to protect the sixty-vote rule. Today, the filibuster remains in place and, without it, it is unlikely Democrats can take over state elections.

Kyrsten Sinema grasping the importance of institutional safeguards. This is the spirit of democratic-republicanism. https://t.co/35kmuLX3qw

— Andrew Austin (@andrewwaustin) January 14, 2022

This is indeed a great victory for American citizens. As I said in that Facebook post last year, the United States of America is a republic. A republic is not designed to run on majoritarian logic. A republic is designed to protect minority rights and prevent radical societal change. We now see that only two Democrat senators believe in the American republic. Maybe unknowingly, only two Democrats defended the American system against the total corporate state. Every other Democrat in the Senate voted for the corporatocracy, for the donor class to effectively take control of the federal election system. America dodged a bullet. But this is not the end of the corporate push to finalize elite rule over the people. We have to stay vigilant. The corporatocracy is in for the log haul.

We may then usefully specify what we mean by the tyranny of the majority. It may look like a desire for mob rule on the streets, but power resides not in the minions of the power elite. The supermajority rule is indeed a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority; however, Democrats are not really a majority. The party is owned by big financial and corporate power, including global finance and transnational corporate systems. When progressives talk about “the majority,” they’re talking about the “minority of the opulent” and the rainbow coalition of disaffected groups they have cobbled together (this is what drives the open borders policies of Democrats). The mob is not really a majority, either. Nor does control over the social construction and myth-making apparatus make real illusions. These groups are controlled in what Gramsci called a “historic bloc,” which the elite are having trouble finally establishing as the hegemonic force. The populist movement is a monkey wrench thrown into the machinery. The populists represent the majority—and they have no desire for tyranny.

With populist consciousness rising, Democrats and the corporate masters know they’re in for a shellacking come midterms. They manufacture a myth about the world then falsely appeal to the authority of civil rights, realized decades ago, to portray the Republican Party as antithetical to voting rights, motivated by anti-black prejudice, and thus open the process to a free-for-all they believe they can win. For Democrats, the principle is not count every valid, certifiable, chain-of-custody vote, which is the principle of integrity in elections. Rather it is every vote for Democrats counts. This is a party that wants non-citizens to vote. In fact, in New York City, they’re actually allowing non-citizens to vote. On a related note, have you ever wondered why Democrat push for drivers licenses for illegal aliens?

Democrats do everything they can to undermine election integrity because they have the street-level organization to cultivate the votes they need to carry elections. You would think with this level of organization they could get into the hands of every black person an adequate voter ID and a ride to the polls. Even feed (bribe) people before putting them in line. But this risks not generating all the votes necessary. So throw open the borders and incentivize human traffickers to deliver millions of new voters. Pave the path to citizenship for the eleven million (possibly more than twenty) illegal immigrants already in the United States. Democrats have no problem infantilizing black people (who will lose even more jobs to foreign labor) to achieve this end. The drive to undermine election integrity is to smuggle in under cover of night vans full of harvested votes.

Democrats admit upfront what they’re up to and the accuse those who object, those who demand election integrity, of voter suppression. In the run-up to 2020, Democrats and establishment media voice told us that, on election night, Trump would win but to wait—hold off on declaring the winner, they cautioned news organizations—because all through the early morning hours more votes would be found and counted and, in the end, Biden would win. And that’s what happened. But the 2020 outcome only got them the White House. The down-ticket results were not only disappointing, but exposed the fraud. But Democrats are bold. The power elite require centralization of governmental power to complete the project of integration with the transnational order, to centralize control over the 2022 election and beyond in order to fundamentally transform America.

There are elements of the voting rights bills I support. I have always supported a national holiday for voting. I have always supporting allowing felons to vote. In fact, I believe felons should be able to vote while in prison, for the simple fact that, in a republic, no law should be imposed on a citizen without the ability of that citizen to participate in the election of those officials who determine or appoint those who determine the law. But postal voting? Absentee voting should be strictly limited to those outside of the country or those who are too ill to go to the polls (2020 would have been a lot different had secretaries of state not exploited pandemic panic to arbitrarily change voting procedure). Chain of custody should be transparent. Any early voting should be brought under the logic of absentee voting criteria. Elections are for state governments to decide. There are many other things in these bills that are objectionable, but the general problem with the legislation is central state commandeering of a process that is expressly constitutionally left to the states. I cannot support the legislation. Obviously.

While Sinema stands strong on the institutions of our republic, she goes too far in supporting the substance of these bills. This is where party loyalty misleads her. And now they are delegitimizing her. The Arizona Democratic Party has censured her for her vote to protect the supermajority rule. This is not only about voting rights. For progressives, this is about stopping populism by ensuring a Democratic majority for years to come. Democrats are seeking to nationalize an intentionally federalized electoral system. They want to remove an obstacle to one-party rule. They want with a rule change what they cannot yet achieve at the ballot box: a filibuster-proof majority. That would be a disaster for our nation. This is about the future of the republic.