Amidst the swelling tensions of the early gay marriage debate in The United States, Rod Dreher coined The Law of Merited Impossibility: “That will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”

Progressives condescendingly dismiss conservative fears about the direction of society, deeming the manifestation of their fears to be impossible (it will never happen), and yet simultaneously, deem such impossibilities to be political, moral, or logical inevitabilities. They are merited (when it does … you bigots will deserve it).

As most conservatives know by this point, whatever is said will never happen does in fact end up happening — often with the gleeful aid of those who said it wouldn’t.

Consequently, a new law based on The Law of Merited Impossibility, was created: The Law of Salutary Contradiction. “It’s not happening and that’s why it’s good.”

As Michael Anton explains: “While the Law of Merited Impossibility applies to the future, this one is about the present. It’s what the ruling class immediately switches to after what they insisted would never happen is happening before everyone’s eyes.”

In my view, The Law of Salutary Contradiction is not just an oscillation between is and ought. It’s cut-and-dry cognitive dissonance, onset by self-contorting loyalty to prevailing dogma. Solely afflicting our society’s (alleged, supposed, self-styled, pseudo) “high status” people, who readily deem politically contentious issues of the day as simultaneously irrelevant, fictitious, and good.

A core purpose behind this way of thinking is to ensure, irrespective of what transpires, that one’s own presumptuous ideology is affirmed, one way or another.

If the thing isn’t happening, great! You can now feel way smarter than you actually are! That thing? Ha! That’s just more barmy Culture War nonsense, probably manufactured by Dark Forces to distract us from the stuff that matters, such as my opinions.

Wait, what if the thing is happening? No need to worry! If you can’t feel more intelligent than your opponent, you can feel more moral. Sure, maybe the thing is happening, but anyone who thinks it’s morally wrong is emboldening the far-right and needs to be censored and reported to the police.

Take the UK immigration debate as an example — arguably the most fitting example. Last year, ONS figures showed net migration had hit an all-time high of over 500,000, significantly contributing to trends outlined in the Census. They revealed a continuous and relative decline of the white British population, amounting to the largest ongoing demographic change in Britain since late antiquity.

If you are slightly concerned about a potentially irreversible historic change occurring within a matter of decades — one which no one asked for – you will be accused of Having a Normal One. 

“So what? Literally, so what? Immigration has always existed. It happens all the time. Your democracy is from Greece, your curry is from India, your phone is from South Korea! Leave voters Having a Normal One as always.”

Putting aside the immediately obvious questions (what part of buying a phone entails a moral obligation to accept Infinity Migrants? What part of normalcy entails correctness of any kind?), one must ask: how can something happen and not happen, at the same time? Moreover, how can something be deserving of condescending dismissal and moralistic investment?

Short answer: it’s not important. At least, it’s not important to the indifferent enjoyers of things that definitely aren’t happening.

They are not people in possession of ideas, but ideas in possession of people

Such people have made their minds up politically, so much so that it dictates how they are allowed to respond to reality. All their opinions are downstream of political convenience. They are, to paraphrase Stirner, not people in possession of ideas, but ideas in possession of people.

Forced to reconcile such contradictions, barely hidden beneath their Appeal to Normalcy, they begin the descent to conspiratorial thinking. This phase should be known as “The Appeal to Cookie” — epitomised in this image. Opposing immigration is no longer an odd reaction to normal processes; it is a product of a warped reality to processes that aren’t real — that aren’t happening.

“Importing millions of people from the impoverished Global South en-masse isn’t affecting your wages; that’s what Rupert Murdoch wants you to believe!”

Yet the subject’s initial — albeit subtle — praise of immigration remains. It’s not enough to appeal to ambiguous claptrap about Rupert Murdoch being the CEO of Fascism. Consequently, they spiral back to the original position, laden with sentiment and falsehood, minus any attempt to articulate it in an aloof, pithy, matter-of-fact fashion, and with great emotion; a panicked exhortation of public ideology they assume to be timeless and objective.

“WE NEED TO LET MIGRANTS IN. YOUR DEMOCRACY IS FROM GREECE, YOUR CURRY IS FROM INDIA, YOUR PHONE IS FROM SOUTH KOREA – IT’S CALLED BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING.”

Simultaneously, endless immigration is a normal and real occurrence, an unsubstantiated far-right conspiracy theory, popularised by the white nationalist incel hacker known as 4chan at The Daily Mail. Also, it is indicative of Britain’s progression from a European colonial superpower to a diverse, inclusive, and tolerant society.

Sensitivity reading is another excellent example. After it was announced that the novels of Roald Dahl would be retroactively censored and reworded, ensuring they befit a more politically correct age, there was (quite understandably) an uproar.

Without reiterating the obvious ethical problems, the idea of George’s Marvellous Medicine being at the centre of a political firestorm is as ridiculous as it is concerning, hence why no shortage of Serious People dismissed the controversy as trite tabloid outrage.

Just as contrarians are slaves to the herd, relying on majority opinion to formulate their views, the Serious People need supposedly “unserious” things to exist to gain a lucid sense of superiority.

The self-satisfaction gained from presenting oneself as being untainted by such superficiality, is itself tainted when the decision to role-play as a sober-minded individual is based on a superficial analysis of the cause of outrage.

No wonder that such smug posturing eventually descended into gaslighting when the subject continued to grab attention. Sensitivity reading goes from being a trite, albeit entirely real, issue to … The Daily Mail.

One form of self-satisfaction, imagining oneself as the most Cultured person in the room, was replaced by another, imagining oneself as being the most “informed” person in the room.

Another prescient example: Drag Queen Storytime (DQS). When brought up, DQS is initially treated with dismissal. An absurd concept — many readily assumed that those concerned by it must themselves be absurd. In their mind, if it doesn’t sound serious, it isn’t serious — irrespective of the obvious ethical problems that any other person could register.

Once again, as anger persists, when unwilling to surrender their pretences or their unthinking allegiance to public ideology, they are compelled to mitigate the relevance (it’s harmless; it’s not really real; it detracts us from focusing on Serious Issues) whilst suggesting it’s a vital cornerstone in the fight for human rights and that we’re all snowflakes for thinking it’s obscene.

“It’s not happening and that’s why it’s good” isn’t merely a catchphrase designed to capture intellectual incongruity. It describes a process of escalation, from the performance of calm indifference to invested and active denial to outright affirmation.

In a loose sense, Nietzsche’s Three Metamorphoses can help articulate it.

The Camel is weighed down by the burdens of obligation, custom, and dogma, all of which are thrown off, instigating the metamorphosis from Camel to Lion, and the consequent battle with The Dragon. Once the scaly tyrant is slain, the Lion finally transforms into The Child: “Innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes.”

Recontextualised, The Normal Person is weighed down by the burdens of obligation, custom, and dogma, all of which are thrown off, instigating the transformation from Normal People to Serious People, initiating battle with Vote Leave led by Adolf Hitler.

The crucial difference from Nietzsche’s process is that, in this scenario, the combative spirit gets owned with Facts and Logic.

Terrified by the impending Tory Brexit Fascist takeover, Serious People must adapt to survive and so they invoke humanity. Proudhonian cheats, they undergo a second and conclusive metamorphosis, finally Becoming What They Really Are … Schrodinger’s Shitlib.