Steve Sailer coined the term ‘World War T‘ to describe the progressive push to turn ‘transgender’ people into a golden group of holy victims. Now that most Americans venerate ordinary sodomites, a new group needs to be elevated to keep the cycle fresh, so it’s on to people who alter their appearance and bearing to ‘become’ a new gender.

Most of this has been circulating in academia for decades, but it’s taken a while for a critical mass of graduates from liberal arts programs to re-enter the broader society and repeat the gender-as-social-construct slogans.

So, why do otherwise ordinary people, who might not even be aware that transgender people exist, suddenly act as if it’s the most important issue in the world? It’s because it’s on the docket as a crucial social issue by the state religion, which is embodied in the progressive spirit. Expressing love for transgender people and striking out at unbelievers is a way to show piety to the spirit of prog.

The first recruits for the vanguard tend to be misfits and weirdos. One of the attractions of World War T to these types is that it allows them to instantly rise in status with little effort. If they grow their hair out, start wearing makeup, and call themselves a woman — ‘poof!’ — they gain a protected status. While in previous times, they would have endured more scorn and humiliation for cross-dressing, now all of prog’s faithful know that it’s their obligation to protect such people and to give them favored treatment.

Out of pity for the combatants in World War T, it should be pointed out that it’s the only safe, official way for them to signify membership in their dark, barbaric, and rebellious religion. The people who undergo extensive surgeries and hormone treatments to mutilate themselves into a facsimile of the opposite sex tend to sacrifice their happiness as well. They destroy part of themselves to act as sacred avatars for the masses, to become magic eunuchs of a sort.

Regret for these sorts of surgeries tends to be sky-high, as are suicide rates. Parents who pervert their children into becoming such magic eunuchs — some of whom are receiving national television coverage and veneration — are often sacrificing the future happiness of their progeny for social status and a feeling of ecstatic holiness in the moment.

Secular people who may have thought they were leaving behind the “God Delusion” often find themselves swept up in these religious manias, because such impulses separated from ritual and orthodoxy tend to spiral into chaotic outbursts.

The creation of eunuch classes is not entirely abnormal in history, nor is according to them special social or religious status (as is often harped upon in gender studies courses in universities). It is abnormal for it to happen in a nominally Christian society (the tradition is more associated with Asian cultures and those influenced by them), but the US is not Christian in any meaningful sense anymore, apart from vestigially.

To fight in this war of words is to gain new meaning in life, with real evildoers and moral heroes. Those who are ‘transphobic’ must be scourged from polite society, forced out of their companies, and censored from prestigious publications. It’s also a convenient way to assault remaining religious groups which have not surrendered entirely to the forces of prog.

Just as the stodgy old priests were getting comfortable with sodomy, it’s time to get them comfortable with lopping off the cocks of eight year old boys, feeding them oestrogens, and telling them that they’re girls. Just when your wife became comfortable with having a few gay friends, it’s time to send a man who calls himself a woman into the women’s shower at the gym, where he will nonchalantly soap his balls while pretending not to be male-gazing all over his fellow ‘women.’

Most of the people who might have been motivated to resist have surrendered preemptively, or otherwise never even realized what was happening in the first place.

Subjects and citizens in any political system expect to be able to complain to their superiors, and to have those complaints heard, if not always translated into action.

Part of this process is necessary to govern over a territory or an institution. If something is screwed up, if someone has a problem with your authority, you’re better off having that person come to you directly than to have them conspiring with someone else to take matters into their own hands. Having people come to you with their problems at all is a sign of power, because people don’t bother coming to the weak when they face a dilemma. Because of the difficulty involved in handling all the complaints of any territory of significant size, the subsidiarity principle is what’s supposed to keep that all manageable.

You don’t want a father petitioning the President when little Billy next door breaks the former man’s window with a foul ball. You should hope that that father should be able to work it out with little Billy’s father without requiring the intervention of the highest power in the land.

Unfortunately, as anyone with much experience with modern constituents can tell you, a lot of politicians receive ridiculous complaints and petitions of this nature from people who attribute deity-like powers to their political representatives. These are sometimes crackpots and idiots, but the smarter types will often fall to the impulse, also. This may also be related to secularism. If people no longer pray to saints or gods, they instead pray to politicians and celebrities, writing letters and making phone calls that might as well be to Santa Claus.

The impulse is still there, and the politician is more than happy to profane any sacred impulse that he can make use of.

Most politicians, really all politicians above the local level, tend to outsource this grievance-hearing to bureaucratic staff. If your receive a letter back from your representative, there’s a good chance that it was drafted off a template and signed by stamp or by a variety of staffers who have learned how to forge the legislator’s signature owing to repetition.

When the politician does hear the grievances of his people outside of a controlled environment (like a ‘town hall meeting’), it’s usually through the intermediary of a campaign consultant or some other professional campaign staffer. The populace comes to be aggregated, sampled, and understood through poll results. There does tend to be a disconnect between the political representative and the people in his district or state, because he is not really in active dialogue with them.

The way to buy access to a legislator is to pad his campaign coffers or to help him get his cronies elected, which has a similar effect. If you don’t have money, but you control a bank of voters, you can also broker some deals with the legislator. If you look at the personal schedule of any legislator, it is mostly full of personal meetings with these sorts of influence buyers when they are not attending to ceremonial legislative business or campaigning. If we look at a political system as you would a corporation, these people are the customers, and the politician is in the service business. Individual voters and their problems will usually be fobbed off to the appropriate state or federal bureaucracy.

In the same way as Facebook’s customers are not the users (the users’ attention and personal information is the product), a legislator’s customers are his campaign donors, and he tends to provide a pretty high level of service to those customers depending on how much power and influence he has. What lobbyists do is help to broker these deals, set prices, write legislation, and help their clients get results from the politicians whom they hire.

The political problems that most Americans have tend to be related to how this system is structured, which is not how it’s marketed to the American people. They want to believe that they have a voice, but because of the uselessness of a single vote (or even a ridiculous petition), they have no meaningful way of having their grievances heard and acted upon. That breeds resentment, political instability, and eventually, civil conflict.

What the media accomplishes to varying levels of success is to channel this grievance cycle into safe channels, and away from more potentially destabilizing ones. If you don’t like gay marriage, you vote for Rick Santorum during the Republican presidential primaries and spend the rest of the year grousing. If you want single payer healthcare, you can vote for Elizabeth Warren in the primaries, and then vote Hillary in the general election as a consolation prize.

According to democratic apologia, voting acts as a sink for discontent, which makes the system more stable, politically, than an authoritarian system in which rebellion and war are the only means of creating major change. In the US, political changes that would ordinarily require war or revolution can happen like complex business deals do, with a lot of stakeholders in government and industry having a hand in bringing about incredible changes in the structure of society without provoking open rebellion.

While the American system has many apologists who might tell you otherwise, it’s under-performing, and behaving more erratically as time goes on. The typical populist complaint is that the system is corrupt (which is true). The defeatist complaint is that the people are corrupt (which is also true). As a political system, modern bureaucratic democracy exists to suppress volatility, which is to say to suppress the flow of accurate information about real conditions in society, which must come through dynamism and variation.

This makes it so that the political structure appears to be robust on the surface, but internally, it becomes fragile. There is such a thing as excessive stability and stasis.