patrick.net

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-fracture

in the end you’re playing on one key aspect of human nature:

“rubes will happily believe damn near anything in order to avoid admitting that they have been played for rubes.”

in the end, cognitive dissonance is your friend here and you can use it to not only prevent the changing of minds but to bind them more strongly to your doctrine. it comes down to three things:

isolate

alienate

indoctrinate

and that’s it.

you need to be the only one speaking. no outside noise or perspective.

you need to make the outside look hostile, predatory, and menacing.

and then you push your dogmatic payload again as “us vs them” and “only we love you and they carry the awful taint of heresy” and faster than you can say “branch davidian” they are all back in line and rarin’ to go.

it’s culting 101.

of course, the problem with this is if you push it too far, you actually break their brains and they fall apart and have breakdowns and reality schisms and fractures, but hey, omelets, eggs, whatever. nobody said the cult business was easy.

OK. why am i telling you this?

it’s because an awful lot of people are recently noticing a “sudden” trend and it’s one i worry about. the trend is this:




this is real human tragedy. it’s wild, divisive stuff. and it can get A LOT worse than that. i’m not sure the folks pushing these ideas understand quite what they are playing with. (or worse, they do and just do not care)

and it’s pretty clear where this is coming from.

anyone who gets their news from TV or NYT is living in a parallel universe, one where the cult still reigns.

and these outlets have an actual, vested interest in keeping their viewers from understanding or even experiencing reality. ...

these are low identity people who, internally bereft of substance or morality became "people who are their ideas" rather than "people who have ideas." this sort of external fixation and validation of self causes one to experience all criticism or disagreement as a form of personal attack.

you cannot dispute "their ideas" without disputing "who they think they are."

they literally experience pluralism of ideas as erasure.

the actual existence of ideas other than their ideas causes them plain and threatens their sense of self. ...

Patrick says

But "liberals" do this all the time. Disagreement is simply not allowed. Liberals" are in fact not so liberal after all.

I'm an ass hole as probably noted here. I just tell them they're a fucking idiot. I'm only polite with family and explain my stance and 9 out of 10 times they get it. A few retards don't.

I like blacks, I like Haitians, Mexican, etc. Get along with them. I don't have a racist bone in my body. BUT, what I know is they don't experience it. White liberals.

As I think regulars here know it's close to me. Raise a black child. Explain it everyday to randoms. "Oh you're doing such a nice thing" get fucked. This thread has got me angry. Like I wouldn't help a child let alone a family member? That's more a judgement on me is the way I take it. "You take care of a nigger, so nice of you" is the way I read/hear it from people. Fuck you and die you unsympathetic piece of shit.

My nephew's life is better but I don't need accolades. His life is still fucked up mentally though he does well. I'll be blunt, a semi alcoholic can raise kids better than most when my wife is gone 30% of the time. I'm the fucking guy. Liberals are cucked soy boy pussies. I take a challenge on. He's a drop out if he stayed with his mom. Straight A's, stellar athlete that works hard. While I'm proud, I don't need fake crocodile tears.

TL;DR - Liberals can eat shit. They're the racist.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-the-echos

it seems like a whole group is mistaking a cycle of abuse for a support group and being led out of hamlin by a pernicious piper who wants to be sure he’s playing the only tune in town.

they are taking “solace and pride in it.”

this is, frankly not great. it’s mistaking the cult for protection and isolation for safety. it’s adopting alienation as a core tenet. those come together into:

“listen to no one but us. the rest of the world is evil and hateful and you can tell who they are because they disagree with us.”

hardly a promising base from which to pursue pluralism.

one might even go so far as to ask some pointed questions about whether this is just reactionary fetal position fact flight or if it’s actual grooming.




whether wittingly or not “cut them off, trust only us!” has been a powerful online tool used by a lot of trans and other activists. making such actions and narrow dependence seem like an act of strength is a longstanding tactic of abusers. ...

this sets the stage for indoctrination and the easiest way to facilitate that is through relentless repetition of one viewpoint, over and over, until it seems like “what everyone knows.” other viewpoints need to be disallowed. ...

popular twitter account end wokeness got their content blocked and their bluesky account flagged in seconds for posting “there are only two genders.”

i wonder what else gets insta-suppressed. i’m guessing it’s a lot of things. ...

they are experiencing ideas plurality as some sort of biblical plague.



the need to establish an intellectual monoculture wherein the devotees may once more pretend to be a majority that “everyone agrees with” in a sort of cosseted cosplay cultural involution is crashing their servers.

it’s going to do worse things to their minds.

they are getting really active on “cut everyone not just like us out of your life.”

they will increasingly become unreachable and will lack a common context or language with which to speak to the outside.

their consensus reality will become all consensus and no reality.

to survive, such a system must cut off communication with anything threatening its ideological and perceptual slant.

Patrick says

to survive, such a system must cut off communication with anything threatening its ideological and perceptual slant.

That is the entire moral of the story about the emperor with no clothes.

[W]hen genuine debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work as it is meant to work. It has lost the principle which regulates and justifies it – that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and the rules of evidence. If there is not effective debate, the unrestricted right to speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panders upon the public that sooner or later in self-defense the people will turn to censors to protect them. . .

For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the degradation of opinion. By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational is overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained merely by objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting debate.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/intellectual-hospitality-and-genuine

All nice and all. Intellectually, I even agree.

But Heinlein's take is much more accurate, from what I have seen. Alinsky figured this shit out also:

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.

When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."