top of page
  • publiusfederalist

Secular Destruction

Updated: Aug 22, 2021

The series of Blog Posts that the Federalist 2.0 has developed has been in alignment with the notion that there is a method and approach to understand what is the right direction for a political system to navigate toward for the benefit of ALL of the citizens of a county. That there is a way to hold politicians accountable for their actions politically and then work to correct those decisions if things do not work out through the use of a Citizens Political Professional Organization (CPPO) with membership from the citizens and a Certification Process to monitor the general belief system of those involved.

The Federalist 2.0 philosophy also explains other methods of motivation and warns against the inevitable result of tyranny if things are not properly managed. We describe these items and discuss them in detail in the works we have published in this Blog. We now face our last Blog before we head into the development of our Part 2 of the Federalist Papers and approach. That is the destruction that Secularism has brought us with the inevitable horror we have witnessed as these events have played out with the Pandemic and the consequences of the election on November 3rd, 2020. We will review the following articles that are on the "War on the Mind", the Importance of Character and the Usefulness of Propaganda from the Federalist 2.0's point of view. We will see that this War is fueled by the destruction of a Higher Power as noted in this diagram below.

PART 1 - The War on the Mind

As we have articulated in previous articles the mind of the citizen is one of the most important aspect of the citizen's world. From the secular political standpoint we know that if we are running a democracy, we have to manipulate the mind of the citizens to do things that they would not do if their minds were right. Or sane. Or consistent and held together with some fundamental truths. When we want to take the population to places were we influence and impose on their God given Freedoms, we must do it in a way they would and can go happily, without their knowledge. This was that blog post we did on this subject some time ago, Evil Defined is here. But, of course, we at the Federalist 2.0 do not advocate for this approach since it eventually results in unintended consequences that are not positive for those involved.

This piece here called "The War on Reality" has been something I have looked for that outlines all of the lies and coverups that the media and government has been engaged in to "manage" the virus and it's impact on our society. The following is the last part of the article that brings this notion home (read the other parts as it outlines in specific details the suspension of reality). The end result is not only the destruction of lives, but the notion and tendency for the population to doubt their own judgement, doubt their own minds and thoughts. This is intentional as we will show...

Now, the stories that were used to justify these hardships are continuing to unravel. Many of the people responsible will insist that the second-order consequences are the horrible symptoms of a magic virus and that the mistakes made in handling such a crisis were inevitable. But preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental milestones in the face of mounting evidence is not just a “mistake.” Forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their families is not just a “mistake.” Pushing millions of people into poverty and starvation is not just a “mistake.” These are crimes.
Basic civil, human, and economic rights were violated under demonstrably fraudulent pretenses. The sacrifices we thought we were making for the common good were sacrifices made in vain. Unlawful lockdowns demoralized the population and ruined lives. The tragic reality is that this was all for nothing. The only way to prevent these events from recurring is to exhaustively investigate not just the origin of the virus, but every corrupt and misguided decision made by politicians, NGOs, public health organizations, and scientific institutions made since its fateful emergence.
The War on Reality

The most important component that we must admit, that if the past 18 months of the American Media and the Government mechanisms has successfully (to some extent) waged a war on our Reality and therefore on our minds, they have been practicing and working this angle for more than 10-20 years. Every year just pushing a bit more, until which they had to move full force to prevent another 4 years of the Trump presidency. This effort for the past 10-20 years has been fought in the minds and souls of those we would call Media, but the seeds had been sown for decades as the following piece shows.

American conservatives never waged a culture war. Conservatives certainly fought, there is no denying that. They fought with every bit of obstruction and scandal their operatives could muster. But this was not a culture war. Rather, America’s conservatives fought a political war over culture. Republicans used cultural issues to gain—or to try to gain—political power. Their brightest minds and greatest efforts went into securing control of judiciary, developing a judicial philosophy for their appointees, securing control of the Capitol, and developing laws that could be implemented in multiple state houses across the nation. No actual attempt to change the culture was attempted.
Culture wars

It has been a sincere puzzle to me how the conservatives have so many times just failed to wage the right war against the socialists and against those that would silence others for their brand of Justice. But this article spells it all out and shows what has happened over the past 50-60 years to make such in-roads to our democracy and into the minds of our citizens. This formation of the Federalist 2.0, is intended to really accelerate the acceptance and adoption of the Conservative values, and reinstate the discussion many years ago the founding fathers had that resulted in the original Federalist Papers. It is intended to set in stone the concepts that all civilized men and women should strive to minimize the negative impact of each human's desires for their own vices, and their own sins. The following shows this quote in detail:

Values must be forged. Utopias must be imagined. Ideas must be tailored for mass intellectual appeal. Paths to communicate these ideals must be cleared. The inevitable shall happen: old orthodoxies shall go stale and brittle. New crises shall discredit them in their brittleness. Then the well-placed culture warrior will have both the arguments and the networks needed to inspire the rising generation. That generation will learn how their fathers and mothers created the mess they are now in. Gradually, then suddenly, our people will turn to the light.
This is a long process, but a true one. This is the proven path of the culture warrior.
Culture wars

Keep in mind, we are not "arrogant know it alls" that think this is the only way, we challenge others to build a better philosophy that can minimize the most pain and suffering for the widest groups of a country or civilization. Also, we are wise enough to know that, given time, if these ideas are adopted, these systems and efforts will become corrupted as well. Federalist 2.0 is looking to setup a system to allow for the effective "break away" organization that would help resolve this tendency for mankind to embrace the darkness of their soul. So, yes, there is a war, it is on the minds of those that live on this planet, it is on the culture that has defined the existence of so many people that live on this planet and desire to preserve their way of living and finally, yes, there is a war on our souls, not to liberate the human soul, but to capture that soul and if possible extinguish that soul to ensure they remain productive to those whom would govern them... yes, when that time comes, that portion of the population will become a slave to the state.

It’s important to understand that this 50-year war on America’s soul has not occurred because our progressive friends are evil. No indeed. It is occurring because liberals cannot believe that their true religion of saving the world with politics and government hasn’t yet delivered the equality and equity that they know is just around the corner. So, as I keep saying, our progressive friends are advertising their primitivism by assuming that malevolence, the evil intent of white oppressors, is the only thing that is preventing the glorious millennium. Do you mind if I repeat the key quote from Mircea Eliade in The Myth of the Eternal Return?
[S]uffering proceeds from the magical action of an enemy, from the breaking of a taboo, from entering a baneful zone, from the anger of a god -- and when all other hypotheses have proven insufficient -- from the will or the wroth of the Supreme Being. (p.97) The primitive... cannot conceive of an unprovoked suffering; it arises from a personal fault... or from his neighbor's malevolence... but there is always a fault at the bottom of it[.]
50 year war on American Soul

The overall truth, from the secular perspective is that there is no God, as such, so that there must be a better way to use government to the benefit of all. Some of the most basic Common Sense understanding then falls to the wayside. Some of those ideas are as follows regarding the assumptions being held by socialism or wokeness:

1) Government Assistance and Management in Society is Good

Federalist 2.0 Concern: If government assistance for all aspects of life is good, what happens when all people do what they want, when they want it ,with funding from the government? For example, what would happen if all families decided to open restaurants at the same time? The most basic question would be, who would eat at your restaurant? Second question, who is doing everything else?

2) Government has the ability to remove ALL Inequities

Federalist 2.0 concern: If government is given the responsibility to remove all inequities, how would they go about that? Would they convince the people to all have the same desires, all the same skills and all the same wants? Or better, can the government be concerned about dividing this up to the component parts? The answer is of course we can conceive of this approach, but to execute on this approach there would be significant convincing needed to help people abandon old ways, which of course they will not…

3) Government is responsible for ensuring an equal distribution of resources

Federalist 2.0 concern: If the reason for strife and inequity is the nature of some group or race, then would it not be the responsibility for the government to work to stop that group to prevent that group from succeeding, to take that which is everyone's and give it to those whom deserve it? Would it not be the right thing to do? Remove that which has been taken and give it to those whom deserve it. Yes, this is the logical answer. Now, who should be in charge of that process? There are no Angels, finding that saint is an impossible task. What do we do then?

In all this, these three things that we can ask government to do, they all must be tackled by first destroying the minds that inhabit that country, then one must destroy the culture of that country to ensure there is no back sliding and finally, those that remain in resistance they must be culled out and terminated or imprisoned to ensure they do not deviate the remaining groups.

The reality is that there are constraints on life, we can't do anything we want, things are not always fair and there will always be groups that have more or figure out how to be more than you. That is actually life, the purpose of which is for you the human in this scenario to navigate these obstacles to be a better person and to honor the Power Above. Where that sled, that mechanism, that gets us there is our Character. Which brings us to Part 2.

Part 2 - The Importance of Character

The narrative that is pushed forward is focused on the notion that both sides of the political aisle cannot properly compromise. But the notion of a compromise within this context needs to be addressed in a greater level of thought. Within this notion we must see that the very notion of compromise carries with it the assumption the both sides are using government for "good" and that there is a way to negotiate the use of government for the good of all. As this article states:

A frequent refrain of American political discourse is that “we have become terribly polarized,” and that radicals on both the right and the left have pushed people towards the extremes of our political spectrum, opening an ideological void that prevents any common ground. At the same time, another frequent refrain is that our political crisis extends from the fact that the two ruling parties of our establishment—the Democrats and the Republicansarepracticallyindistinguishable in that both are willing to compromise their core beliefs to maintain their own power. This is an interesting paradox of our time.

There then becomes the little known fact that those standing in the middle do so at the expense of the overall sanity of the country. The role of the centrist, as we discover from this article is to continue to move the needle to engage more and more government interference. Where the position of the Centrist is raised to a proposed Moral High Ground and is championed as the character that all should strive to obtain.

Ultimately what is being negotiated, is an ever growing bureaucracy to supposedly help the masses:

The “center” simply does not hold. Remember John McCain. He was often characterized by the media as a “maverick” and a centrist. That was until he ran for President against Barack Obama, when he immediately became a warmonger and a closetracist. Some will recall the talking heads warning that a McCain presidency would bring “100 years of war.” But this characterization of McCain was short-lived. After Obama won, McCain was allowed to blend back into the wallpaper of the Senate as the aging “maverick” he had been before. But then McCain would be reinvented again! When it became clear that he was a vocal opponent of Donald Trump, the same people who had actively smeared McCain insisted that he was a sacred Hero of the Republic, rehabilitating him so as to strengthen his efforts to resist the Trump agenda.

The article finishes with some great points, as our centrist heroes are actually the real mechanism to further the power for those whom benefit the most by the intervention of the government:

What, then, is the actual role of the centrist in the current political context? Centrism as a political persona is just one more manifestation of the boutique identity politics that dominate our era. Articulated as a particular form of personal identity, the “centrist” tacitly partakes in the identity-fetishism that defines the worldview of the left: a worldview in which “liberty” means state-accommodated personal autonomy where the entire field of the political is reduced to a consideration of how government can expand the conditions in which that autonomy might flourish. In this way, the centrist—notwithstanding the moral status that supposedly attends his professed “neutrality”—is, in fact, a collaborator with the radical leftism of the institutional elite.
A Study in Character

As we look at the definition of a centrist and what surrounds it, we have to abandon the notion of a higher power or that idea of God, to then embrace some sense of a cult or religious perspective from the position of a centrist. Why is that? For us to be in a position of a centrist and advocate for the good of government we have to discard basic religious and some central Christian beliefs because, in the end, positions of power within government have no boundaries and eventually become corrupt. The state or government then becomes a cult or religion.

So let’s turn to the business of the state becoming a cult or religion. As noted from this article below, as the society rejects the mainstream forms of religion, other forms of beliefs fill the void.

Most of you will have seen the news from Gallup that a majority in the USA no longer belong to an “official” religion. This is misleading. What it really means is that most no longer identify with Christianity in any of its formal denominations. The same is true in the UK: only 38% admit being Christian, and fewer still attend Church.
But this does not mean those who are outside orthodox Christianity do not belong to an official religion. Because most of them adhere to the State religion, which itself is formed of many Cults. And, of course, it is not one State, but many, all sharing the same tenets.

The author focuses in on a specific psychologist that is writing about their allegiance to these new cults or religions.

He [the psychiatrist] says he was “inspired” in his Climate Cult rites “by insights I have received from my Black psychiatric colleagues”, a clear signal of his Wokeness. These helpful blacks “put the climate crisis into proper perspective as a result of their resilience in the face of the disproportionate adverse environmental impacts and threats to their very survival, both individually and collectively.” You’d think, though, that if global warming were real, blacks would suffer least. But let that pass.

This stance, though not entirely centrist, is an effort to signal to others their superior character and their dedication to the causes, which of course can only be rectified through the use of government in their minds.

He [the psychiatrist] says “the climate crisis is inextricable from the fight for social justice, including systemic racism and health care inequities”.
Replacement of Christianity with being Paganism

In the end, we get a new reality that relies on a separate group‘s ability to define the new standard for character, in that position one can slowly migrate to a "perceived" centrist type of viewpoint. Meanwhile the conservative side tries to come up with their version, which also carries the football for more government oversight and control. Since the exercise is futile, the conservative side looses or never gains ground. They have been boxed into a corner to accept the notion government can be used for good, government should champion the March for equity and the government should be involved with equality of outcome and redistribution.

Is it not any wonder why governments break down over time to collect the weight of those that wish to do good and be paid handsomely to do it? Does it not force you as a citizen to have thoughts of hatred for the whole democracy stance? There is one Philosopher that hated democracy, that was Plato.

In 399bc Socrates was put on trial by a small group of fellow citizens acting as democratic citizen-prosecutors. He was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and introducing new gods, neglecting those of the city, which existed as an object of civic patriotism. Socrates was convicted of these charges, before being imprisoned and finally executed. Plato was repulsed by his city’s failure to benefit from Socrates and the execution influenced his conclusion that democracy is antithetical to philosophy.
Democracy — Rule by the Ignorant
Plato believed that expertise is the critical attribute of a leader; He criticizes democracy of seldom producing such characters. Rather, it elects popular spinsters who are effective in manipulating popular opinion.

From a Federalist 2.0 perspective the challenges that we see between Plato (A Rationalist) and Aristotle (An Empiricist) was very telling of that time, the beginning of "philosophical" thinking, the beginning or looking at the meaning of mankind. As these stories play out we see there is a substantial difference in thinking between how Plato sees the world and how Aristotle sees the world, we will not go into the details of those differences as there are volumes of books that debate this issue to no end. For our purposes, in Federalist 2.0, we will know that Plato, given his distain for the notion of Democracy, opined for the day that civilizations were able to build a professional class of people. People that were studied in their area of interest and in politics they were "Classes" of people that learned what is the best way to manage a society.

From the mind of Aristotle we have a rejection of that notion, for the general phenomenon that one has common sense and would be able to navigate decisions that would benefit the society as a whole, through the observation of the world around them. Aristotle also advocated for the notion that there is a natural power or voice in us all that can tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher who was a student and admirer of Plato, criticized his teacher’s purely theoretical approach. Aristotle pursued political knowledge with a historical appreciation and practical sensibilities which reflected the epistemological divide between the two great thinkers — Plato a rationalist and Aristotle an empiricist.
Ignoring the lower class population was dangerous according to Aristotle, and likewise, notions such as a frequently idle warrior population were simply impractical. Kings should take advice from philosophers and they should also benefit from the advice of their citizenry. This mode of the constitution is thought to bring more unity than one preventing political dialogue between the ruled and their rulers.
While there have been instances of tyranny arising from democracy, as noted in the previous chapter, democracy has been widely successful. An article from the Economist claims that populations have turned on autocrats for good reason:
Democracies are on average richer than non-democracies, are less likely to go to war and have a better record of fighting corruption. More fundamentally, democracy lets people speak their minds and shape their own and their children’s futures. That so many people in so many different parts of the world are prepared to risk so much for this idea is testimony to its enduring appeal”.
Why Plato hated democracy

So as we see then, the importance of this dynamic that has played out over time, the first one (Based on the notion that we "Can Know" what is good for ourselves) from Plato's world and the second dynamic (Based on a perspective we can only know what is good through experience and understanding the world around us) from Aristotle's world. These two perspectives evolved into the known elements we struggle with today:

1) Government can do good - Plato

2) Decisions require the knowledge and experience in time of the individual - Aristotle

Where we now have to go to the place where those that propose the first premise, as we have discussed at the beginning of this article, requires some element of understanding so that we can build a society on this notion, we have to automatically assume a political class (Or if one is not designed, one will form on it's own) and we know this through common sense and through experience. Is this a good thing? As we have articulated here at the Federalist 2.0, we argue that this is NOT a good thing, due to the fallibility of mankind's heart and inability to not be consumed by vice and then be positioned into making bad decisions for the citizens.

But ultimately, this position of Plato, has played out through the centuries within central Europe that eventually lead to many wars and very bad results. To this day, there remains a "political class" that justifies their existence by the "Needs" of society, and define Character with in those boundries. Longer term, this approach is absent of the notion of a higher power, of God, because the growth of the state and all its "Good" cannot be interrupted by the notion of something greater, while driven by the vice of pride that as one's character is perfected the more "Good" you can do with government.

In contrast, we find that the natural tendency of the human heart needing to experience the pain of the sins we inflict on the most common of us, gives us the grace to make equitable decisions across many groups and many individuals, and forges a TRUE character of compassion and willingness to help others in their struggles. This Aristilian approach requires the notion of God to ensure that the society's focus is on the health and character of the human Soul and the vessel in which it resides, the human heart (body).

Within this context of the Aristilian approach, we find the birth of the spiritual battle with the state (government) such that the inevitable result being the birth of the United States of America and the founding documents that were created. The essence of this knowledge that Aristotle professed, combined with Christian teachings, brought into the world a culture and social philosophy that has not been found before, unleashing the human potential that has now put over 7 Billion people on the planet to date.

As such, if the Aristilian way is steeped in the notion of the combination of individual responsibility and the framework of a religious concept, which manufactures men and women of True character, then what is the opposite? The opposite is the Platilian approach and is the rejection of the notion of God, or of a higher power, this perspective is steeped in the secular approach. The notion that the state, those that hold the power of the state, are best suited (have the best character) for managing the moral and spiritual well being of it's citizens, that the separation of a military class, political class and business class will best suite the citizens of all.

We know, for a fact through common sense, that this is false. That here in America you can become any of these professions and that you can achieve any of these things successfully through hard work and good character, well until now. The climate we currently face socially and politically can and will change this trajectory forever. The influence of the European stance that a Class system is helpful and appropriate ignores the working class, those that provide the muscle that get it done. Let's explore in more detail what mechanism best serves those that believe in a Class system and how that system has transformed into the Socialist systems that are being embraced across the globe today.

Part 3 - Propaganda's Usefulness

What is the primary mechanism that one can use when trying to manage the perceptions of the citizens of a country? What is this tool called when it is being used to sway and change opinion and decisions of the masses? It is called Propaganda. Here at the Federalist 2.0 we are no big fans of Noam Chomsky, but his work in this area of propaganda shared the notion that you can "manufacture consent" as far back as in the 1980s, which we do see in the same way. As such, there has been some debate whether this can still be done through the mechanisms we have today.

“I don’t think the Internet and social media changes the propaganda model at all,” Chomsky told MacLeod. “The propaganda model was about the major media institutions, and they remain — with all the social media and everything else — the primary source of news, information and commentary. The news that appears in social media is drawn from them. So, if you look at the news on Facebook, it comes straight from the major media. They don’t do their own investigations.”
One change in the digital age, Chomsky noted, is that Americans have an easier time staying in political “bubbles.”
“People tend to go to things that just reinforce their own opinions,” Chomsky explained. “So, you end up with bubbles. And it is all across the spectrum. The people on what is called the left see the left media, the people on the right see the right media. And the level of material is, of course, much more shallow.”
Chomsky manufacturing consent

As we dive into the final component of this piece we need to be clear, there is no "equitable" nature of "propaganda". This is the argument that is made, "Each side has their own propaganda!" is shouted from the roof tops as the battle for the "Best" propaganda commences. We are the Federalist 2.0, do not see our works as Propaganda, we seek the TRUTH, and in the TRUTH there is no propaganda. Let's keep it simple, is 1 plus 1 equal 2? Of course it is, but some philosophies would argue the nature of the number 1 and that of the plus sign and that of the equal sign. This may be a unique banter that is in the nonsense, but people are caught into this thinking.

The purpose of language is to efficiently communicate between humans, if we communicate in honest ways and do so to meet each other's needs, there is NO PROPAGANDA. The socialists and wokeness folk will push to say this is not so, to justify their propaganda efforts, to free themselves of their guilt and their sense that they might be doing wrong. The essence of Truth has no Propaganda. That's it.

As such, Federalist 2.0 claims and approaches are not based in Propaganda, we do not motivate you the reader to do things that you would not normally do through the veil of vice and sin. We do not want you to loose your soul and make choices that impact your own free will and impact other people's free will. We seek the Truth, we seek the culture and political systems that provide you the most freedom to server the Creator (God), to raise and enjoy your family, and to contribute in a meaningful way to your community. This, as the founding fathers where reaching for, is what we can call "Pursuit of Happiness".

If you thinking all of this is hogwash, let's take a short ride back before Trump was elected, when a writer did a great piece on the coming Trump win and what it would do if it happened:

In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.
After the Republic

So what has been the tool used to shift us away from the truth that can help the most people, most citizens lead a life in which they can be happy? The propaganda by the Socialists that have taken over the Democratic Party. As noted, at the core of this is the inability to push forward "propaganda" with the TRUE belief in God. So what has been the tool used in the past 40-50 years is the notion of a Secular approach to everything and with the related embrace of sin. Remember "What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas", note the secrecy around what happens in Washington DC and the crazy underworld playgrounds that the elite are engaged...

...As such "Secular Destruction"is the root cause.

In the creation of the Federalist 2.0, it is our goal and commitment to you the reader, to share with you the pieces of the original intent of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence and why it is critical that we claim this moral imperative to ensure the health and safety of our future generations and our capacity to continue as the Originally Planned United States of America.

Come join the Federalist 2.0 effort, help us resurrect the beliefs and understandings that made this United States of America the greatest nation on the planet to date. Let's make America great once more!

In the end, what do you have to lose?.... Maybe you can be Publius too

- Publius

(C) 2021

(TM) Federalist 2.0

Great Book references as mentioned in the War on Culture Article.

Friedrich A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” in The Intellectuals: A Controversial Portrait, ed. George Huszar (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1960), 371–84.

Musa al-Gharbi, “Seizing the Means of Knowledge ProductionHeterodox Academy (4 August, 2019).

Robert Putnam, “From Generation to Generation” in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community, 2nd ed (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2020), 247-276.

148 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page