What are the Real Sources of Division (Part III)

Last Sunday I wrote that through all the issues of abortion, the LGBT alphabet soup, and racism we are actually divided by what is called a Marxist ‘dialectic’, an irreconcilable division between oppressor and oppressed that leads to unrelenting class warfare in which the righteous oppressed rise up against their oppressors. When the Marxist calls for compromise, he seeks to gradually break down the opposition.

Further, the radical character of the Marxist dialectic provokes a radical response. The Marxist mentality loves the language of political correctness; the Marxist mentality invents politically correct language precisely because one of their great weapons is to change the way people speak in order to change the way they think. One thing that happened during the Trump years, one reason for his popularity, was his rejection of politically correct language.

In itself that is a good thing, but whatever Trump himself thought about these things, the rejection of political correctness also opened the door for not just for crude speech, but various forms of right-wing radicalism. Yet, the right-wing radicalism was already there, provoked and finding opportunity through the anti-racist anti-white ideology of the left. This toxic mix seems to have had something to do with the attack on the Capitol on January 6, an attack that hardly served the cause of Trump or of the Republican Party.

Still, there is another sort of division that we need to observe, one that does not easily fit with the Marxist dialectic, though perhaps it both exploits and is exploited by the Marxist divide. We could call it the ‘globalist’ vs. ‘nationalist’ divide.

Before the pandemic, the signature issue that marked this divide has been the question of ‘climate change’.

What is important here is not so much the truth or falsity of climate change itself as the global solution that is proposed to address climate change. We could say that climate change has been the great issue of the “globalist” movement. Real environmentalism is basically local because ecosystems are local. Climate change has allowed the environmentalist movement to be coopted by the globalists. Basically, if you read between the lines, the power interests that make an issue of climate change want to exploit the issue to institute a rather centralized, global bureaucracy that would coordinate and direct all the countermeasures needed to slow down and stop global warming.

Those who are most resistant to the climate change propaganda are also the most suspicious of the supra-national bureaucracies like of the United Nations and similar organizations. The dissenting scientists might not have a particular beef with those organizations, but the more popular resistance movements are generally distrustful.

With the pandemic, the same dynamic has started to play out. The standard response of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing has come from the global bureaucracy connected with the WHO. There are many scientists, from different political persuasions, who dissent from the standard procedure. Nevertheless, the resistance to the pandemic regime generally comes from the same people who are already distrustful of organizations like the WHO. On the other hand, the supporters of the Covid regime are very ready to trust these organizations.

Both climate change and the pandemic involve science; the generality of the population are not scientists, so when people say ‘believe in science’ or ‘follow the science’, they are referring to the scientific ‘authorities’. What we have seen with climate change and what we now see with the pandemic is that there are the officially recognized authorities and the dissenters (who are also scientists).

Recognition as a ‘scientific authority’ is usually dependent on publication in peer reviewed journals. Nevertheless, the editors of these peer reviewed journals will often (for ideological reasons) reject articles that dissent from the standard accepted position, especially in areas that are politically contentious. That means that scientists opposing climate change have a hard time establishing their credentials because they have a hard time getting published, for purely political reasons.

With the pandemic, however, many already established scientists have dissented from the official policy of the globalist organizations. Now what we have seen is that they are discredited by being dismissed by the mainstream media (often using personal attacks), or by being censored or banned by the big social media.

“The Great Barrington Declaration” is a case in point. How many have heard of it? It is authored by three qualified university professors, one from Harvard, one from Oxford, and one from Stanford. The central affirmation is: “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.” It is signed by more than 13,000 medical and public health scientists and more than 40,000 medical practitioners.

Moreover, the silencing of dissent serves only to foster the distrust in the public health authorities. The result is that cutting through all the other divisions we now have the ‘pandemic divisions’ for which the greatest symbol is the mask. The division is not based on knowledge, but on what authority you trust, the public authority or the dissenters.

I would suggest that since the public authorities are also favoring abortion, the LGBT alphabet soup, and the Marxist BLM movement, and are in line with the World Economic Forum’s rather totalitarian ‘Great Reset’, they are not very trustworthy.



Fr. Joseph Levine graduated from Thomas Aquinas College and after a long journey was ordained to the priesthood for the Diocese of Baker, Oregon. He currently serves as pastor of St. Peter Catholic Church in The Dalles on the Columbia River.