Miss O’Doherty is a little less forgiving than I will be today, but nonetheless, it is a perspective that deserves attention. Some people respond to pastoral care. And some people respond to swift kicks in the rear.

While I won’t be bringing the Irish fire and cynicism of O’Doherty here, her apt description of the Hegelian Dialectic was the inspiration for this piece. Having taught the mechanism in the classroom and written on it for several years, it is a handy pattern model that even young minds have been able to understand. We all have the Patriot Act as a real-life example.

In addition, O’Doherty provided me the actual name of another phenomenon I’d taught for years. We will show its relationship to the Hegelian Dialectic later.

I say all of that as a hat tip to O’Doherty. She does largely good work in moving the needle and, as a seemingly staunch Catholic political writer, provides necessary reminders of the salvation of souls that is really important in the world this side of heaven.

So onto the story.

On Ice and One Conspiracy Theory

A woman is reportedly dead after an ICE raid in Minneapolis, or so the electronic screens tell us—and the country’s citizens have sprinted toward whatever trusted narrative trench they subscribe to.

Some are raging against ICE—oppression.

Some are raging against the agitators—chaos.

Some are raging against the raging—division.

All of this—all of it—can be utilized for our ultimate goal on the path, for my ultimate thesis today and in my recent work.

The thesis: Walk away.

Already, and for quite a few days now as apparently other storylines just aren’t any better, the screen is demanding more than attention. It is demanding obedience, demanding a verdict, demanding that we choose sides before the ice even melts.

The hidden hand behind all of this? They couldn’t care less about what side we’re on, as long as we pick one. They just want us squabbling at each other and ignoring the real enemy.

It’s classic Saul Alinsky, over and over again.

This is why a perspective like the following has been bouncing around online spaces, and why it deserves serious consideration without being treated as gospel:

Obviously this psyop is an anti-ICE exercise. They need to undermine the organisation in the public eye so they can start to disband it and replace it as part of the move to automated transport controls and digital ID. What normie wouldn’t agree to that now? Another reason for this manufactured crisis….

When the reaction to a shooting is so contrived and political, you have to smell a hoax. The vigils, the protests, all the posters printed up and ready to go, shows a level of pre-planning that would not occur if the event was organic. Who’s paying for them? Hordes of loony lefties have taken to the streets across the US, whipped up by NGO agitators, calling for an end to deportations and the opening of US borders – exactly what the overlords want. Mission accomplished.

Recall that we saw similar anomalies with the Charlie Kirk event. Recall that we don’t have to completely discount some things about a perspective like O’Doherty’s just because she says other things elsewhere.

Message over messenger, remember.

Binary trap bad. Blind tribal loyalties bad.

I am not repeating O’Doherty’s words here to “prove” it true. I am repeating them because there is a way to handle the so-dubbed “conspiracy theorist.” There is a lesson to be had here. Indeed, I would guess this is exactly the point of the conspiracy theorist’s work.

Simply to move the needle.

In other words, conservatives, would you agree that everything that has transpired with this story has been decidedly “anti-ICE”?

If your answer is yes, then no matter how quacky you think an opinion like O’Doherty’s sounds, there is water to be drawn.

Her perspective once again reminds us of the habit that has had concrete poured on it for many decades: the reflexive acceptance that every public crisis is exactly what the screen presents it to be, swallowing the cell phone whole without pause. And the problem with that, regardless of the veracity of the story or the accuracy of O’Doherty’s just cynicism, is that governments have exploited fear before. Institutions have used emergencies to enact policies that would never have gotten past minimum security. Recent memory provides enough examples to know that “temporary measures” have a way of putting down roots and growing into permanent bulwarks.

This, through a different tone of voice than mine today, is what the “conspiracy theorist” is communicating.

“Hegelian Dialectic” and “Revelation of the Method”

Here is the deeper, more eternally urgent truth, the one we must start learning, even if it’s through the hard way: the conditioning and mass psychosis is real regardless. This Pavlov’s dog scenario very well could be operating through the Hegelian Dialectic—that insidious mechanism where a problem is created for the specific reason of eliciting a public reaction, specifically to levy a governing response. It doesn’t matter anymore whether or not these stories are true; that may sound heartless, but the reality is that the government-media apparatus lost our trust a long time ago and the burden of proof in on them—and must go well beyond the “evidence” they’ve been choosing to present for a national audience to witness.

This Hegelian rhythm is no mere philosophy; it is the lived phenomenon of our age, where crises like Minneapolis or viral panics splattered on electronic screens herd the masses toward acceptance of the very chains they once resisted, all presented as the inevitable white knight “fix” to the chaos they themselves concocted.

In the midst of such accelerating psyops, where deceptions breed at a pace that overwhelms well-meaning folks’ discernment, even the mere possibility of digital ID and automated systems as part of our physical bodies—tracking every movement, gating the freedom to live the Christian faith—must awaken us to the reality of MK Ultra and mass manipulation, urging the faithful to guard against the serpent’s whisper that safety and health are the greatest of virtues, and that only surrender can secure them.

Tying directly to this is the occult concept known as “Revelation of the Method,” which explains why the hidden hand gradually unveils its crimes, agendas, and control mechanisms to the public—often through symbolism, media “predictive” programming, ritual, or breadcrumbed disclosure. By exposing the obvious truth in plain sight—through films, news, or staged events—the controllers believe they transfer responsibility onto the public. If people remain passive or indifferent, their silence is taken as consent, deepening the power of the system. Even if people wake up, the inability to alter a family or friend’s remaining psychosis functions as a sort of humiliation ritual—involving ancient dark magick of which Aleister Crowley and others have spoken—conditioning humanity to accept domination while thinking they are powerless to resist. In short: they tell you what they’re doing, and if you do nothing, you’ve agreed to it.

The Holy Bible itself sets the precedent for this. Satan can move and tempt us, but God sets clear parameters as to where he can move—as a mercy to us so we can recognize it.

God Almighty and the Operation of Error

Through St Paul, God himself in Scripture warned against traipsing too far down the road of perdition. It is a part of even the awakened’s punishment for previous frivolousness—the blessing of being awake but the bane of being able to do so little about it.

2 Thessalonians II.9-11 reads:

“…Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”

[10] “God shall send”: That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth. (Douay-Rheims, traditional Catholic translation)

And Romans I.24–28:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.

The emphases on God himself ordaining the error—mine.

Romans I.24–28 is yet another example.

Similar divine chastisement and mercy is shown in the Old Testament in Exodus with the Israelites. And again with Jeremias leading to the Babylonian Exile. Sometimes God allows time to pass in order to punish us back to him; the consequence not immediately following the sin, people don’t compute the cause and effect—and don’t repent until urgency strikes, thereby making the return to God more sincere.

He allows further sin and therefore a greater distance down the road to hell as punishment for previous sins. All because his initial mercies and gentle callings were ignored.

It is frightening, once you come to understand this—people deceive themselves into believing God somehow changed between the Old and New Testaments. It is one reason why, undoubtedly, St Paul exhorts his followers to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling” (Phil II.12). Justice and mercy have always been two sides of the same divine coin.

Final Words: Free Will Is Still Ours

We do not need omniscience to notice the patterns—both with the hidden hand and with God’s response to his wayward children.

We need a spine.

And, if we are Christian, we need something rarer still to combat what’s coming: a sacramental anchor.

The screen trains false worship, false liturgy, one of reaction—all while confessing nothing, repenting of nothing, yet constantly feeling “righteous” and woke (in a “conservative way”) ourselves. It trains us to outsource our own discernment to “experts” and influencers making the buck, accepting the story before we have even asked what the story is doing to our soul. It trains us to live by impulse, by sentiment, by passion, then calls those impulses “conscience” or “God’s voice.”

That is not conscience.

It is Modernism.

And I was once just as guilty of it as anyone. Perhaps in some ways I still am.

It becomes an appetite, even an addiction, of sorts. So what do we do with a story like Minneapolis, where the only “facts” we possess come from flickering photos, often replete with the usual anomalies—discrepant timelines, heavy symbology, footage that raises more questions than it answers?

If you must acknowledge the possibility that any of this is true, do it for one second, and one second only.

Because of course, it might be.

But that isn’t the point.

After one second, let it go.

We don’t know Renee Good, or the Renee person, as someone online called her.

We don’t know Micah Kim.

We don’t know Charlie Kirk.

Instead, here’s a plan:

Do a sincere examination of conscience. Confess deeply from the heart, and if you’re Catholic, seek out a Traditional Catholic priest.

Pray to God for aid in allowing life and its ebbs and flows to maneuver you toward the truth of who God is and what he wants.

Fast from two meals on Fridays. Ask God to use it to help you fast from the feed.

Pray before posting, putting God Almighty and his commands as the absolute center piece of anything you put out there.

And if you’re married, make love to your spouse more.

Returning to the court of the King is like a man returning to oxygen after drowning. With time, and sometimes without, it simply works.

And this is where my little digital hat tip to Miss O’Doherty leaves me. She is right to be suspicious, cynical, and unapologetic in her tone—precisely because she is fighting for God first and foremost.

Watch the world if you must, sure. But do not let it watch through you.

The screen cannot absolve us, either of responsibility or sin. The screen cannot feed us. The screen cannot save us.

Only Christ can do that, and it is far past time we kneel and confess our absolute folly in all of this.