9 min read

The Mother that Hates Us, The Father that Left Us

The Mother that Hates Us, The Father that Left Us

Politics, Psychology, Philosophy & The West

Human politics is Governing vs Freedom. Humanity’s extremes are tyranny & chaos. While one side of our political spectrum has chosen manipulation over dialogue, the other side has chosen self-interest over duty.

How did we end up here?

The Mother that Loves Us, The Father that Frees Us

Say we live in an ancient setting where tribes are just beginning to organize into a coherent society. Tribe A, who lives downstream, is at odds with Tribe B, who lives upstream and is dumping their waste into the river. The council of all tribes come together to discuss this issue, and quickly come to the conclusion that this issue is larger than the dispute between two tribes. This issue will determine how broader society should behave in regards to the dumping of waste in rivers, which will effect all tribes in the society rather than just two.

This is a clear example where society has to devise a new rule and enforce that rule. In other words, society has to choose the Governing Option (order rather than chaos), because we cannot allow others to dump their waste upstream of us, obviously. While we should be as free as possible, there are some actions that we should not be free to do.

Now, imagine another scenario where Tribe C is offended by the way in which Tribe D honors their dead. So Tribe C calls the council of tribes together, hoping to enforce their own way of honoring the dead onto other tribes. In this scenario, someone has to tell Tribe C that their petty need for control is the actual issue. Society has to choose the Freedom option (or chaos, as opposed to order). Otherwise, humanity would never be free.

These simplified scenarios not only highlight the duality of politics, but the first step in the problem-solving process. The first step humanity has to take when an issue is brought to light is to ask the question: Is this a real problem? In other words, is this problem significant enough that we need to impose new rules and limit freedom? Governing and freedom are inversely related to one another – the more of one we have, the less of the other. Whenever someone claims a problem exists, we have to conduct a cost-benefit-analysis of potential solutions versus the loss of freedom of those solutions.

Humanity realized this when we first started to draft constitutions, which are limits that we impose on governments. This was a novel idea at one point in human history and still remains a paradox. The idea that a government has a monopoly on violence, and as a result, on enforcement of rules, is at odds with the idea that humanity can write a document that will limit a government's power – because the government would have to enforce it. This is why our constitutions included various checks and balances on our governments, such as the separation of powers. Even so, the paradox persists. At the end of each day, the check-and-balance that is most needed is a dangerous civilian class. This is why the US Constitution and constitutionalists tend to also be pro-gun. These people realize that the Governing Option leads to tyranny, and tyranny is best kept in check when civilians are a threat to the government that rules them.

Now, what happens as society matures? When the lives of people become easier, they lose their tribal heritage, and the Governing Option has solved most major issues...do we all become advocates of the Freedom Option?

No. Something far more bizarre occurs.

The Mother that Hates Us, The Father that Left Us

As a society matures and the lives of the average citizen improves, a new psyche is born. This new psyche always chooses the state or institutions. Always.

When I first discovered the two software programs that censor us on massive scales,1 I thought these discoveries would make modern leftists reconsider some of their political stances, particularly since this censorship targets those that fall onto the right-leaning side of politics. This was not the case.

When I first discovered redirection software program that (1) targets the right-leaning; (2) tampers their ad feeds and search results in Facebook, Twitter, Google, Bing, Instagram, Youtube, etc; and finally (3) places Marxist and far-left links in front of these audiences;2 I thought the modern leftist would reconsider his political positions. This was not the case.

I knew that much of tyrannical practices rely on certain narratives3 in order to exist. We can't merely censor people without justifying4 it. We can't target at-risk audiences for ideological brainwashing without claiming it is for the "greater good"5. These narratives ultimately rely on the negative characterization of society as a whole – namely, that Western society is "racist", discriminatory, and generally unethical in some way. So I dispatched this narrative by analyzing inter-ethnic and inter-racial marriage and cohabitation data6. I analyzed violent crimes and hate crimes. I analyzed extremist and terrorist data. I analyzed the original reports that claim that the West is hateful in some way. I analyzed policy.

I then took to the comments of every major social media platform and argued with every leftist willing to engage with me. They each followed the same redundant patterns of falling back on overly semantic retorts, irrationally clinging to incorrect starting assumptions, and claiming that I should not cite myself (neglecting my counterargument that this would hamstring the long-term scientific process of establishing a body of work). Inevitably, I would back them into a corner and demand evidence for their claims. Their evidence were always a flawed poll. They would cite an NPR or ConnectFutures poll where 200 people were chosen from highly liberal areas and asked if they were discriminated against. This is obviously flawed because people who are being told that they are discriminated against on a daily basis are the only people being chosen for the polls. Also, opinion polls are not crime data. Even when done correctly, poll data is not a good proxy for the variables that we are actually interested in. For example, we could take a poll of working class right-wingers, and they would claim that there is a war being waged on the working class by the corporate elite. If all we require for evidence is how people feel about something, then we can make any concievable argument from opinion polls. When I point this out to leftists that I debate, they fall back onto a logical fallacy that academics tend to find horrifying – they use the appeal to authority fallacy, or the fallacy that established institutions should merely be trusted. It is not the evidence that matters to them, and there is a reason for this.

As a society matures and the Governing Option is needed less, the people who have a psychological need to be governed will still insist on this option. These people are pathologically conforming and derive their morality from institutional control; for them, there is no other option. There are two known ways that this psyche develops – one is by over-socializing7 and the other is by destabilizing8 children by over-sexualizing them. Whereas the (current) right-leaning are defined by their fear of tyranny (the extreme of order), the (current) left-leaning are defined by their fear of chaos (the extreme of freedom).

Since the current tyranny types are hyper-conformists that rely on institutions for their psychological needs, these types of people have a never-ending need for rules and order. When I wrote The Psychology of Leftism, I was greatly interested in how leftists would react to my psychological evaluation of them. Six months, no legitimate counter-arguments, and quite a bit of outrage later, my theory still accurately describes every tactic that modern leftist movements rely on.

When I found that left-leaning think tanks and left-leaning psychology journals were partnering together, I decided to conduct a review of every independent scientific study produced over the psychology of trauma and resilience.9 Within the past 60 years, there have been just over 50 independent empirical studies over this subfield of psychology, and the findings are not what one would suspect if mainstream narratives are to be believed. The narrative is that people are hyper-sensitive to trauma-related illnesses, when the reality is that the vast majority of people are resilient to chronic PTSD. Only a small minority (4-14%) of people who encounter war, death, rape, and other extremes will benefit from trauma-treatments. All others are best left alone, clinically, even if they suffer from some PTSD. But as society matures and citizens encounter less strife and have virtually no relationship with the resources that they consume, they become petty and romantizice trauma. They become easily manipulated by such unscientific policy research centers and pseudo-psychology pages. And in fact, that is precicely what happens – the mentally ill are being targeted online by such organizations. What do these organizations want? They want policy. New political measures are one click away if one falls into these organizations' schemes. They want the Governing Option and they are willing to transform the youth and mentally ill into political pawns to get what they want.

This is because some people are so pathologically sick and their psychological need to be governed is so great, that the costs of getting what they want is no longer important. They are willing to manipulate the mentally ill. They are willing to indoctrinate and even over-sexualize children. They are willing to be inconsistent and illogical. They are willing to publish unscientific and flawed papers10. They are willing to defend institutions no matter what those institutions do or say – even if those institutions are censoring more than half of the population online.

Those with a psychological need to be governed are currently aligned with the left-leaning of politics. They will always side with government and institutions. They do not even care if they are governed by government policy or by corporate policy. After all, censorship, redirection, affirmative action, mask and vaccine mandates, and other left-leaning tyranny happens to mostly originate from monopolies and their policies in the private sector11, rather than government policy. These people are so sick that they will neglect their own politics (antitrust enforcement) when it is needed most and would benefit their fellow man; and they neglect antitrust because it would result in less control for them.

There is one action that these people will do consistently, and that is whatever action strengthens their adopted parents – institutions and governments.

A Misaligned Political Duality

Even in instances where the Governing Option is justified and chosen, those that choose the Freedom Option still have a job to do. Those that emphasize freedom still have to monitor the problem-solving process so that the solution does not overstep its issue.

What happens when this duality (order vs chaos / govern vs freedom) is switched out for a different political duality, such as "left" vs "right" or "liberal" vs "conservative"? Do these new political dualities even make sense? It is obvious that the platform for modern "conservatives" is to emphasize freedom; while the platform for modern "liberals" is to emphasize equality. Note that if we switch out the Governing Option for the Equality Option, we get a similar political dynamic, only Governing is disguised as Equality. Note that for true equality to exist, we would have to live in a complete Communist society, because government control would have to increase to totalitarianism. Freedom has the same inverse relationship with Equality as it does with Governing. We could also substitute Fairness for freedom, which is antithetical to the Marxist definition of "equality".

Western societies right now have quite a bit of equality – too much, I reckon. When we have (uniform private sector or government) policy that discriminates based on color of skin in order to produce a certain effect, we have too much equality and too little fairness. Affirmative action is anti-freedom and anti-fairness because it is anti-merit. Censorship behaves in a similar way. If we examine market shares within the news industry, we will see that right-leaning start-ups (Louder with Crowder and DailyWire, for instance) are outcompeting left-leaning start-ups, to the point that left-wing news outlets are strictly old, established outlets. Censorship and shadowbanning effectively imposes an affirmative action effect on right-wing start-ups in the industry. Since current right-wing political ideas are winning against current left-wing political ideas, then redirection online produces an affirmative action effect on the political belief outcomes of individuals by targeting at-risk audiences for ideological brainwashing.

Clearly, the Governing Option (ahem, I mean, Equality) has transended the maternal instinct to protect and is now the archetype of the overbearing mother.

[1] Kelly C. Offield. "ShadowBanned". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/grand-manipulation-shadowbanned/

[2] Kelly C. Offield. "How Far-Leftism is Forced On Us". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/grand-manipulation-how-online-manipulation-campaigns-force-far-leftism-on-us/

[3] Kelly C. Offield. "The False Agenda". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/grand-manipulation-myths-of-the-software-developers/

[4] Kelly C. Offield. "A Hidden War on Free Speech: Google's Jigsaw". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/grand-manipulation/

[5] Kelly C. Offield. "The World's Leading Brainwasher: Moonshot". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/grand-manipulation-moonshot-cve-edition/

[6] Kelly C. Offield. "America is not Racist". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/if-americans-are-racist-then/

[7] Kelly C. Offield. "The Psychology of Leftism". The ARKA Journal.  https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/the-psychology-of-leftism/

[8] Kelly C. Offield. "Communism and Sanctioned Pedophilia". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/i-read-every-vaccine-related-file-from-the-dhs-site-how/

[9] Kelly C. Offield. "A Tale of Suppressed Science: The Psychology of Trauma and Resilience". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/the-psychology-of-trauma-and-resilience/

[10] Kelly C. Offield. "Failures of Leftism in Economics and Academia". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/failures-of-leftism/

[11] Kelly C. Offield. "A Critical Blow to the Radical Left". The ARKA Journal. https://advocate-for-rights-and-knowledge-of-americans-arka.ghost.io/critical-blow-to-the-left/