The US 'Freedom of Religion' Meta-memetic Control Narrative

The current religious freedom narrative (refer to the below images) promulgated by The US Secretary of State, conflates freedom of religion with faithistic dominionism. It's a simple equivocation. The freedom of religion narrative is in fact based upon a xenophobic dominionist imperative. It's called into service to secure support from the population on the basis of various pscyholinguistic and neurolinguistic 'hooks' or handles coded into their cognitive representations.

Adherents of the religious cults to which Secretary Pompeo belongs cannot at this point hope for a full theocratic dominionist outcome. However, they can agitate for the mitigation and minimisation of secularist imperatives. Moreover, they can work to bring about a prevailing overarching religionist dominionism according to which secular and irreligious values and peoples are held subordinate to broadly pro-religious and para-religious initiatives and imperatives. This secondary more ecumenical dominionism avails mentally ill (split from reality) fundamentalist fanatics like Secretary Pompeo with opportunities to expand their influence. Such opportunities would not be available with a scientifically and socially superior secularised system like that which is in place in China.

Pompeo's approach is scripted to establish the impression of a direct symbolic, and associated material, threat to receptive members of the intended audience. The intended audience are the targets of the narrative meme who are suffering under the imposition of group delusion which includes a split from reality (clearly, adults who believe that they have a special partnership or friendship with some kind of god being fall under a clinical psychological scientific classification). Pompeo's para-religious-cum-dominionist narrative identifies the locus of that threat as situated with the economic and political opponents of the establishment that the State Department really represents: the Communist Party of China. (These establishment groups are of the same kind as the military industrial business base that funds groups like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Australia.)

This ongoing State Department narrative appeals to longstanding cultural texts in the American national psyche that are rooted in much older religious delusional narratives, but also in local European-American historical constructions. Apart from the usual appeal to concepts associated with the fideist-theist delusional split from reality, which concepts readily accommodate dominionist imperatives, it appeals to local European American metanarratives. These include concepts of manifest destiny, liberty, and Jamesian pragmatist restatements of religionist doxastic libertarianism of the US constitution.

When the US declaration of independence was formulated in 1776, the Continental army was already engaged with the British on multiple fronts and Congress was seeking aid abroad (which came from the Dutch and then the French.) Many citizen-soldiers and supporters were descended from settlers who had fled state-religion under the control of theocratic and monarchist principalities in various parts of Europe. Forces under American general Gates won the first decisive victory at Saratoga in 1777, but other early victories were due to Spanish Louisiana Governor Bernardo Galvez.

When drafting the 1787 US Constitution, religious ecumenicalism and hyper-syncretism on the part of the American Congress were therefore a practical necessity due to political, economic, and military pressures. This approach is now being applied to the global stage in the face of a successful program of secularising globalisation by China.

- Dr Bruce Long