In contemporary society, many ideologues and agents of the state anchor their moral positions in the government’s framework of policies, procedures, and fiat laws, particularly within the family law system. This reliance on the state’s moral authority, however, is not grounded in consent but in force, coercion, and the implicit threat of violence—symbolized by “guns.” This article explores how this coercive foundation disincentivizes deep thought, reflection, and empathetic dialogue, especially when agents of the state and their supporting ideologues confront an accused or alienated parent who employs reasoned arguments. The system’s reliance on force fosters a cycle of mockery, slander, and reductive tactics, usually ensnaring children in the process, and disincentivizing the use of critical thinking and reason through employing circular reasoning in their foundational premise while granting those who wield power with an intoxicating sense of unearned moral superiority.
The state’s moral authority in family law derives from its ability to enforce compliance through court orders, legal penalties, the fear of separating a parent from their children, and the threat of incarceration. This coercive power, rather than mutual agreement or ethical persuasion, underpins the system’s legitimacy. For ideologues and family law agents—such as judges, social workers, or custody evaluators—this creates a moral shortcut. They adopt the system’s positions as inherently just, not because of rigorous analysis, but because the state’s “guns” lend an illusion of righteousness. An alienated parent who challenges a custody ruling with well-reasoned arguments about their child’s best interests is often met with dismissal or hostility, as the system’s authority requires no deeper justification than its ability to command force—an ability that can embolden agents to feel untouchable, even godlike, in their control over others’ lives.
This reliance on coercion stifles critical thinking among family law agents and ideologues. When moral authority is outsourced to the state, there is little incentive to scrutinize the logic of court mandates or consider the human cost of their enforcement. An accused parent who articulates a nuanced critique of a biased custody evaluation may be mocked as “unstable” or “non-compliant,” their reasoning reduced to a straw man. The system’s agents, secure in the state’s coercive power, have no need to engage with the parent’s arguments. Instead, they lean on circular reasoning: the system’s rules are just because they are enforced, and they are enforced because they are just. This intellectual laziness dims their capacity for reflection and perpetuates shallow decision-making, while the power to dismiss and marginalize fosters a sense of unearned moral superiority among those on the “winning side.”
The absence of fair-minded dialogue is stark in family law, where the system’s coercive power emboldens agents to attack rather than listen. An alienated parent who questions the fairness of a visitation schedule, citing evidence of their strong bond with their child, may face slanderous accusations of being “manipulative” or “unfit.” The system’s ability to enforce its will—through court orders or law enforcement—creates a sense of invulnerability, rendering genuine engagement unnecessary. By reducing the parent’s arguments to caricatures, agents avoid confronting the moral complexity of separating a child from a loving parent. This tactic not only silences dissent but also reinforces the system’s authority, as the “guns” behind it ensure compliance, intoxicating those who wield this power with the ability to ruin lives at will.
The corrosive influence of this coercive dynamic is amplified by tactics rooted in radical strategies, such as those outlined by Saul Alinsky, who famously wrote, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.” Such ideas, emphasizing emotional force over reasoned debate, have permeated government institutions, including family law. The system, subverted to act like radicals, employs ridicule to attack and marginalize alienated parents who challenge its mandates. This creates a web of force within the government, where agents prioritize mockery and reduction over fair-minded arbitration, often becoming drunk on the power to cancel and dismiss, further fueling their sense of moral superiority and godlike control.
Children caught in these disputes are particularly vulnerable to the system’s coercive narrative. When family law agents and ideologues mock or vilify an alienated parent, they create a distorted image that children may internalize. A parent who resists illogical court mandates—such as restrictive visitation based on unsubstantiated claims—may be portrayed as a threat, despite their reasoned efforts to maintain a relationship with their child. The system’s authority, backed by force, can easily sway impressionable children to view their non-conforming parent with suspicion or hatred. This manipulation exploits the state’s power to shape perceptions, sidelining the parent’s deep reasoning in favor of the system’s simplistic, coercive narrative, while those enforcing it revel in their ability to command such outcomes.
The government and its agents benefit from this dynamic, as it solidifies their control over family disputes. By fostering a culture of ideologues who defend the system’s rulings without question, the state ensures its moral authority remains unchallenged. This creates a feedback loop: the system’s coercive power validates the agents’ and ideologues’ stances, while their attacks on dissenting parents reinforce the system’s legitimacy. In this cycle, there is no need to engage with an alienated parent’s arguments or consider the emotional toll on children. The threat of force—whether through court sanctions or social stigma—suffices to maintain dominance, leaving little room for empathy or alternative perspectives, as those on the “winning side” grow increasingly intoxicated by their unchecked power to marginalize and destroy.
This coercive framework has devastating consequences for families and society. The system’s reliance on “guns” not only alienates parents but also risks fracturing parent-child bonds, as children are coerced into adopting the state’s narrative over their own experiences. The circular reasoning underpinning this authority—where the system’s rules are justified by their enforcement—dims the intellectual and moral clarity needed to address complex family dynamics. By reducing and slandering parents who challenge illogical mandates that may harm children and violate their natural rights as parents, the system perpetuates division and erodes trust in institutions. The result is a family law system that prioritizes control over empathy, leaving children and parents alike caught in a web of coercion, while those wielding power become ever more entrenched in their godlike sense of superiority.
The use of force, state sanctioned or otherwise, as a foundational premise for authority, moral arguments, and viewpoints is a powerful spell that keeps people asleep. Sleeping beauty, aka the people, will never wake up until this intoxicating spell granting unearned moral superiority on the one side, and fear on the other, is broken.
To break this cycle, individuals must reject the illusion of moral authority created by coercive power (as discussed in a previous article, innocence may also be able to break the spell). Parents, children, and even agents of the state and their ideologues must reclaim their capacity for critical thinking and empathy, questioning so-called authority’s narratives and engaging with opposing viewpoints. By challenging the circular reasoning that equates enforcement with justice—where rules are deemed just simply because they can be enforced—we can dismantle the intoxicating power that fuels the unearned moral superiority and god complexes among those who command force. Only then can we protect children from being weaponized against their parents and ensure that all disputes, including family disputes, are resolved with the depth, fairness, and the authenticity that they deserve, free from the shadow of “guns” and the arrogance they inspire.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
