The terms “red pill” and “blue pill” refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill. The terms refer to a scene in the 1999 film The Matrix.  Sash Stone applies the metaphor in discussing American perceptions of socio-political reality in her substack article The Raid that Red-Pilled America.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

No one who watches Joe and Mika or Rachel Maddow or reads the New York Times will ever be red-pilled. They simply believe that is the only reality. How could it not be if every high-status person in America is going along with it? If your friends and family go along with it, if your social media feed confirms it every day with links. If it’s in the media, it must be true, right? How do you not trust it if it’s on NBC News or the Washington Post?

Waking up to the media’s near-total collapse during the Trump years is a big part of being red-pilled. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The only way to escape the media’s hold on the narrative is to cut it out completely, at least until you can see that there is another reality, and very often, the actual truth.

If they hadn’t already given up on the “establishment” by watching them crush Bernie Sanders like a bug in 2016, 2020 would do it. The response to COVID was a big one. Dividing the country the way it did into the compliant and the non-compliant. What it did to businesses, to the minds of children, to everyone who was locked down and locked in – unable to attend funerals, weddings, and death beds.

But the raid on Mar-a-Lago very likely has red-pilled Americans even more, especially when you put it together with the authoritarianism during COVID, the suppression of speech, the silencing of dissent, and the dehumanization we all live with every day.

To watch our Department of Justice raid a former president’s home months before the midterms, where the Democrats were expected to do very badly, looks suspect to anyone. If they were trying to create distrust in our institutions, they succeeded.

Most Americans have seen, maybe for the first time, that our government has become too powerful, too punitive, and too authoritarian in crushing dissenting voices and outsiders who challenge that authority. We call that being red-pilled.

More worrisome is the ongoing mass hysteria that started on Twitter, spread into our institutions of power, and now has spread to our government. To have such a complicit and compliant media is even more terrifying. What wouldn’t they go along with by now? Gulags?

We all thought “cancel culture” would be confined to social media but clearly it has become the modus operandi for our establishment government. It’s hard not see this as yet another extension of the insanity and hysteria over Trump.

The Mar-a-Lago raid on its own would have one thing. But it comes right after Merrick Garland announced the “largest investigation in American history” against a former president. That came on the heels of prime-time hearings that aired on every news network except Fox, led by Liz Cheney, where they compared January 6th to the end of slavery and the Jim Crow South. This, after Kamala Harris, compared January 6th to Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

A red-pilled America is probably starting to think the reaction to Trump, rather than Trump himself, might be the even bigger threat.

Instead of bringing more voters in, the administrative state has now red-pilled even more Americans. . . It’s likely that many of these voters agree with Rep. Mayra Flores (R-Texas) who responded to the Mar-a-Lago search thus: “The FBI raid on the residence of the former POTUS is unprecedented. We do not live in a third world country.” 

Whether the newly red-pilled Americans will become GOP voters or whether they will support Trump at all remains an open question. But many of them will be coming out of August 8th with a high distrust for a government that would use the Department of Justice to sabotage its political enemies.

The media has long since lost touch with reality.

They listen to Twitter, not the American public. For too long now, the Biden administration has been taking its cues from the wrong people. They think if it makes Joy Behar happy, it’s worth doing. They think it’s the right move if Rob Reiner approves on Twitter. Twitter is a small pond with way too many big fish driving ongoing hysteria and preventing the Democrats from focusing on the problems of average Americans.

Chasing Trump for six years based on one mass hysteria event after another has destroyed the Democratic Party and possibly our Department of Justice. Just because they can indict Trump on some procedural error doesn’t mean they should.

The problem with mass hysteria is that it often leads to the dehumanization of whole groups of people. While most see it as more of a physical affliction, like coughing fits or laughing disease, it can also work when a threat spreads quickly in a tight-knit community. Think about a snake slithering into a tent. The more who are connected, the faster the hysteria spreads.

The hysteria only ends when they’ve gotten rid of the bad thing. That is why we watched person after person purged and persecuted from their jobs, Hollywood, and social media all through the Trump years, a practice that continues to this day. In 2016 there are more people online and connected than ever before. In 2020, even more people were online and connected.

Dehumanization is the red line we should never cross, not necessarily because of what it does to other people, but because of what it does to ourselves, nothing less than the total destruction of the human soul.

There were no real witches in Salem, America is not corrupt to its core with “white supremacy,” and Trump is not an omnipotent Super Villain. We’re all just human beings, flaws and all. Trump is still the same gadfly from the 1980s whose fame revolved around his opulent lifestyle.

There is nothing left of the Trump hunters. They have been destroyed by their addiction. It defines who they are now and defines what they are. For people who have everything – money, culture, art museums, every major corporation in the country, all Big Tech platforms were undone by their need to destroy one man.

Americans are looking at the January 6th committee hearings, and now, with the raid on Mar-a-Lago and thinking, do they not trust their own candidates or policies to win in November? Why are they so worried the people will vote for Trump instead? Shouldn’t they be fixing themselves rather than trying to take out their opponent before he’s even announced he’s running?

I never thought anything could shake my faith and loyalty to the Democratic Party. I trusted them. I believed in them. That doesn’t mean I think the Republican Party is any better, but they don’t control everything as the Democrats do.

They will probably indict Trump. That will mark the last gasp of their collapsing empire. The red pills will be eaten like candy. No American will ever see them the same way again.

I am not MAGA. I am not a Conservative. My friends and family do not understand why I care about Trump and his supporters. They want me to join them in their hatred. They want me to be inside the same group hysteria as they are. I know where they’re coming from. I used to be among them. I did everything they’re doing now.

But the red pill is a powerful one. Once you find your way out of the bubble of hysteria on the Left, it feels more like normal life. People are people again. And that, my friends, is worth waking up for.

Postscript

In response to Michael’s question in his comment, “Where’s the science in this matter?”

From Ted Noel’s American Thinker article, Truth Matters And Never More So Than With the Mar-a-Lago Raid. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

“Truth” is a verbal representation of what is or what has happened. Truth does not care whether you believe it or not. It will not argue with you. It will simply hit you between the eyes when you ignore or deny it enough times. For example, if you have no income and you keep spending money, eventually your credit card will be rejected. It’s not complicated; it’s just a fact. It’s not my truth or your truth. It is the truth. In this vein, we must consider the seizure of documents from Mar-a-Lago. There are four classes of material.

The first is the simplest. Donald Trump works at Mar-a-Lago while he’s there, so he has created work-related documents. Those are properly his and should never have been taken. They aren’t covered by the Presidential Records Act and aren’t classified security documents.

Second are his passports. As president, he had both a personal and a diplomatic passport. Those are his unless he is required to surrender them by a Court or the State Department. No such orders have been given and, should he be required to surrender them, the Mar-a-Lago raid would look like kicking over a sand castle on a beach.

The third class is security-related documents. Here’s where things get interesting. If Trump took classified documents with him and did not store them properly, then it is possible to suggest that there might be a security violation.

But…

In 1988, the Supreme Court, in Navy v. Egan, declared that the President’s control over classified documents is absolute:

“The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

This is also a direct reference to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

In short, the Constitution granted President Trump complete authority to classify or declassify anything he wanted. No one had any legal authority to question him. He was not required to follow any procedure. His standing order that any materials he removed from the Oval Office were deemed declassified was both fully effective and unquestionable. He had “plenary authority.”

There is only one possibility regarding any materials taken from the White House before noon on January 20, 2021. Unless Donald Trump rescinded his standing order, all those documents were, in fact, declassified the moment they left the Oval Office.

Thus, any Espionage Act charge relating to documents at Mar-a-Lago is bogus.
As President Trump said, “All the documents were declassified.”

As for the movers, they are required to be gone with all the outgoing President’s belongings, mementos, and whatever before noon. Put bluntly, if Trump didn’t get it out of the White House by noon, he didn’t have it at Mar-a-Lago, and that means that any papers fell under his standing declassification order. Game, set, and match.

The final question is whether Trump had documents that the Presidential Records Act says belong to the National Archives. While that’s possible, 45 has been very cooperative on that count. When the movers took things out of the White House, it’s quite likely that they scooped up some items that fit into that description. On an earlier DOJ visit to Mar-a-Lago, some of these things were identified and handed over without objection. And as The Donald has noted, all they had to do was ask.  For National Archives issues, a simple phone call would work. Trump’s personal work and passports don’t fall under any form of request or excuse. So, what’s going on?

I can’t read the alleged mind of anyone on the Left, so here comes my best guess. Sleepy Joe’s puppet masters realized that their attempt to use the January 6 circus to paint Trump as an insurrectionist was failing. So, they needed to find a way to soil him so badly that his base would reject him. “Under investigation” would be the magic words. But they forgot a key item.

First, as I’ve noted above, Trump did nothing illegal. Second, they tried multiple investigations. Russiagate flopped. Then, an investigation into a routine phone call resulted in a sham impeachment. Finally, when bad actors crashed Biden’s Electoral College party, the Left gave Trump credit. But in every case, the Left failed.

 

Dr. Thomas Sowell writes at Creators.com The Point of No Return.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H\T Tyler Durden

This is an election year. But the issues this year are not about Democrats and Republicans. The big issue is whether this nation has degenerated to a point of no return — a point where we risk destroying ourselves, before our enemies can destroy us.

If there is one moment that symbolized our degeneration, it was when an enraged mob gathered in front of the Supreme Court and a leader of the United States Senate shouted threats against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying “You won’t know what hit you!”

There have always been irresponsible demagogues. But there was once a time when anyone who shouted threats to a Supreme Court Justice would see the end of his own political career, and could not show his face in decent society again.

You either believe in laws or you believe in mob rule.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the law or agree with the mob on some particular issue. If threats of violence against judges — and publishing where a judge’s children go to school — is the way to settle issues, then there is not much point in having elections or laws.

There is also not much point in expecting to have freedom. Threats and violence were the way the Nazis came to power in Germany. Freedom is not free. If you can’t be bothered to vote against storm-trooper tactics — regardless of who engages in them, or over what issue — then you can forfeit your freedom.

Worse yet, you can forfeit the freedom of generations not yet born.

Some people seem to think that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. It has done nothing of the sort.

The Supreme Court has in fact done something very different, something long overdue and potentially historic. It has said that their own court had no business making policy decisions which nothing in the Constitution gave them the authority to make.

Get out a copy of the Constitution — and see if you can find anything in there that says the federal government is authorized to make laws about abortion.

Check out the 10th Amendment, which says that the federal government is limited to the specific powers it was granted, with all other powers going to the states or to the people.

Why do we elect legislators to do what the voters want done, if unelected judges are going to make up laws on their own, instead of applying the laws that elected officials passed?

This is part of a very long struggle that has been going on for more than 100 years. Back in the early 20th century, Progressives like President Woodrow Wilson decided that the Constitution put too many limits on the powers they wanted to use.

Claiming that it was nearly impossible to amend the Constitution, Progressives advocated that judges “interpret” the Constitutional limits out of the way.

This was just the first in a long series of sophistries.

In reality, the Constitution was amended 4 times in 8 years — from 1913 through 1920 — during the heyday of the Progressive era.

When the people wanted the Constitution amended, it was amended. When the elites wanted the Constitution amended, but the people did not, that is called democracy.

Another great sophistry was the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce to call all sorts of other things interstate commerce. In 1995, elites were shocked when the Supreme Court ruled — 5 to 4— that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce.

States had a right to ban carrying a gun near a school, and most of them did. But the federal government had no such authority. Nor did the Constitution give the federal government the right to make laws about abortion, one way or the other.

What both state and federal laws do have the right to stop
is threats against judges and their families.

This is not a partisan issue. The Republican governor of Virginia is providing protection to Supreme Court Justices who live in that state. But the Republican governor of Maryland seems to think that harassing judges and their families is no big deal.

Voters need to find out who is for or against mob rule, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We are not going to be a free or decent society otherwise.

See Also On Coercive Climatism: Writings of Bruce Pardy

Only Two Models for Human Society

 

 

After 19 months of Biden administration, we can see clearly the shape of tactics for making war on the middle class.  The World Bank has come to see personal transportation as key for individuals to overcome poverty by accessing opportunities for work, education and services outside their birthplaces.  So choking off supplies of gasoline (in the name of climate change) keeps the serfs in their place.  The rising underclass is most vulnerable in their transition to financial stability, so policies wreaking inflation take away the middle class dream.  Of course guns must be confiscated lest there be any effective resistance to governmental coercion.  Those who are outspoken against the elite narrative, and who protest injustice against ordinary citizens, must themselves be imprisoned without any of their entitled legal protections.  And the nation is flooded with illegal aliens to drive down the working class income, and to create a permanent underclass dependent and subservient to government largess. Leftist prosecutors condone widespread theft and drug dealing, undermining the ability to gain property security and the motivation to even work productively.

David McGrogan writes at The Brownstone Society vs State: Canada Reveals the Core Conflict of Our Age.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Justin Trudeau’s confrontation with the Canadian truckers may be the single most significant event of the Covid pandemic – not because of its eventual outcome, whatever that may be, but because of what it symbolises. It captures, in perfect microcosm, the tensions between the competing imperatives of the age:

♦ freedom versus security;
♦ the rule of law versus flexible ‘responsive’ governance;
♦ the priorities of the workers versus those of the Zooming bourgeoisie;
♦ the need for real-world human interaction and belonging versus the promises of splendid online isolation;
♦ the experiences of the common man, who knows where it hurts, versus those of the professional expert class, who know nothing that cannot be expressed as a formula.

More than all of that, though, it gives us a lens through which to view a much deeper, much older conflict of much larger scope – one which underlies not just the struggles of the Covid age, but of modernity itself. On the one hand, the state, which seeks to make all of society transparent to its power. On the other, alternative sources of authority – the family, the church, the community, the firm, the farm, and the human individual herself.

For centuries, the state has waged a quiet war against those competitors,
and bent them to its will.

It has done this not through conspiracy or deliberate strategy but merely through the single-minded pursuit, across generation after generation of political leaders, of one goal: legitimacy. Governments and other state organs derive their legitimacy, and therefore their positions of rulership, from convincing the population that they are necessary.

They do this by suggesting that without their intervention, things will go badly;
left to their own devices, ordinary people will suffer.

The family, the church, the community, the firm, the farm, the human individual – these are inadequate to the task of securing human well-being. That task, only the state is equipped to achieve, for only the state can keep the population educated, healthy, safe, prosperous and satisfied. Since this is the case, only the state is fit to deploy power – and only those who govern the state are fit to rule.

The logic of this argument is writ large, of course, in the Covid response across the developed world. What will keep us ‘safe?’ Certainly not traditional sources of succour, such as the church or the family. Certainly not individual people, who cannot be trusted to behave responsibly or assess risks for themselves.

No – it is only the state, first with its lockdowns, then with its social distancing, its mask mandates, its vaccine programs, and lately its vaccine mandates and ‘passports.’ It is only the state’s power that saves and secures. And since only the state can save, it is the only legitimate source of authority – along, of course, with its leaders.

The state portraying itself as saviour in this fashion is patently false and absurd given what has taken place over the past two years.

But as false and absurd as it is, it remains the subtext behind all of Covid policy. Justin Trudeau must derive his legitimacy from somewhere to maintain power. And he senses – political animal that he is – that he can derive it from displaying the Canadian state (with himself at the helm, of course) as the only thing standing between the Canadian public and suffering and death.

It is the state, remember – in this case with its vaccine mandates – that saves and secures. Without it, the reasoning goes, the population would suffer and die as Covid ran riot. The political logic is inescapable. For a man like Trudeau, without principle except that he alone is fit to govern, there is only one path to follow. Insist that it is the state that saves and secures, and that anything that stands in its way – truckers beware – must therefore be crushed beneath its heel.

The truckers, for their part, represent everything that the state despises.

They have a social and political power that is independent from it, and hence form one of the alternative sources of power which it hates and fears. This power derives not from some institution which the truckers dominate, but simply from their status amongst what I will refer to as the yeomanry classes – almost the last bastion of self-sufficiency and independence in a modern society such as Canada.

In a developed economy, most of the professional classes – doctors, academics, teachers, civil servants and the like – derive their incomes and status entirely or partially, directly or indirectly, from the existence of the state. If they are not civil servants, their status is built on regulatory apparatus which only the state can build and enforce. This is also, of course, true of the underclass, who are often almost totally reliant on the state for the meeting of their needs. The members of these classes pose no threat to the state’s legitimacy, because, simply put, they need it. It, as a consequence, is perfectly happy to tolerate their existence – and, indeed, it wishes all of society were that way inclined.

A population entirely reliant on the state is one which will never question the necessity of the growth of its power and hence its capacity to buttress its own legitimacy.

But in the middle are those people, the modern yeomanry, who derive their incomes from private sources, as sole traders, owners of small businesses, or employees of SMEs. Independent-minded, seeing self-sufficiency as a virtue, and relying on themselves and their relationships with others rather than the state, these modern yeomen represent a natural barrier to its authority. Simply put, they do not need it. They earn their money through the use of a particular skill which others value and hence pay for on the open market.

Whether or not the state exists is immaterial to their success – and, indeed, it very frequently stands in their way. These are the type of people who, seeing a problem, tend to want to find a solution for themselves. And they are precisely the kind of people who want to make up their own minds about whether to take a vaccine, and to assess health-related risks in general.

The modern state has waged incessant and covert war against the yeomanry in particular.

At every step, it seeks to regulate their business affairs, restrict their liberty, and confiscate their prosperity. There is always a purportedly ‘good’ reason for this. But it contributes to an incessant whittling away of their independence and strength. It is no accident that they are described in British parlance as the ‘squeezed middle’ – squashed as they are between the welfare-reliant underclass on the one hand, and the white-collar professionals who draw their wealth, directly or indirectly, from the state on the other.

It is also no accident that these modern yeomen have gradually seen their political representation diminish over the course of the last 100 years, in whichever developed society one cares to name; the politicians they would elect would be mostly interested in getting the state out of the way, and modern politicians’ incentives all incline in the opposite direction. Their interest is in the inexorable growth of state power, because that is from where their legitimacy derives.

Justin Trudeau’s contempt for the truckers is therefore genuine and profound.

He sees in them not an obstacle to Covid policy or a potential threat to public health. Not even he could possibly be so stupid as to think it matters whether or not these people take their vaccines. No: he identifies in them a barrier to forces in which his political future is entwined – an ever-increasing scope and scale for governmental authority, and the opportunities to buttress his own legitimacy that would follow from it.

And his contempt for them is outweighed, of course, by his fear. Because he surely recognises that his authority is wafer-thin. Legitimacy cuts both ways. If he fails to suppress the truckers’ revolt, the entire edifice on which his authority rests – as the helmsman of the Canadian state and its purported capacity to protect the population from harm – will come tumbling down.

This conflict is therefore not about Covid – it’s existential. Does it matter if the truckers win or lose? No. What matters is what their efforts have revealed to us about the relationship between the state and society in 2022.

See also:

2021 Class Warfare: The Elite vs. The Middle

Modern Politics Seen as Classes Power Game

Washington Capital Overthrowing the United States