Dr. Scott Lively: Why I Stand with Trump and ICE

 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Why I Stand With Trump and ICE: We Need Temporary Strong Measures to Preserve Hope for a Restored American Republic Like Cultural Chemo, Short-Term Autocracy is the Only Remedy for Late-Stage Marxism Scott Lively Jan 20    READ IN APP   The Warning of a Surveillance Society As Leo Hohmann recently warned in his analysis of the Minnesota crisis and broader immigration enforcement trends: “A chilling show-your-papers society is taking shape right before our eyes, and ICE’s partnership with global data-collection firm Palantir is pushing it to the next level.” This observation strikes at the heart of a profound concern. What begins as targeted tools for securing borders and enforcing immigration law carries the grave potential to expand into routine domestic surveillance, compelling citizens to produce documentation in everyday contexts far removed from national security imperatives. Palantir’s advanced capabilities in data aggregation and analysis, already deeply integrated with ICE and other federal entities, exemplify how technology designed for efficiency can become the infrastructure of control when wielded without sufficient safeguards. The Hijacking of Freedom Under Cultural Marxism This development fits within a larger, decades-long pattern in which American freedom has been incrementally hijacked and repurposed to advance a centralized system infused with Cultural Marxist principles. Barack Obama stands as the chief—though not the sole—culprit on the left in this scenario, having leveraged his presidency to accelerate the consolidation of power under a uniparty framework that prioritizes managerial consensus over constitutional limits. Institutions have been co-opted to promote collectivist uniformity, managed societal outcomes, and expanded state authority at the expense of individual liberty and self-governance. The left’s vision culminates in what I term “O-Stalinism”: a form of Marxist tyranny masquerading as utopia, where centralized control enforces ideological purity through surveillance, economic dependency, and cultural homogenization. The Adams Principle and the Failure of Incrementalism John Adams articulated the essential precondition for our system when he stated that the Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. In an era where that shared moral foundation has been systematically undermined—replaced by leftist ideological conformity enforced through bureaucratic capture, cultural institutions, and technological means—the traditional niceties and incremental adjustments of republican governance no longer provide adequate protection for liberty. Entrenched forces within the administrative state, academia, corporate spheres, and even segments of law enforcement have become too embedded for piecemeal reform to dislodge them effectively. The Stark Binary: No Middle Ground Remains Observers increasingly confront a stark binary: a Trumpian approach characterized by strong executive leadership—often described as quasi-monarchical in its reliance on decisive action, direct institutional confrontations, and America First priorities—versus an accelerating drift toward O-Stalinism under progressive centralization. There is no viable middle ground at this historical juncture; our society is too completely polarized, with victory emerging as a zero-sum game. Only one side can prevail, and only at the expense of the other—either through the dismantling of entrenched leftist structures or their further entrenchment at the cost of remaining freedoms. Advocates of the Trump model see his methods—aggressive border enforcement, economic nationalism, and bold challenges to bureaucratic overreach—as the sole viable counter to the consolidation of power observed in preceding periods. Temporary Strong Measures as a Remedial Bridge This is not, however, a call for enduring autocracy. The debate persists: Does thorough restoration demand prolonged autocratic dismantling, or can electoral success combined with cultural renewal ultimately prevail? I maintain the hopeful view that any strong executive interventions required—however they may appear quasi-monarchical—must be temporary and purpose-limited. Their role is remedial: to dismantle the infrastructure of the Marxist collective that has proliferated within our institutions, secure functional borders, terminate policies that erode national unity, and reestablish impartial rule of law. The Path of Electoral and Cultural Reclamation With that groundwork restored, the enduring strategy lies in sustained electoral and cultural reclamation. This entails returning to the values and aspirations of America’s golden years as the great Melting Pot—roughly the mid-20th century, prior to the cultural upheavals of later decades. That period featured assimilation grounded in a shared moral framework: the family as society’s foundational unit, ethics informed by faith as a common touchstone, government limited in scope and respectful of personal initiative, and immigrants integrated into a cohesive national identity rather than divided by multiculturalism. It was an age when self-reliance, responsibility, and civic virtue supported widespread prosperity and social cohesion. Achieving this reclamation demands persistent effort: securing consecutive electoral majorities to place leaders aligned with original constitutional principles, reforming education to convey accurate history instead of ideological constructs, strengthening family structures through supportive policies and cultural reinforcement, and cultivating a public discourse rooted in open reasoning rather than compelled uniformity. Trump’s decisive leadership can function as the necessary bridge—creating the security and latitude for these grassroots, organic renewals to take hold and endure. Acknowledging the Risks of the Chosen Path That said, candor requires acknowledging the grave risks inherent in this path. There exists a real danger of sliding into right-wing totalitarianism, which would prove nearly as destructive as a fully realized left-wing version. Power concentrated in strong executive hands, even temporarily, can entrench itself if vigilance falters or if unforeseen crises provide pretext for permanence. If my longstanding views on prophecy prove accurate, such an outcome may be unavoidable in the broader trajectory of end-times events. The Final Choice: Restoration or Inevitable Collapse Nevertheless, the Trump-aligned path at least preserves the possibility of American restoration—a return to constitutional self-rule under moral foundations—while the Marxist alternative offers only an inexorable descent into hell on earth, with no exit short of total societal collapse. In this hour of decision, I stand with Trump and the enforcement tools now in play, not out of blind allegiance, but because they represent the pragmatic, time-bound means to arrest decline and safeguard hope for the republic our founders intended. The window remains open, however narrow, for those committed to principled resolve and sustained renewal. To put it another way, like Cultural Chemo, short-term Autocracy is the only remedy for Late-Stage Marxism. The patient isn’t guaranteed to survive it, but the alternative is certain death.