Welcome to lizard mode: living subjectively

 

Today we are witnessing libidinous need to do harm among those who claim to have philanthropic intentions. It is often said that one should follow the money to discover the source of the corruption, but money and power are mere tools being used by those engaged in social engineering to hurt humanity under the guise of being socially responsible. Remember those kids in the playground who got off on pulling the wings off of flies or who hurt little animals because the tiny creatures were incapable of defending themselves against their psychopathic tendencies? Well, the same species of psychopath has grown up and find their ideal social niche in doing harm under the guise of philanthropy and social engineering!

 

The Subjective Lie: How Governments Turn Citizens into Lizards:

 

We’ve all felt it—that low-grade hum of dread that never quite goes away. Not panic, not terror—just a constant, gnawing unease. And it’s not random. It’s engineered.  

 

Modern governments don’t need tanks or gulags anymore. They’ve found something cheaper, cleaner: subjectivity. The idea that truth isn’t fixed. That reality bends to consensus. That what’s “true” today can be “problematic” tomorrow. And every time they sell that lie, they flip a switch in your head—from prefrontal cortex (logic, empathy, planning) to amygdala (fear, rage, survival).  

 

Welcome to lizard mode.  

 

#Step One: Blur the Facts: 

It starts small. A politician says, “This isn’t about facts—it’s about how you “feel”.  A news headline reads, “Experts disagree,” even when evidence which could disprove the sanctioned narrative is deliberately being ignored. Social media algorithms reward outrage over accuracy. Suddenly, the world isn’t made of gravity and math—it’s made of opinions.  

 

And if truth is just opinion? Then nothing’s safe. Your job, your rights, your identity—they’re all up for vote. You start scanning for threats everywhere: the neighbour who supports the wrong candidate, the teacher who refused to use the “correct pronoun”, or the headline that might mean you might be next.  

 

Fear isn’t loud. It’s quiet. It’s the amygdala whispering: “They could rewrite you tomorrow!”  

 

#Step Two: Weaponize Belonging:  

Humans are pack animals. We evolved to conform—because exile meant death. Governments know this. So, they don’t force you. They just make nonconformity hurt.  

 

Call out a lie? You’re “divisive.” Question the narrative? You’re “dangerous.” Refuse to play along? You’re “toxic.” The pack turns. And suddenly, your prefrontal cortex—your reasoning center—feels like a liability. Better to shut it down. Better to rage. Better to scream along.  

 

That’s not weakness. That’s biology. The amygdala doesn’t negotiate. It just wants to survive.  

 

#Step Three: Keep the Fear Simmering:  

They don’t want you terrified—just anxious. Constantly. A little cortisol drip keeps you compliant. So, they feed you contradictions: “We’re safe, but also under siege.” “We’re free but also oppressed.” “The science is settled—until it isn’t.”  

 

Each flip-flop erodes trust. Each erosion pushes you deeper into the lizard brain: fight, flee, or freeze. Never think. Never question. Just react.  

 

And the beauty of it? You do the work. You police yourself. You self-censor. You unfriend the skeptic. You cheer when the “wrong” person gets cancelled. You become the enforcer.  

 

Lizard people don’t need chains. They build their own cages.  

 

#The Endgame:

This isn’t conspiracy—it’s control. A population in amygdala mode doesn’t vote rationally. It votes emotionally. It doesn’t debate—it denounces. It doesn’t solve problems—it punishes them.  

 

And once you’re there, you’re easy. No need for gulags. Just keep the lie alive: “There’s no objective truth.” “Reality is what we say.” “You’re either with us or against us.”  

 

The prefrontal cortex dies quietly. The amygdala takes over. And suddenly, you’re not a citizen anymore. You’re a reflex. A follower. A lizard.  

 

But here’s the glitch: some of us refuse. We hate the blur. We hate the fear. We hate being told “it depends.” Because we know—truth isn’t subjective. It’s either true or it isn’t.  

 

And the second we say that out loud? The spell cracks!  

 

So, keep saying it. Keep standing outside the pack. Keep your lights on.  

 

Because the lizard brain only wins if everyone joins the chorus.  

 

And as for me? I’m not singing. I hope that you will refuse to echo the lies too.

 

#Who invented the endgame?

 

Here are the big names who shaped “Postmodern Cultural Relativism”—folks who argued truth, morality, and meaning aren’t universal but depend on context, power, language, and culture:

 

·       Michel Foucault 

  Power/knowledge combo—everything from prisons to sexuality is shaped by shifting discourses. No "objective" truth, just who controls the story.

 

·       Jacques Derrida 

  Deconstruction king. Words never pin down meaning; everything’s slippery, full of contradictions. Relativism baked into language itself.

 

·       Jean-François Lyotard

  Coined "postmodern condition"—said grand narratives (Marxism, science, progress) are dead. Knowledge is local, fragmented, legit only in its own game.

 

·       Richard Rorty

  American pragmatist twist: truth is what works in a community, not what matches reality. Irony and solidarity over absolute foundations.

 

·       Jean Baudrillard

  Hyperreality guy—reality’s been replaced by signs and simulations. Culture’s a hall of mirrors; nothing’s "real" anymore.

 

·       Fredric Jameson 

  Marxist lens on postmodernism: late capitalism turns everything into pastiche, depthless images. Relativism as symptom, not solution.

 

·       Judith Butler 

  Gender as performance—identity is not fixed, it’s scripted by culture. Pushes relativism into bodies and norms.

 

If you want the "purest" relativists, Foucault and Derrida are the spine—everyone else riffed off them? We must ask why would anyone wish to pull the carpet out from underneath the feet of our understanding of reality itself?

 

A Scriptural Perspective:

 

From a Christian perspective, the idea that “truth is relative” is consistently rejected as a Satanic lie. The Bible presents truth as “objective, grounded in God’s character”, and knowable rather than something that shifts with personal preference or cultural mood. Here are the main ways Scripture addresses this idea.

 

#1. Truth is objective and rooted in God

 

The Bible does not treat truth as something humans invent. It presents truth as something that “exists independently of us”, because it comes from God.

 

·       John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”  Jesus does not say he teaches truth or offers one version of it; he identifies himself “as” truth.

 

·       Numbers 23:19: God is not described as flexible or contradictory; His word is dependable.

 

·       In Biblical thought, truth is not relative because God is not relative.

 

 

#2. Relativism is portrayed as moral confusion

 

Scripture often describes societies that reject objective truth as drifting into disorder and injustice.

 

·       Judges 21:25: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”   This verse is not praise; it summarizes a period of moral collapse in Israel.

 

·       Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”  This directly addresses the reversal of moral standards—one of the outcomes of relativism.

 

The Bible links “everyone defining truth for themselves” with social and spiritual breakdown.

 

#3. The Bible anticipates resistance to absolute truth

 

Scripture explicitly warns that people will prefer subjective or comforting beliefs over truth.

 

·       2 Timothy 4:3–4: People will gather teachers who tell them what they want to hear and will *“turn away from the truth.”*

 

·       John 18:38:  Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”, is often read as cynical or dismissive, reflecting skepticism rather than sincere inquiry.

 

Relativism, in this view, is not presented as intellectual progress but as “avoidance of uncomfortable truth”.

 

# 4. Relativism is linked to rejecting God, not ignorance

 

The Bible does not frame relativism primarily as a lack of information, but as a “choice”.

 

·       Romans 1:18–25: describes people who “suppress the truth” and exchange it for substitutes that suit them better.

 

This passage suggests that denying objective truth is tied to rejecting God’s authority, not merely philosophical disagreement.

 

# In summary:

 

According to the Bible:

 

·       Truth is “real, objective, and grounded in God”

·       Relativism is portrayed as “confusion”, not freedom

·       Denying truth is linked to “moral and spiritual consequences”

·       The proper response is “faithfulness to truth paired with humility and love”

 

So here are some memes that I have created that pinpoint the nauseating contradictions of Postmodern Cultural Relativism:

 

~ I exist to distill truth to cure the WOKE mind virus. Money & power are mere tools to fulfill psychopaths' libidinous need to do harm!

 

~ Limited responsible government becomes functionally impossible when subjective feelings trump objective reality!

 

~ No one with good intentions appeals to emotion as a substitute for using reason based on ethics, epistemology, & ontology.

 

~ A psyop attacking the reason & empathy of the prefrontal cortex is allowing the fear & rage of the amygdala to assume control.