I've been trying to share a particular message for a couple of years now, and I can never quite find the words. I doubt I will tonight, but I have to try again because I watched my great friend get murdered over it today.

We have a choice: catharsis or civilization.

There's no other choice for us. We can have a civilization, where people are civilized enough to live, work, and trade with one another in a productive way, a safe way, a trustworthy enough way, or we can abandon it for the pursuit of letting the negative emotions of the past years, decade, or decades consume us.

There's no other choice.

If we choose catharsis, we let our emotions, our Pathos, get the better of us. We turn to our anger and look to give it more justifications. We turn to our frustration and seek an orgiastic release through whatever deeds vents it. We turn to our oppression, our rage, our despair, our fear, and we let it flow through us until the Pathos pours out and covers the land in what will eventually be fire and blood.

Catharsis is tempting, and stepping into it will be libidinous, orgiastic, elevating, and divine, until we realize that it's the feast of demons upon everything we could have built and everything we could have passed on to our children and our posterity.

Civilization is harder. It's bitter, in fact, in comparison to catharsis. It means swallowing hard and taking all those negative emotions and sublimating them into something productive, something that builds rather than makes us feel better. Civilization feels like injustice, in fact, even though it is the only basis for justice outside of Heaven and Hell, if they exist.

If we choose civilization, we're allowed to be mad, but we must temper our anger into right action that builds something to leave a better world, which will dissolve it, of course. We're also allowed to be frustrated, but we must sublimate our frustration into the dedicated search for real and lasting solutions to our problems in a civilization worth living in and passing to our children. We are not allowed to despair, though, and we cannot persist in fear. We must have faith that swallowing and metabolizing all of our negativity to turn it into a flourishing society is possible and worth it, and faith will drive out fear and is the mortal enemy of despair.

Civilization is not available on the wide path. It is the narrow path, at least so far as worldly life goes. Veer too far to one side or the other, or even for too long a moment forget your purpose or principles, and you lose the path, lose civilization, and lose everything worth having.

Without civilization, though, we will find ourselves in a terror beyond our comprehension. Maybe it will be like the philosopher Thomas Hobbes described it in the wake of the terrible English Civil War, when civilization was nearly thrown aside. Violent, solitary or tribal, nasty, brutish, short, a wicked and selfish war of all against all. It looks like the favelas of Brazil.

Maybe we'll end up conquered, fighting among ourselves while our enemies feast on our folly. Maybe we'll end up holding it together, for a little while anyway, under a tyrant who can, for a time, make it all stop and demand order. Maybe we all just end up learning Mandarin and get along mastering the ins and outs of social credit existence.

Civilization is worth fighting for, and catharsis is the kind of momentary pleasure followed by pain that every virtue stands in opposition to. In a civilization we, and each of our children after us, can live as individuals, free to pursue our dreams in sufficient safety and opportunity to generate abundance. Catharsis will be a groupish disaster with all the allure and hangover of a drunken mosh pit.

Again, I'm not expressing myself the way I see this issue in my mind. It's such an important message that I just can't get right, no matter how I try.

What I will say is that, for any differences in the particulars my great friend Charlie Kirk and I have had, Charlie Kirk stood for, lived for, and acted to his dying breath for civilization. He was far too temperate and wise, even at 31, for catharsis.

How can I be sure?

Under strange circumstances once, I found myself out on a skiing boat on a lake with Charlie Kirk. Music was playing, we were having a good time enjoying the morning. Charlie, with his standard grin, bare chest in the sun, laughed a little and explained himself, "I had fun once, guys, and I hated it."

Then he made our host change the music from something fun and hip to... classical. And we ran up and down the lake alongside all the other party boats listening to Bach, Vivaldi, and Stravinsky, not having fun even once and loving it. Charlie Kirk lived for civilization, and nothing remotely like catharsis would have been near his mind, heart, or soul, even in its darkest, most frustrated moments.

Charlie wanted to win, but he wanted to win so that we can move away from evil and move away from cathartic, orgiastic destruction and toward civilizational order, where his family and children could grow up as strong, proud Americans.

More than that, Charlie lived for Jesus, the Logos, as He is named in John 1. He knew the difference between the Logos and the Pathos, human though he was. He understood civilization is built on the rock of Logos, and that it can never be built on the churning sands of Pathos.

That's how I know that Charlie understood the choice I still cannot articulate. We have two options, and only two. They are catharsis and civilization. Charlie Kirk lived that we would have civilization.

May Charlie Kirk not have died such that we spiral into catharsis and evil.

At the core of both Fascism and Communism as radical ideologies is a sense of alienation. In fact, it’s alienation with the injustice of the alienation turned up to eleven. This alienation breeds resentment, envy, hatred, self-pity, and radical politics itself. It is also, in these evil systems, deliberately manufactured specifically for this purpose.

About Radicalism

First, a word about radicalism. What does “radical” mean? It means “at the roots,” or more accurately, tearing out the roots of the existing system to replace them with a new system with totally different roots. Radicalism means wishing to dismantle the existing system and replace it with something the radicals prefer. It almost never works.

Resentment, envy, self-pity, and a certain kind of hatred—not to mention psychopathology—is therefore often at the roots of radical politics. Certainly it is possible that a political system is actually oppressive and needs a radical solution, but it is also very common that the radicals are in a perfectly functional system but don’t feel like they fit within it. When that feeling turns sour, we get radical politics of the sort under examination here.

About Resentment, Envy, Etc., and Their Agitation

Second, a word about the politics of envy and resentment. At the heart of radicalism is a suite of negative emotions that stem from a sense of alienation. These primarily include envy (of those who are not or do not feel alienated), resentment (of the same), hatred (of the same), and self-pity, which is the most destructive of all human emotions. These often tend to sour under the feeling of alienation into something nasty Nietzsche called ressentiment, using the French word to distinguish it from mere resentment. Ressentiment is like envy that has curdled; it’s resentment that has turned putrid and has been directed outward. It’s the feeling the prisoner has for the freeman when he hates him merely for his being free.

Radicalism is often the politics of resentment through alienation, and Woke is no exception. While it’s frequently the case that the person who feels alienated will go on to develop these other emotions at the roots of his radicalism, and thus become a radical himself, it is much more often the case that the sense of alienation is inculcated by others who are already afflicted and that these negative emotions are encouraged to develop to a far larger degree than they might have under organic individual circumstances. That is, I suppose, Woke is a mind virus, and its receptor sites are almost all located in the emotions attached to feelings around fairness and belonging.

Radicals spend much of their time agitating others to join them in their misery, a process they call “consciousness raising.” They are actively teaching people to see themselves as alienated and to feel resentful about it. This is one way Wokeness spreads.

About Alienation and the Alien

Third, a few words about alienation—and therefore also about the “Alien force” that alienates. Alienation here ultimately refers to the idea of being made an alien in or to your own circumstance. In the circumstance of radical politics, what this implies is feeling like there’s a circumstance that fits you, and you belong in that circumstance by some right, and you are or feel removed or estranged from it, likely unjustly.

The sense of political alienation is usually believed to be the result of having been (actively) alienated from your rightful inheritance or sense of belonging in society by some hostile force—the Alien who alienates. It is, of course, generally assumed people would not intentionally remove themselves from their own rightful context. Alienation in radical politics is something that has been wrongly done to you by some force outside of you that you cannot control.

The outside, interloping force that removes the alienated subject from his rightful context and circumstance is, from the perspective of the radical, an Alien power. It doesn’t recognize the legitimate circumstance of society or people’s rightful claim to it and its inheritance. Instead, it comes from outside and imposes itself into and over that circumstance to usurp it for itself. While there's a lot of depth that could be added to this (notably talking about Gnosticism in various stripes), now is not the time for that

Understanding this mechanism and belief structure, which is fundamentally dualistic (split), is absolutely necessary to understanding the underlying mythologies and ideologies of both Fascism and Marxism. Both depend upon it fundamentally and intimately

A Clarifying Example

A sadly familiar example will help us understand. The way the Woke Left sees race and racism is that we should have a fully egalitarian and thus “antiracist” society, but that’s simply not possible. Our “state of nature,” in their eyes, has no racism and no room for racism. So, where did it come from? The short answer is “white people,” but it requires understanding more deeply than just that.

The Woke Left racial mythology (and it is a mythology) is that white people at some point in the past decided upon their own racial superiority and imposed racial categories onto all people specifically to name, maintain, and enforce their own “white supremacy.” White supremacy is an ideology meant to convince all people in society that this outside, artificial imposition both of racial categories and of racialist superiority and inferiority is “real,” “natural,” “just,” or what have you. White supremacy therefore alienates people of color from their full participation in a society that is supposed to be intrinsically “antiracist.” White people, as an interloping Alien force, impose this racial framework and racism to their own benefit and thus alienate themselves from their full humanity, which is supposed to be “antiracist.” In so doing, they become the Alien who alienates by race.

As a brief aside, the Iron Law of Woke Projection is located here. The pathological modes of Fascism and Communism (Woke) do not actually represent true humanity, as they claim, but are themselves an interloping Alien power that alienates people from their societal inheritance in other forms of societal organization. This, though, is what they accuse the mainstream society outside of their cults of doing. The Iron Law of Woke Projection is an iron law, therefore, because the entire psychosocial apparatus of Woke political worldviews is Alien-projection. It couldn’t be otherwise.

Alienation and Fascism

Since I usually start with Marxism and lose people, I’ll start with Fascism, which is actually easier to understand. Fascists fundamentally believe that there’s a past state of their own society that was roughly a golden era that is now corrupted. It fell through the corruptions of some alien powers being allowed sway—that is, through tolerance

More specifically, they have a romantic fantasy about their past as a people and the society and fruits they should have inherited from it, but they are alienated from that society and its inheritance by the inclusion of an interloping power. That power is the Alien that has corrupted the system for its own gain and to their loss

So Fascists look back to some mythological, romantic point they come to believe is their past and feel aggrieved as a people (collective) from having inherited the fruits of that past. Notice that they are likely to write historicist accounts of their past to reinforce this belief and to spread it. They go on to blame outsiders (political, cultural, or ethnic) for having displaced them from a glorious life they’ve lost due to illegitimate impositions of the Alien politics, culture, or ethnicity

In response, they seek to band together (fasces, from which Fascism gets its name, refers to a tight bundle of thin faggots) to reclaim their lost inheritance through brutal political power and the imposition of the romanticized past state as it was, they believe, meant to progress to the glorious future they’ve failed to inherit. (Talk about an entitlement complex….) So the Fascist, ultimately, feels alienated from a glorious society (that never really existed) and the firstfruits of that glorious society. Alienation is at the core of his disposition

Fascists, then, see themselves as alienated or dispossessed political, cultural, or racial elites who have lost the opportunity for an idealized Received Society, which the Alien has prevented them from receiving. The Alien is his enemy, and he must destroy his enemy and reclaim his lost society. Identifying and destroying the Alien who has alienated him—along with its societal enablers—becomes his chief political project. All who do not join him are believed to be sympathizing with and part of the alienating force and are therefore as much Enemy as is the Alien

The Fascist Project of Counter-Alienation

The Fascist project is therefore to awaken people to a consciousness of their alienation—which most will not have detected—and its alleged causes to get them to band together in the effort to reclaim their “future past.” Notice here, then, that it isn’t just a sense of alienation but a manufactured sense of alienation, deliberately spread to others, that drives the process of “awakening” (Woke). Of course, the most awakened Fascists will have to lead the program, not mere recruits, and they will restore the conditions for the common good and a future Golden Era in exchange for everyone’s liberty

Obviously, the “renewal” process begins (and proceeds) through punishing the Alien and its representatives and sympathizers, resulting in tyranny and mass murder. That is, the project is actually one of counter-alienation. Seemingly ironically, in the name of deposing the Alien who alienates them, the Fascists themselves become the imposing Alien force who alienates. This is a crucial point to understand. Rather than seeking to end alienation, they seek to counter alienation with their own more powerful and compelling alienating force. In staring into the abyss, they become the enemy they wish to destroy. Given the suite of negative emotions driving Fascist radicalism, it couldn’t be otherwise.

Who Were the Fascists?

Obviously, since there are different ways Fascists can feel alienated from their idealized Received Society, it can manifest in different ways. Three historical examples make the case

In Italy, the Italian Fascists arose around the idea of displaced Italian Nationalist identity, which was partly based on rejecting the internationalist agitations of Communism. In Spain, the Francoists arose around the idea of a displaced Spanish National cultural identity rooted particularly in Catholicism—so long as it obeyed Franco. It too claimed the internationalist and cultural (especially anti-religious) agitations of Communism as part of the Alien problem, but it hardly limited itself to purging Commies. In Germany, Hitler and the Nazis proposed a hybrid alienation scheme of German Nationalist identity and a German racial identity (based in part in eugenics and in part in the occult ravings of the Theosophist Helena Blavatsky, who, in alignment with pre-existing currents of German antisemitism believed that Jews represented the lowest (spiritual) racial form

Thus, to simplify, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini believed they were alienated from being fully Italian and sought to restore Italian Nationalist identity and usher in progress under its banner. The Spanish Fascists under Franco felt alienated from being fully Spanish and sought to restore Spanish Nationalist and Cultural identity through a kind of Nationalist-Catholic reunification program and usher in progress under its banner. The German Fascists (National Socialists) under Hitler felt alienated from being fully German in both practical and a profound occultist racial senses and sought to restore German Nationalist and mystical-racial identity, from which Hitler believed “high culture” sprung, in order to literally complete history (that is, to usher in progress under its banner). All three were unmitigated catastrophes

A similar utterly failed experiment was conducted in various ways throughout South America under the banner of (Catholic) Integralismo in Brazil, or Brazilian Integralism (reintegration of Catholic Church, state, and economy). Its program was different because the Alien was ironically framed primarily as colonialist in nature (that Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses), particularly blaming Western liberalism and Communism as alienating both indigenous populations and the working classes. South America is mostly Communist today as a result, not least because Integralismo gave way to Marxist Liberation Theology in so many cases (e.g., Dom Helder Camara, the “Red Bishop” of Recife). [No, Pinochet wasn't an Integralist, to be clear, but another sort of Fascist

So, as indicated, we understand Fascism as an ideology of (Gnostic) alienation and resentment where there is some idealized group that is a contingency of history itself who has been displaced from its rightful inheritance by an Alien power that must be destroyed

Alienation in Marxism

I’ll be briefer with Marxism, but it is ultimately the same, differently (same energy, opposite direction).  First, note that if you don’t realize that alienation, “the Alien,” and estrangement are very explicitly at the very center of everything Marxism thinks and talks about, you don’t know anything about Marxism. Marx talked about these concerns all the time and characterized his entire philosophy around them.

Marxists believe that all of humanity is the alienated group, and the bourgeois class is the Alien. That is, certain human beings are alienating all human beings from their rightful inheritance and proper circumstance unjustly for their own benefit

Marxists do not look back to a past romanticized golden era for their inspiration, as Marx told us in 1852, as do the Fascists. They look, he claims, “to the future,” but this isn't quite right and requires understanding Marxism properly to comprehend

Marxists all believe they are alienated from an idealized future that recovers the idealized past. They believe they are oppressed through the Alien who is located in the “dominant” or “oppressing” classes in each society throughout history. Private property becomes the alienating force that estranges man from himself and prevents his realization of the idealized future that recovers the idealized (communal, “social”) past. Marx stated frequently that realizing this idealized future is therefore humanizing, which is a “complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being.”

This belief sounds confusing and crazy, so we should unpack it a little. Marxism actually adopts the dialectical nonsense of the wildly degenerate Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau to outline its (Gnostic) theory of man, history, and thus the future from which we allegedly alienate ourselves. Rousseau believed man is imprisoned by the strictures of civilization and is only truly free in his proverbial State of Nature (“man is born free but everywhere he is in chains”). Rousseau also liked civilization and all its perks, so he dreamed of completing man by finding a way to live in our State of Nature (free and noble “savages”) while retaining all the fruits of society (“savages made to live in cities

Marx echoed this sentiment clearly in his definition of true Communism: “Communism [is] the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore [is] the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being—a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development

Marxists believe that all human beings as one giant group alienate themselves from their true inheritance (Communism: a stateless, classless society of plenty for all) by alienating ourselves from who we really are (Communists). We allegedly do so through the acquisition of private property (fundamental right to exclude others from your property), which inherently defines each person as an individual who can hold and withhold property from others (which is the basis for all wealth

People who support the concept of private property are therefore the Alien who alienates all of man from his inheritance, which is his State of Nature while “embracing the entire wealth of previous development.” It is from this preposterous fantasy future Marx believes Communists take their inspiration instead of some stupid, romanticized past era partway along the track. Marxists still romanticize the State of Nature (origin point, Alpha Man) but want him completed (Omega Man) at the same time.

Marxism’s Remedy to Alienation: Sublation

Marx rejects the mere rejection of private property “as human self-estrangement,” though. That, he argues, defines a low, ugly, brutish, dirty “crude Communism” that doesn’t have any higher culture or “wealth of previous development” to grift off of. While Fascism seeks to throw off the alienating force in a kind of counter-alienation, Marxism seeks to transcend the alienation entirely.

The problem is how it’s supposed to get there. Marx’s solution to this problem was through two means: violent revolution followed by “inversion of praxis” by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” First, there would be revolution, in which the masses would rise up under the direction of the Communists and “expropriate the expropriators.” Then, the Communists would establish a dictatorship in the name of the workers called the “dictatorship of the proletariat” that would effectively re-educate, re-train, and brainwash everyone through forced re-socialization (“inversion of praxis”) to become progressively more socialist. The Communists saw this as a kind of remembering of who people really are (socialists), but it’s quite obvious that it’s just another counter-alienation move.

Curiously, Marx saw this process beginning with class consciousness, which he explained begins through “supersession” of the self. How did he say you supersede yourself and come to a class identity? “Supersession as the retraction of alienation into the self,” he explained. That is, you radicalize yourself by coming to see yourself through the lens of your own alienation, which will then awaken that suite of negative emotions that leads to the revolutionary radicalism that drives his project.

Marx’s project, like that of the Fascists in another fashion, is ultimately transformative, though: man must transcend private property, not merely reject it. Only in that way can he retain “the entire wealth of previous development” and high culture while creating a stateless, classless society in which man is as free as he (always) was in his State of Nature, from which he is alienated

Marxist Agitation into Counter-Alienation

Marxism therefore mobilizes class conflict by trying to awaken the exploited classes to their alienation and also some of the exploiting classes to their participation in the total alienation of society (think: “feminism is good for men too”). That solidifies it as yet another destructive counter-alienation project in which a sense of alienation is encouraged and then exploited to their political ends

Those who cannot be awakened into militancy or allyship, the Marxists always believe, have effectively sided with the Alien and must be destroyed. Maybe two hundred million corpses testify to how destructive and impossible this program is in practice. The result we can see: resentful people who conclude their lack of success in life is due to alienation by the Alien power adopt a radical politics intentionally destructive to the existing order

Their objective is to claim as much of the infrastructure of that order as they can (“seize the means of production”) but also to destroy not only everything they cannot but the entire order upon which it is based so they can replace it with their own (which always conveniently place themselves in abusive power they use to alienate people from their own societies as an interloping Alien). It must be this way because the roots of the existing society are ultimately either the Alien itself or that which allows and enables the Alien to alienate

The politics will always be radical. The power claimed will always be abused. Destruction and mass death will always result

These Are the Politics of Resentment

The reason for these Marxist and Fascist catastrophes isn’t superficial. It’s as fundamental as a foundation can be. Their entire world-concept is based on a theory of illegitimate alienation, resentment, pride, entitlement, covetous desire, self-pity, and rank incompetence at anything except manipulation and usurpation

The (Gnostic) metaphysics of the Alien is the taproot of these programs, whatever their forms, scapegoats, and excuses. Since they cannot see beyond these metaphysics, their project is not one of eliminating alienation (or oppression, or injustice) but of counter-alienation. They are always becoming the monster they believe controls the world.

How Are Marxism and Fascism Different?

Marxism and Fascism manifest differently (same energy, opposite direction) because they locate the pre-alienated state in different places and thus bear a different vision for the completed utopian future, but they’re ultimately variations on the same theme. 

Marxists have a better but more fanciful sales pitch: a world of total freedom and no oppression or injustice based on our State of Nature while retaining the plenty we achieved through our Fall from that noble original state. The Fascists boast a more realistic and brutal one: a complete return to a fictionalized Golden Era and the glorious future it promises for our people by kicking out and destroying the interlopers who stole it from us. Marxists, in fancier words, reject historical contingency while Fascists embrace it and place it in different “received” features like politics, culture, or race. 

Why Is This Woke?

What being “Woke” means, ultimately, is having “woke up” to at least one of these dark fairytales of alienation and having committed yourself to “doing something about it.” 

Woke is a distorted consciousness born out of a sense of alienation and is therefore a way of seeing the world and acting in it. 

The Woke consciousness, necessarily, is critical too, in the sense of Critical Theory. That’s why you could say that being Woke means using Critical Theory. Why? Because as dispossessed outsiders, the alienated people aren’t in a position to challenge (or even fully imagine or articulate) the circumstance that should have been absent the Alien power. They’ve lost or lack the means. What they can do, however, is criticize the Alien power for not being the glorious vision in their dark fairytales, allowing them to pull at the loose threads of existing society and radicalize the people who can be led into feeling dispossessed and resentful of it. 

Woke is therefore a parasitic, toxic mentality that attacks the society it is attached to because it feels wrongly alienated from it. Alienation is at its core, and that alienation is often not so much real as it is profoundly manufactured for the political ambitions of tyrants, some of whom share in the resentment.

In the 1950s, there was a UFO cult called the Seekers, and it was infiltrated by a psychologist named Leon Festinger who wanted to understand why they believed what they believed and how their beliefs worked. In particular, he wanted to see what happened when their very specific central prediction, around which the cult orbited, did not come true. 

The Seekers believed there was an impending catastrophe that would strike the world on December 21, 1954. On that date, there would be a gigantic global flood. As a cult they engaged in lots of rituals and “awareness raising” activities about the impending disaster. 

The Seekers also believed in aliens—it was a UFO cult. Specifically, they believed that aliens would save the faithful Seekers from the coming disaster. In particular, the aliens would rescue the faithful Seekers for trying to warn people about the coming catastrophe. They also believed the aliens had the power to intervene on Earth if necessary. As everyone might suspect, the aliens would only intervene, believed the Seekers, if there was sufficient faith in Seeker doctrine and its vision of living a moral life on Earth. 

Obviously, what the Seekers believed amounts to a 1950s UFO-based version of the biblical story of Noah recorded in Genesis 6–9. Also obviously, they were completely wrong. 

Leon Festinger understood this and wanted to understand not just the Seekers but the phenomenon of cults. To learn more, he infiltrated the cult, posing as a faithful Seeker, and observed it through the lead up to the fateful December 21, 1954. Additionally, from his position inside the cult, he was positioned to observe and interview subjects when it turned out after that date that nothing of the sort had happened.

Eventually, December 21, 1954, came and went, and… nothing happened. This failed prediction marked a crisis of faith for the Seekers.

What did the Seekers do? Did they abandon their beliefs? No! They did not abandon their beliefs, except in a few individual cases. Instead, most Seekers experienced some form of emotional crisis and emerged from it with a powerfully increased commitment to the Seekers’ cult beliefs. Festinger was intrigued.

Most of the Seekers emerged from the crisis of their failed prediction firm in a new belief. They believed that their faith and devotion had saved humanity because the aliens saw it and intervened to prevent the flood, thus saving not just the Seekers but also humanity at large. Yay, Seekers!

That’s obviously nonsense, but it served as the foundation for the psychology not just around cults but around conspiracy theories (not conspiracies, which are real, but the “theories,” which are borderline crazy crap).

What Festinger observed is that under certain conditions, people do not abandon their conspiracy theories or cult beliefs when presented with solid evidence those beliefs are wrong. Instead, they modify and repackage their beliefs in even more tenuous ways so they can keep believing them. With the Seekers, the aliens magically intervened thanks to their Seeker faith. Who could check this claim? Well, nobody, and that’s the point.

Festinger explained what happened with the Seekers by formulating what’s called the theory of cognitive dissonance, which many have heard of but may not fully understand. When our minds are occupied with two contradictory but strong beliefs (cult doctrine versus hard evidence, for example), a state of great psychological discomfort and unrest called “cognitive dissonance” arises and becomes an impulse for the subject to resolve that discomfort, which is psychological but can be profound and manifest with physical signs.

There are a few roads to resolving the state of cognitive dissonance, but two stand out. One is to double-down on the cult belief or conspiracy theory, which is called “rationalization,” and the other is to accept the hard facts of reality and repent of your error, which is also psychologically painful.

Under many conditions, the psychological pain of facing reality is far too high for most people to bear, and they will instead rationalize. Perhaps the moral implications of their beliefs and resulting behavior is too high, so they cannot face it. This is easily understood. Imagine you transitioned your child and have to cope with the fact that you've done them irreparable serious harm in the name of “inclusion” so you could feel virtuous. That’s hard to walk back from. This recommitment to the beliefs rather than facing the emotional pain of facing the consequences of your error has been called the “Backfire Effect.”

Festinger observed with the Seekers that their commitment to the cult beliefs was too deep, so they could not overcome it. Instead, they not only came up with a rationalization for what had happened that preserved their beliefs; they also specifically came up with a rationalization no one could check—an unfalsifiable rationalization. No one could know whether or not the immensely high-tech aliens and their UFO came close enough to Earth to stop the flood but without being seen. It had to be taken on the Seekers’ word.

It turns out this phenomenon is common. When a cult’s doctrine gets crushed by a collision with reality, the psychological and social importance of the cult or its beliefs can win out and cause the individuals involved to make their beliefs unfalsifiable instead of letting them go.

The question here is why that commitment is so deep. The answer, when factual embarrassment and moral culpability aren’t the only explanations, is almost always that one’s social milieux and sense of identity get wrapped up in the cult and its beliefs that it’s more important to keep seeing yourself in line with the cult than in line with reality. For many people, there’s simply no going back if being part of the cult is who you are and how you fit in.

So how does someone get so locked into a cult that they’ll deny reality, even at the point of catastrophic falsification of their beliefs?

Being socially locked into a cult is usually its primary hold over people, particularly at first. Eventually this social lock will creep into one’s sense of identity through the processes of psychosocial valuation on the self (answering: how do I fit in as a valued member of a community I esteem, thus who am I in relation to this community and in a more universal sense?). At the point when the cult defines your identity and sense of virtue and worth, you’re deep in, and there’s no easy escape.

This gets worse in ideological, political, and religious cult circumstances, especially rigid and militant ones—like Communism, Fascism, Woke Left, and Woke Right. Part of this is psychosocial, as before, though with a particularly vicious twist. You will be heavily punished both socially and psychologically for any defection both while inside the cult and while attempting to leave it—and you know it. In fact, you have probably participated in that punishment ritual against others by the point of being fully ensconced in such a cult.

In ideological cults, though, there’s an even deeper layer because there’s substantial doctrine that allows you to intellectualize your beliefs in terms that sound true and reasonable. This feature facilitates the rationalization process of deepening cult commitment against exposure or contrary evidence (the “Backfire Effect”). While rationalizing the UFOs through unfalsifiable claims seems risible (from outside the Seekers), the ideology of ideological cults is the cult’s rationalization schema turned into a totalizing worldview. There’s already no escape!

Because the conditions of an ideological, totalizing cult can be so vicious to defectors of any kind, rationalization is the easier road in the case of doubt or encountering contradictory evidence, and most (not some) take it. Millions of people died, property was destroyed, and everything fell apart in a horrible war last time we attempted a mass movement based on your “new” world-changing beliefs? That’s because the people back then did it wrong and didn’t believe it sincerely enough! Obviously. Of course, this belief cannot be falsified.

This is the essential feature Festinger noticed, too. The rationalizations of the Seekers were that the aliens came and, from a safe distance, saw the faith of the Seekers and their righteousness and so intervened to stop the flood. No one could see this happen because it was far out in space and very high tech, and the bad thing the Seekers predicted simply didn’t happen. “Nothing happened” became “evidence” that something happened.

The way it was possible is that the Seekers changed the fulfillment conditions of their beliefs without changing their beliefs. Their new belief structure reaffirmed the cult rather than evidence against the cult’s bogus doctrine.

What Festinger noticed, ultimately, is that when cult beliefs and conspiracy theories encounter hard evidence that they’re wrong, or other exposure, most of the cult’s victims will cling to the cult’s beliefs by rationalizing them in ways that render them unfalsifiable.

While the example of the Seekers is clearly instructive, take the example of the moon landing being “fake and gay,” as some people today phrase it. The equipment from that landing is still mostly on the moon, and it has been observed in multiple ways by orbiters and even from the ground (in the case of the mirror array for laser telemetry).

Confronted with this evidence, deniers will counter that the imagery is all faked, probably by NASA, which is also “fake and gay” and also Satanic, including because the acronym represents something nefarious and evil in secret Hebrew which is probably also in the Talmud but only the one Jews will never let you read without having to kill you if you do…or something. The conspiracy mindset only grows deeper, and the evidence in front of their own eyes gets denied. At every turn, new evidence is just more “evidence” of the alleged conspiracy, and the belief becomes unfalsifiable.

Not incidentally, this is in a way similar to the state called “demoralization” that Yuri Bezmenov warned about with regard to Communist subversion. The “demoralized” person, Bezmenov explains, cannot see or comprehend as real evidence that contradicts his demoralized and propagandized view of the world “until the boot comes crashing down on his balls,” at which point he might still rationalize it away.

This is the ideological equivalent of locked-in syndrome, where someone is fully locked into their minds because their bodies are in every way absolutely frozen and unusable, even though they are fully conscious. Another good way of putting it, especially when the cult belief is a political ideology, is that people in (ideological) cults are ideological prisoners of war. People still wearing their masks alone in cars are Covid ideological POWs, for example. So are most deep conspiracy theorists, though for different belief programs.

You might think this is a dumb-people problem. Not so. Notice that rationalization is an intellectualizing and abstracting process, so higher intelligence isn’t a guard against it but a liability for falling into it. Smarter people can rationalize better. If you find yourself wondering how smart people can fall for this stuff, it’s that they’re still human (thus social) and are in a literal sense too smart for their own good. They're expert rationalizers.

Festinger did not have a particularly optimistic prognosis for this circumstance, and I have to admit for myself that as the internet and social media in particular have exploded cult recruitment and expansion (including conspiracy theories), that it's hard to be optimistic about our psychosocial environment under the circumstances we've built for ourselves.

There’s genuinely only one antidote: exposure to reality until the victim of the cult begins to see it for themselves. Something has to become undeniably out of alignment with the cult’s views, and the cults failures and manipulations have to become visible. Only then can the process of escape begin.

This process can take months or years, though, and it will almost never be from a sudden change of mind. The process of leaving a cult is literally called “deprogramming” for a reason.