It has become habitual for people who notice that our culture has been staggering off its pins, step by step, due to Marxist aggression aided and abetted by the Agency of Lies, to say something like the following.
I've noticed that starting in the late 90's, many elements of "new age" belief systems started mapping pretty closely to the melange of stuff that one finds floating around in the collective heads of the progressivoeftist cluster.
While I had some sympathy for new agey concepts at that point in my seek, there came a point where the material started reading more like tracts from the Democratic National Committee/Mother Jones/Utne Reader and less like spiritual insight.
My initial take was that this was part of a common, mutually reinforcing propaganda source but in the spirit of "never explain by conspiracy that which could also be explained by cockup", this offers an alternative hypothesis.... — Geek WithA.45 in comments to "15 Questions for Atheists."
This is the pattern for many a common man. And it is understandable, and maybe forgivable. I find this sort of cut-off to rationalization to be a conditioned reflex. People would far rather be killed than dismissed from the good opinion of society. It has been a process of insidious indoctrination that has been successfully applied to several generations of Americans.
But then there are our ostensible leaders of the opposition to Statism.
People are always telling me what so and so wants to do and why he wants to do it. And I say look: I can’t look into a man’s heart. I can’t peer into his soul. I have no idea why he’s trying to do what he’s doing. All I can evaluate are the results. All I can evaluate is the output of his behavior. Whether he intends it to come out that way or doesn’t intend it to come out that way is immaterial. My obligation is the same: to defend the republic.— Scott Ott in the video that asks "Is the looming economic destruction of America deliberate?"I cry horseshit. This is akin to the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. It’s the same SKUNC line about not behaving like the Left who calls us names without foundation, so therefore we shouldn't even when we have good reason. (It is as if nobody ever taught us that silence will be understood to be agreement. Arrgghhhh.)
Listen Mr. Ott: you cannot effectively defend the republic if you discard good intelligence, whether it comes from facts and reports you can trust or from the preponderance of evidence played out before you.To fail to do this is the utmost ineptitude, and to counsel others to do so too is plain bad teaching. IMHO it is so bad as to place the speaker’s bona fides in question.
I, Pascal, cannot stand by in silence while a trio of apparently sharp guys tells me and others (who I am counting on, expecting them to stay cool and use their heads under pressure) the exact opposite of what we need to hear.
This is what honest leaders should tell me: "Think about and struggle with all the evidence you have and then prepare our defenses accordingly."
Listen my friends. We are at the beginning of some very very dangerous times. Anyone who knows of my concerns for humanity as a whole knows that I do not trust those in power because of their consistent silence against some of the worst actors on the planet.
Similarly I do not trust those who respond to the beckon and call of those in power. The KGB had infiltrators and moles; who in their right mind thinks our powermad don’t have their equivalent nomenklatura employed to teach us not to think fully?
Pascal Fervor's Razor* observes that no matter how much evidence accumulates to inform many individuals that the State has murder on its mind, most will sadly go to their graves muttering the equivalent of "If Stalin only knew."
The razor portion of this is that individuals who insist you deny the stinking pile of the obvious be identified as soon as possible and cut off from contact with those who know what needs to be done.
Put simply (the metaphorical razor), whomever consistently avoids the elephants threatening to wreck your room, he's not your friend.
*Regarding the older razors upon which this one draws. When it comes to highly visible speakers who rationalize away mountains of evidence, the time has come to discard Hanlon's razor entirely and moves on past Heinlein's.