This article will explore my theory on how cancel culture’s ultimate goal is that of a civil war in the United States, and how certain spending habits of Americans, particularly involving firearms, will help determine the outcome.
I’ve always started papers and articles with a specific quote in mind. For this particular topic, the quote comes easily:
We live in an age of technological advancement that is not only rapidly advancing our quality of life, but is also rapidly deteriorating our peace of mind. As a certain three-star General once stated, “[w]e live in a digital battlefield.”
Going on Twitter and, to a lesser degree, Facebook, you can clearly see that humanity is already at war in a battle hosted by servers, where the opposition (a small but loud and dangerous army) is aided by tyrants like Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Dorsey (Twitter), who brazenly carry an unlimited supply of artillery and ammunition (e.g., angry liberals, bots, shadow banning, blacklisting, blocking, suppression algorithms, etc.).
Digital warriors consist of conservative-leaning individuals who fight against left-leaning radicals online with memes and rhetoric intentionally mischaracterized by the Left as “divisive.” Both sides are pawns in the clash of ideas and morals; where one side’s sole intent is on damaging a person’s livelihood no matter the cost, the other side is fighting a behemoth of rage and idiocy funded by billionaires with a twisted agenda.
This is cancel culture.
Where just one “errant” or unpopular opinion psychologically triggers the snowflake social justice warriors and causes an avalanche of action to destroy reputations, families, and livelihoods, causing irreparable damage to those without job protection.
Cancel culture is, at first glance, an exercise of power to prevent the open debate of ideas. But I see its goal as more violently oppressive.
Journalist Jonathan Rauch recently created a “Cancel Culture Checklist” containing six warning signs explaining how to determine if you are an impending victim of cancel culture. The warning signs include: punitiveness, deplatforming, organization, secondary boycotts, moral grandstanding, and truthiness. It’s a good read for those who wish to learn more about specific actions being taken against those who refuse to adhere to the tenets set forth by the marxist mob of the Democrat party.
Below are the different phases of how cancel culture’s movement and its operatives work, based on my observations and research:
Utilize sleeper cells in all institutions to shove the same agenda down the throat of every student, customer, and viewer to increase reach;
Force defectors to apologize in order to create a feeling of shame for others who wish to do the same;
Dox and “swat” famous and well-known conservatives as a tool to prevent naturally-occurring, and at this point, increasing defection;
Slowly and consistently introduce radical, marxist ideas that your loyal followers must now obey in order to remain compliant and in the “popular” clique; this includes sanctioning murder of those who disagree with you;
Take the agenda out in the streets when an event (staged or not, but usually with a preventable casualty) provides the perfect opportunity to further divide based on issue/label of the day;
Declare war on anyone who lives in the suburbs, no matter what their political affiliation, because they are all selfish and evil; and
Stage a physical, tangible war between law abiding citizens and brainwashed, paid, and “zombified” communists of the Democrat party.
I believe we are currently, as a nation, somewhere between numbers 11/12 and 12/13 (depending where you live). Before we go into what needs to happen to get to the last two, however, let’s take a step back and talk about the types of behavior that allow cancel culture to flourish in our society.
The types of behavior that allow cancel culture to permeate in our society:
Apologetic/no backbone. When someone in the public eye takes a stand on an issue and provides a counter argument to the ideas put forth by the leaders of the radical, progressive Left, they are usually pressured to issue a public apology. When the apology is made public and shared, the Left has once again controlled opposition through their cancel culture agenda. So, what happens when that person does NOT apologize? Apart from clearly becoming persona non grata, something shifts in the narrative; since the Left can no longer control the individual, they employ tactics to make sure that the resistance to their ideals does not reach many people. Since they control the news and social media (to a certain extent), this is easy to do.
False sense of moral superiority. How many times have conservatives heard that we are selfish for putting our needs and our children’s needs above other’s needs? How many times have conservatives and to a lesser extent, moderate liberals, been told they need to “check their privilege”? The Left strategically brainwashes its loyal followers to believe that what they are espousing, the public shaming they are doing, is for “the greater good” of humanity. Don’t have kids! It’s bad for the environment. Don’t start learning pods! Your kids will have a higher chance to succeed later in life than others. Don’t go outside with your mask off! You can kill someone. The list is never-ending.
Overly emotional. Leftist liberals are the most hyper emotional people I have ever met. They rely on their emotions to guide their decision-making skills, thereby prioritizing goals and actions that make them feel good, instead of focusing on long-term, realistic, and pragmatic solutions that will do good. Is there a middle ground? Absolutely! But not for the cancel culture mob, which brings us to #4.
Refusal to compromise. Time and time again, the cancel culture mob’s devoted followers have stated that they refuse to listen to the “other side” and refuse to compromise. This means that it’s basically their way or the “highway.” No wonder they sound like they’re little children throwing a tantrum- would you teach your children to never compromise? I didn’t think so.
Will the suburbanites fight back?
At this point, I am confident that we can follow specific consumer spending trends of American citizens to find a solution/deterrent to cancel culture’s ultimate goal of instigating a civil war.
There is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of millions of first-time gun owners, that there is a shift happening based on the number of firearm-related purchases by law-abiding citizens.
In case you weren’t paying attention, that is a HUGE number. You can clearly identify consumer spending habits with how safe a consumer is feeling at that time. Based on the number of gun sales alone within such a short time frame, it’s clear that personal, physical safety is being prioritized by many citizens living in the cities and suburbs.
“Gun sales have skyrocketed during the past three months, and a record-breaking 80.2 percent increase in sales was reported in May compared to last year, according to the shooting foundation. April’s data showed a 71.3 percent increase from 2019, and there was an 85.3 percent increase in March, according to information previously released by Small Arms Analytics and Forecasting.”
So, what is the point of showing you this data? It’s clear that more and more people are preparing to have to defend themselves, their families, their homes, and their businesses.
Firearms are the most effective threat deterrent.
You will kill cancel culture’s main, long-term goal of destroying and wreaking havoc on suburbia when you: legally buy at least one firearm (per adult); learn how to use that firearm; and practice self-defense techniques (with a trained professional) that will help you and your family stay safe and eventually escape from immediate danger when (not if) the mob comes for your community.
P.S. Did you think that I would tell you to “fight back” with words and feelings? We are way past that stage, don’t you think?
Let me paraphrase her words. Do as I say. Ever wonder why President of Russia Vladimir Putin holds elections? It’s because he knows he has to give a nod to democracy in order to claim legitimacy. Similarly, men or women who use the phrase “follow the science” pretend to have science on their side.
Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, “[T]he West Coast is — and will continue to be — guided by science.” Also, in the past several weeks we have heard that phrase used by our Montgomery County Council Executive Marc Elrich and our un-elected health advisor Travis Gayle. The phrase has been used to justify the closure of businesses, schools, and churches.
So what does the phrase actually mean? Science is good, please don’t misunderstand me. It’s when science replaces God that I have a problem. Sadly, many scientists forget it was God who created science. Man can not create anything on his own. He can only rearrange the molecules that God gave us. Science is not in competition with God; science comes from God. We need to remember this first and foremost.
The problem as I see it is that man’s science is not always accurate or exact.
Global warming scientists claim the earth will be destroyed in less than 10 years and we must reduce our carbon footprint immediately to reverse the coming destruction. Last summer my wife and I took a trip to Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. During our trip we visited many national parks and took in many geological wonders. We listened to several park rangers lecture. One topic they discussed throughout our time there was the ever-changing world. The layers of rock and sand we witnessed as we viewed the landscape suggested rivers, lakes, tropical forests, and deserts had occupied the same space over billions of years. An official national park sign posted in Mesa Verde National Park read, “[C]limate change is not new. According to archaeologists, it was one of the reasons Ancestral Pueblo people left Mesa Verde over 700 years ago.”
Sadly, people use the word “science” to scare, manipulate and control the population. Please understand I respect and admire science. Two things we must ask ourselves is 1) how accurate is the science, and 2) who is funding the research?
We must admit science can be influenced and directed by politics.
Sadly, we have different scientific opinions and conclusions on the use of hydroxychloroquine. The tragic story is if we believe those who downplay its usage in its fight against COVID-19 then we endorse the death of thousands who might have been cured if it had been administered at the right time. This is a good example of how we decide which approach or scientific opinion we follow.
Are the two scientific outcomes science-based or politically-based?
I witnessed the double standard of the phrase, “listen to the science,” several years ago when the Montgomery County, Maryland Council was involved in a debate over the use of pesticides in our county. Those defending the safe use of pesticides called upon scientists from the Department of Agriculture to explain how pesticides could be administered safely. They further spoke about regulations and laws already in place to monitor and guide those using these products. The irony of the public debates is that those in opposition to the use of pesticides (spearheaded by our own County Executive Marc Elrich and a large contingency from Takoma Park), spoke out and gave testimony that was purely emotional. They ignored the science and played to the heart. They spoke of loved ones who had died from cancer and spoke of children who would die from cancer if they played on athletic fields that had been sprayed with weed killers. Their testimonies were based entirely on raw emotion. They did refer to studies but failed to mention who did the study or who funded it.
So, in conclusion, when a Travis Gayle and Marc Elrich tells us to listen to the science, we must ask ourselves: how has this science been poisoned by politics? We must be careful not to worship at the feet of science but rather the God who created science.