This Appendix provides a caveat to the willpower behind the central bank system as established in Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society.

The introduction of this central bank system and its gradual propagation over multiple hundreds of years – to the point where it controls all institutions of power and is maximizing personal and governmental debt levels – raises questions about how much and to what extent this system has, over time, developed a kind of mind of its own.  How much control do fifteenth generation central bank owner descendants have over a system that was developed, established and made long-lasting by their ancestors long before they were born?  To what extent are these people simply riding trends and structures that have been established and reinforced by their forebears? 

Fabio Vighi, Professor of Critical Theory and Italian at Cardiff University, UK, argues that due to technological advancement the system has become de-facto self-perpetuating, and that it is mindlessly evolving toward totalitarianism to account for industrialization and AI trends which are in the process of making most jobs obsolete.  In other words, as wealth further concentrates in the hands of the ultra rich and the masses are left jobless and in poverty in a kind of neo-feudalism, the system will have to institute permanent lockdowns and remove freedoms (such as via upcoming CBDCs) under whatever pretexts are necessary in order to maintain social stability and lessen the effects of inflation from endless monetary printing by tampering demand, regardless of whether the central bank owners want it or not:

It is no longer the classic swing between boom and bust, or a financial cycle ending in a “Minsky moment”, for we have reached the absolute limit to capitalist expansion. It is important to reiterate that we are facing systemic implosion, not a crisis engineered by evil bankers motivated by sadism and greed. While the latter are the main attributes of the capitalist drive as such – since capital is nothing but a perverse end in itself – the current implosion reflects the historical exhaustion of the value-creating substance of capital; the fact that the fundamental ingredient of value itself – labour – is vanishing irreversibly while automated (technological) productivity takes off. It should be enough to observe that in a healthy capitalist economy the price of labour would rise. Instead, labour has been devalued for decades, which dramatically confirms that any monetary boost to the economy is without value substance, and destined to cause further misery. It is therefore inevitable that, at some point soon, capitalist reproduction will be brought back to the ground through the severe contraction of insubstantial masses of money (“bubbles”). Fictitious liquidity, created without any basis in real production, will be violently debased.

According to Vighi, the elites in charge of society are arrogant and do not understand the extent at which the reproduction of the capitalist matrix invisibly motivates their thoughts and behavior, and that, like Frankenstein and its monster, it may have unexpected and tragic consequences: 

Those sitting in the control room fail to realize the extent to which their dominance is uncertain. What they do not see is that their authority depends on a ‘higher mission’, to which they remain partly blind, namely the anonymous self-reproduction of the capitalist matrix. Today’s power lies with the profit-making machine whose only purpose is to continue its reckless journey, potentially leading to the premature extinction of Homo sapiens….And the novelty of our era is that the ‘locked-down society’ is the model that best guarantees the reproducibility of the capitalist machine, irrespective of its dystopian destination.

The extent to which the central bank owners are consciously directing this process at this advanced stage (as opposed to earlier stages when their actions were clearly deliberate) is unknown, but it would be worse if the system has become self-replicating because it would mean that power has become so diffuse that there is no one in charge; humanity hurtling toward the end-game abyss of a ruthless capitalistic process for which no one knows the endpoint and no one to press the breaks if it gets out of hand.  A horrible idea from which nightmares are made.

In the foreword to the George Schwab translation of Carl Schimtt’s Political Theology, Tracy B. Strong argues that Schmitt also foresaw the extreme dangers of technological society becoming self-replicating: 

Schmitt, with explicit reference to Max Weber, sees danger in the increasing sense of the State as “a huge industrial plant” (PT, 65). Increasingly this plant “runs by itself… [and] the decisionistic and personalistic element in the concept of sovereignty is lost” (PP, 48). For Schmitt, this is a developmental process. As he lays it out in the Barcelona lecture, the history of the last 500 years in the West shows a common structure, even though as the controlling force has changed, so also has what constitutes evidence, as well as social elite. Thus in the sixteenth century the world was structured around an explicitly understanding with God and the Scriptures as foundational certainties; this was replaced in the next century by metaphysics and rational (“scientific”) research and in the eighteenth by ethical humanism, with its central notions of duty and virtue. In the nineteenth century economics comes to dominate…and, finally, in the twentieth century technology is the order of the day. And this is at the core of his claim that ours is an age of “neutralisation and depoliticization”: whereas all previous eras had leaders and decision makers, the era of technology and technological progress has no need of individual persons….

The point of [Schmitt’s] analysis of the centrality of the exception for sovereignty is precisely to restore, in a democratic age, the element of transcendence that had been there in the sixteenth and even the seventeenth centuries— Hobbes, Schmitt believes, understood the problem exactly. Failing that, the triumph of non-political, inhuman technologizing will be inevitable.

Ted Kaczynski also agrees that the advance of technology may usurp the power of the humans nominally in control of the system: 

By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of “socializing” human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that heir behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with super-technology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits. 

The psychological aspect of this phenomenon is explored and reformulated by Zero HP Lovecraft based on an argument from political dissident and later president of Czechoslovakia Vaclav Havel, which ties (1) elite motivations to stay in power along with (2) their ultimate powerlessness where they have to meet the changing needs of the system or be cast out from power, along with (3) the increasing structural incentives toward a virtue signaling spiral leading to the leftist singularity, as described earlier in this essay:

The elites and the masses hold each other hostage.

This is going to be a brief reformulation of an argument from Vaclav Havel. 

In the post-totalitarian world, the center of power becomes identical with the center of truth. That is to say, those people who are in power determine what is true, regardless of reality, and to be subject to power is to live within its understanding of truth. 

Ideology becomes an increasingly core component of power, which provides it with both legitimacy and coherence. The significance of phenomena no longer derived from the phenomena themselves, but from their locus within the ideological context. 

Power and ideology begin to serve each other in an increasingly vicious feedback loop, whereupon ritual itself, the ritualistic obedience to ideology, becomes the dictator, rather than any individual. Power becomes anonymous and leaders become interchangeable. 

Any person who fails to perform the rituals of ideological power is immediately ousted from the system. By performing these rituals, each person in the grip of the ideology compels others to accept the rules of the game and confirm the power which requires the rituals in the first place. 

Each person helps the other to be obedient, becoming both victims and instruments of the ideology. Everyone, at every level, from the shop-keepers to the prime minister, is involved and enslaved. By pulling everyone into its power structure, the post-totalitarian system makes everyone an instrument of the auto-totality of society. 

This is Havel’s argument. And Havel notes that there may be a degree of reluctance or even unwillingness in the complicity of the people with the post-totalitarian system of the ideology that grips them. Indeed, they may inwardly resist on some level. But in the post-totalitarian society, the higher your place in the hierarchy, the greater price of obedience and loyalty the ideology demands. 

The people with the most power in the progressive system have the least freedom. They only have the power to do what the progressive ideology demands of them, and the moment they are insufficiently compliant, everyone else around them rushes in to fill the void. 

It might be fair to say that, at the highest echelons of ideological power, the people there have moved beyond sincerity and cynicism, and having transcended this dichotomy, their only principle is to be fully instrumentalized by the ideology. 

In other words, if the ideology demands pride parades, then they will believe that instituting pride parades is the moral thing to do, because there is no daylight between the demands of power and the progressive moral understanding. 

When the hoi polloi accuse progressive leaders of cynicism, what they are really saying, and it’s a very shallow, contemptible utterance, honestly, is that they believe themselves to be even more moral than their leaders, even more dedicated to the moral understanding of power than the powerful. 

Scott Alexander…called this the fifty Stalins argument. One wishes to criticize Stalin, but the penalty for doing so is life imprisonment in a camp. The only allowable way then to express dissent is to say: 

“Stalin, he is good, but he is not enough. What we need is fifty stalins!” This is what the progressive does when she accuses woke corporate leaders of being cynical. 

She doesn’t realize she is doing this. It’s all perfectly instinctive, to complain in a way that is safe and meaningless, in a way that, if it were taken seriously, would empower the powerful even more. 

And the act of saying it causes her to believe what she is saying. This is how public declarations work, psychologically. When you make a statement publicly, it causes you to adjust your own belief of yourself, to think that the thing you have said is your real belief. 

No one is immune to this kind of social pressure from within.

Havel had warned that Soviet totalitarianism was only “‘an extreme manifestation…of a deep-seated problem that also finds expression in advanced Western society.’  For ‘there too, there is a trend toward impersonal power and rule by mega-machines or Colossi that escape human control.’ He added that these ‘juggernauts of impersonal power, whether ‘large-scale enterprises or faceless governments, represent the greatest threat to our present-day world.’”1

Being on the outside of central bank owner motivations, deliberations and strategies and having to piece it together piecemeal, it is impossible to say to what extent this self-perpetuating capitalist or technological matrix has superseded the power and control of the central bank owners.  It certainly looks like their conspiracy continues apace with few if any signs of disquiet from the outside.  That being said, this Appendix was necessary to add to properly Steelman a potential critique.

For a deeper dive into this topic, see this interview with Vighi on Youtube.

---

1 Conquest, 212.

This Appendix provides additional clarity to Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society.

The following describes some of the modern history of the Rothschild and their allies’s targeting of their publicly-owned central bank competition for destruction: Napoleon in the early 1800s, Russia in World War 1, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War 2, and Libya, Iraq, Syria, Belarus and Burma in the modern era.  Each of these examples demonstrates that when central banks are publicly owned their economies perform exceptionally well, featuring low interest loans, state directed investments, triple digit growth rates, zero unemployment and low inflation.  Much of the following is taken from Stephen Mitford Goodson’s book A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind unless otherwise noted.  Goodson was a director of the South African Reserve Bank from 2003 to 2012 and is a descendent of the famous Mitford sisters and is well qualified to comment on such matters.

---

Napoleon the Monetary Reformer1

Napoleon was consciously mindful of the fact that money always remains in hiding and only acts through agents who are often unaware of the aims that they are pursuing.  He realized that international money stood behind every foreign enemy, every monarch and every political party, including the Jacobins, stating on one occasion that “The hand that gives is above the hand that takes.  Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”  He set up the Banque de France in 1799, which replaced the 15 private banking houses which had been involved in the events leading up to the French Revolution.  The banks had increased the national debt to 170 million Francs and had charged rapacious rates of interest on loans to the French crown to the extent that prior to 1789, it was allocating over 50% of its budget expenditure to interest.  Napoleon made himself president of the bank, declaring that “The bank does not belong to the shareholders only; it also belongs to the state, since the state has entrusted to it the privilege of issuing money.”

Napoleon was so suspicious and distrustful of bankers that he personally supervised the operations of the Treasury lest the secrets of his monetary policies leak out and be exploited by speculators.  He was thus his own banker who controlled both the creation and distribution of money and credit, to the chagrin of the international bankers, particularly the Rothschilds, who were virtually excluded from operating in continental markets.  Napoleon made the franc the most stable currency in Europe.  After France had abandoned the loan markets of the City of London, a fog of depression settled on its fraternity of bankers and usurers.  In typical fashion the English press began to stir up trouble for Napoleon. England, under the direction of her international bankers, proceeded to bankroll Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain and Sweden and duly declared war on France. Napoleon was forced to engage in a series of needless and senseless wars for the next nine years in order to protect France.

At the Treaty of Tilsit signed on July 7 1807, Napoleon and Tsar Alexander agreed to an alliance which made them the masters of continental Europe.  At the time France and Russia were the only two countries in Europe which were not on the usury system and were furthermore not indebted to the Rothschilds.  However, Russia was dependent on England for the importation of industrial products and England threatened to cut Russia off; Alexander was only prepared to join Napoleon’s blockade of England if France would supply Russia with the industrial goods, which France could not supply.  Therefore Napoleon invaded Russia to enforce the blockade, which failed.  

When Napoleon attempted to stage his comeback at the battle of Waterloo, he gave in and was financed by the Rothschilds along with the rest of the parties (England, Prussia and France were all financed by Nathan Rothschild, with France receiving a loan of 10 million pounds); he lost, was banished to the island of Saint Helena and then poisoned to death.

---

The State Bank of the Russian Empire2

The State Bank of the Russian Empire was founded in 1860 under the control and ownership of the Tsar.  The Russian State bank printed money at almost zero interest, as opposed to the rest of the world where privately owned central banks created their nation’s money supply at usurious rates of interest.  It comes as no surprise to find that in 1912 Russia had the lowest levels of taxation in the world.   The total direct tax rate per inhabitant that year was 26.75%, Germany was 12.97%, France was 12.35%, Austria was 10.19% and Russia’s was 2.66%.  Russia had the smallest national debt in the world.  Its vast gold reserves, the largest in the world, exceeded the bank note issue by more than 100% except for the year 1906.  Furthermore throughout this period of state banking there was no inflation and no unemployment.  Russian citizens experienced massively increased quality of life and industrial production during this period:

• After the passing of the Stolypin Act in 1906, peasants could obtain individual title with hereditary rights (Stolypin was assassinated by Mordechai Gershkovich in 1911).   By 1913 two million families had availed themselves of this opportunity to acquire what became known as “Stolypin farms.”   The Peasants’ State Bank, which was described at that time as the “greatest and most socially beneficent institution of land credit in the world” granted loans at a very low rate of interest.  Agricultural production soared as a result – its production of cereals exceeded the combined production of Argentina, Canada and the United States by 25% in 1913.  In that year Russia had 37.5 million horses, more than half of all those in the world.  Russia produced 80% of the world’s flax and provided more than 50% of the world’s egg imports.  Mining and industrial output expanded by huge margins.  Between 1885 and 1913 coal production increased from 259.6 million woods to 2,159.8 million poods, cast iron production rose form 25 million poods in 1890 to 1,378 million poods in 1913 and petroleum production rose from 491.2 million poods in 1906 to 602.1 million poods in 1916.  From 1870 to 1914 industrial output grew by 1% per annum in Great Britain, 2.75% per annum in the United States and 3.5% per annum in Russia.  During the period from 1890 to 1913 industrial production quadrupled; the increase in GDP averaged 10% per annum between 1895-1914.Distribution of newly formed farms in Grodno Governorate (1909)
• An independent study by British lawyers concluded that the Russian Code of Laws and judiciary were “the most advanced and impartial in the world.”  Elementary education was obligatory and free up to university level, where only nominal fees were charged.  Their schools were renowned for their high academic standards.
• In labor relations the Russians were pioneers.  Child labor was abolished over 100 years before it was abolished in Great Britain in 1867.  Strikes, which were forbidden in the Soviet Union, were permitted and minimal in Tsarist times.  Trade union rights were recognized in 1906, while an Inspectorate of Labour strictly controlled working conditions in factories.  In 1912 social insurance was introduced. 

In 1917, the Rothschilds, fearful that replication of this extraordinary example of freedom and prosperity would destroy their malevolent banking empire, instigated and financed the Bolshevik revolution which wrecked and ruined Russia.  By the end of 1916 the British and French armies were in danger of losing the war, with the latter army having already mutinied on the Western front.  Lord Walter Rothschild out of the blue offered to secure American intervention in return for handling over Palestine, resulting in the Balfour Declaration; war dragged on for two more years and Russia was totally destroyed, paving the way for the Bolshevik Revolution which the Rothschilds also financed and instigated.  Gutle Schnapper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife, is reputed to have said shortly before her death in 1849, “If my sons did not want war, there would have been none.”3

---

Germany in World War 24

In May 1919 Adolf Hitler attended a lecture by Dr. Gottfried Feder entitled “The Abolition of Interest Servitude.”  This lecture had a decisive influence on Hitler’s thinking as he explained in Mein Kampf:

“To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is every and always dependent on the payment of interest…I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people.  The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would be to jeopardize the foundations of our national independence.  I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital.  In Feder’s speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.”

When Hitler joined the National Socialist German Workers Party, Feder was the principal drafter of the party’s 25 points and monetary reform was the core essence of the program.  The following extract is from the party platform:

“Break down the thralldom of interest is our war cry.  What do we mean by the thralldom of interest?  The landowner is under this thralldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labour, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much lead.  So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividend and bonuses which he has not worked for.  So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.

Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labour, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation.  The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world.  It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than mere necessity of financial policy.  Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment.  It means a solution of the Social Question.

Our financial principal: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state.  Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.  Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.  Nationalisation of the Reichbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.  Provision of money for all great public objects (waterpower, railroads etc), not by means of loans, but by granting non-interest bearing state bonds and without using ready money…Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation.  We all lived through it.  But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.”

In 1933 the National Socialists came to power and a somewhat attenuated version of Feder’s monetary reform was introduced.  From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in January 1933 with 7,500,000 unemployed persons, they transformed the country and increased citizen’s standards of living dramatically by 1939:

• The provision of adequate housing.  During the period 1933-37 1,458,178 new homes were built to the highest standards of the time.  The building of apartments was discouraged and rental payments on housing were not permitted to exceed 1/8 of the income of an average worker.  
• Interest free loans of about 5 months of gross pay were paid to newly-wed couples to finance the purchase of household goods.  The loan was repayable at 1% per month, but for each child born 25% of the loan was cancelled. The same principle was applied in respect of home loans, which were issued for a period of 10 years at a low rate of interest.  The birth of each child also resulted in cancellation of 25% of the loan.  Education in schools, technical colleges and universities was free, while the universal health care system provided everyone with free medical care.
• During the period 1933-37 imports increased by 31% while exports rose 20.4%.  This increased trade is reflected in the 76.9% rise in inland shipping and the 69.4% rise in ocean shipping.  During this period trade was greatly enhanced by barter, which bypassed the international payments system and the requirement of having to pay commission and interest on bills of exchange.  By the late 1930s 50% of all foreign trade was being conducted by means of barter transactions using offset accounting.

• During this period expenditures on roads rose by 229.5% to accommodate the 425% increase in vehicles and 622% increase in licensed commercial vehicles.
• Between 1932 and 1938 iron ore production increased by 45.4%, the index of coal production rose by 85.5% and the energy index rose by 76%.

As a result of this heightened and ever increasing economic activity, unemployment, which was at 30.1% in 1933, had been reduced to almost zero by July 1939.  In contrast the unemployment rate in the United States, which had stood at 25.1% in 1933, was still at 19.8% by January 1940.  National income in Germany rose by 434.8% while between 1932 and 1939 the index of producers goods increased by 219.6%, yet the cost of living advanced by only 4% or less than 1% per annum, a rate which would be stable throughout the 12 years of state banking under national socialism.  The German monetary policy “was non-inflationary because government expenditures, which increased the level of consumer demand, could in turn elicit a correspondingly increased quantity of disposable consumer goods.”  By 1939 Germany had become the most powerful country in the history of Europe.  Its GDP had an annual average growth rate of 11% per annum had doubled in the short space of six years of quasi-state banking.  And this was conducted without basing the economy on armaments production. The following table reveals modest levels of defense expenditure which only picked up in 1938/1939 when Germany started to feel threatened by her neighbors.

Even expenditure of 22% of national income on defense just before World War II started may be deemed as not being too excessive, when one bears in mind that Germany’s borders possess few natural boundaries and she was surrounded by hostile neighbours – Czechoslovakia, France and Poland. Germany also had to replenish the armaments which she had been forbidden to possess in terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The renowned English historian AJP Taylor wrote, “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all.”

The Rothschilds path to war: In January 1939 the President of the Reichbank, Hjalmar Schacht (a Rothschild puppet), issued an ultimatum to Hitler demanding he change his monetary policies and collapse the German economy, which had increased its GNP by 100% between 1933-1939.  Hitler was furious and rejected the recommendations as “mutiny” and sacked him two weeks later.  The Reichsbank was ordered to grant the Reich all credits requested by Hitler, which had the effect of removing from the bankers the power to deflate and destroy the German economy.  Thus only in January 1939 did the Reichsbank become an authentic State Bank.  Schacht’s dismissal also terminated the transfer of confidential information regarding all Germany’s economic developments, which he had been deviously giving without interruption to Montagu Norman, a fellow mason and Governor of the Bank of England.  But the central bank owners had the economic figures they needed for their calculations — the overall economic production of what would become the Allies dramatically outpaced what would become the Axis by anywhere from a 3:1 to a 10:1 ratio depending on category, from oil to air and naval forces to manpower to tank production to munitions, which gave them the comfort level they desired of an assured victory before green-lighting the manipulation of the world toward war. 

(On a side note, the relative closeness of the outcome of the war despite the central banker’s calculations5 was because of (1) Hitler’s strategic boldness with blitzkreig in France, which caught them by surprise, and there is a controversy over whether Stalin was only weeks away from attacking Germany when Germany attacked first in Barbarossa; and (2) the German soldier was so far superior to Russian, American or British soldiers.  Trevor N. Dupuy, a noted American military analyst, US Army Colonel and author of numerous books and articles, studied the comparative performance of the soldiers of World War II. On average, he concluded, 100 German soldiers were the equivalent of 120 American, British or French soldiers, or 200 Soviet soldiers. “On a man for man basis,” Dupuy wrote, “German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.”  Many other noted historians agreed with this assessment).

A new Reichsbank law made the bank “unconditionally subordinated to the sovereignty of the state.”  Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers he would, like Napoleon, who in 1800 had established the Basque de France as a state bank, suffer the same fate; an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and country.  It was this event which triggered World War II – the realization by the Rothschilds that universal replication of Germany’s usury-free state banking system would permanently destroy their evil financial empire.

In order to provide the Poles with a free hand which would enable them to antagonize and provoke the Germans, a deceitful offer to guarantee Poland’s sovereignty was given by Great Britain on March 31, 1939, but it was only a guarantee against a war with Germany, not invasion by the Soviet Union (who took 77,300 square miles as opposed to the 49,800 square miles ultimately restored to Germany).  During the next five months the Polish government progressively intensified the oppression, harassment of and attacks on the remaining 1.5 million ethnic Germans living in Poland.  These attacks, in which over 58,000 German civilians were killed by Poles in acts of savagery, culminated in the Bromberg massacre on September 3, 1939 in which 5,500 people were murdered.  On August 30, 1939 Hitler again offered to the Polish government the Marienwerder proposals but on the order of the international bankers, the British Foreign Secretary strongly advised the Polish government not to negotiate.  From 1939 onwards, although Germany made at least 28 known attempts at peace without conditions, they were all refused. 

---

Italy in World War 26

In 1927 Italy received a loan from JP Morgan of $100 million to meet a special emergency.  Thereafter Mussolini refused “to negotiate or accept any more foreign loans”, as “he was determined to keep Italy free from financial subservience to foreign banking interests.”  In 1931 the Italian state arrogated to itself the right to supervise the banks by means of the Institute of Italian Securities.  In 1936 the process was completed when by means of the Banking Reform Act, where the Banca d’Italia and the major banks became state institutions.  The Banca d’Italia was now a fully-fledged state bank which had the sole right to create credit out of nothing and advance it for a nominal fee to other banks.  Limits on state borrowing were lifted and Italy abandoned the gold standard.

---

Japan in World War 2

The Bank of Japan was founded in 1882 as a typical central bank, i.e. for the benefit of private banks to the detriment of the public interest.  This changed in 1932 when the Bank of Japan was reorganized into a state bank administered for the national interests.  The reform of the bank was completed in 1942 when the Bank of Japan Law was remodeled on Germany’s Reichsbank Act of 1939.  Japan had been experiencing the same traumatic difficulties caused by the artificially created Great Depression (Herbert Hoover stated in his Memoirs, “I considered for some time whether I should expose the responsibility of the Federal Reserve Board by its deliberate inflation policies from 1925-28 under European influence, and my opposition to these policies”, but he remained silent7).  However, the conversion from a central to a state banking methodology produced results which were both swift and sustained.  During the 1931-41 period manufacturing output and industrial production increased by 140% and 136% respectively, while national income and GNP went up 241% and 259% respectively.  These remarkable increases exceeded by a wide margin the economic growth of the rest of the industrialized world.  Unemployment declined from 5.5% in 1930 to 3.0% in 1938.  Industrial disputes decreased with the number of stoppages down from 998 in 1931 to 159 in 1941.

By the late 1930s Japan had become the leading economic power in East Asia and her exports were steadily replacing those of America and England.  In August 1940 Japan announced the formation of the Greater East Asian C-prosperity Sphere.  The fear that these countries would adopt Japan’s state banking methods posed such a serious threat to the Rothschild owned and controlled US Federal Reserve Bank that a war was deemed the only means of countering it.8

Henry Stimson, War Secretary and a patriarch of the CFR, wrote in his diary after meeting with FDR: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move – overt move.”  After a subsequent meeting, he recorded: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot…” The Council’s War and Peace Studies Project sent a memorandum to FDR recommending a trade embargo against Japan which he eventually enacted.  In Addition, Japan’s assets in America were frozen and the Panama Canal closed to its shipping.  FDR knew about the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor (American military intelligence had cracked the radio code Tokyo used to communicate with its embassies, which suggested an assault would come on Pearl Harbor around December 7; in addition separate warnings were transmitted to high government officials) but no alert was passed on to the commanders in Hawaii.  FDR removed the fleet’s Admiral after he protested that it was quite vulnerable to attack, and FDR stripped the island of most of its air defenses shortly before the raid.  FDR appointed a commission to investigate what happened, headed by FDR’s friend Supreme Court justice Owen Roberts and other CFR members, absolving FDR of blame.  When this whitewash was exposed, FDR suppressed the results, saying public revelation would endanger national security in wartime.9 

In a speech on October 30, 1940, FDR declared “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”  But he was planning the opposite.  In 1940, at the American embassy in London, a code clerk named Tyler Kent discovered secret dispatches between Churchill and FDR, revealing the latter’s intention to bring the U.S. into the war.  Kent tried to alert the public but he was caught and spent the rest of the war in prison.  Robert Sherbowd, the President’s friendly biographer, said “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for the President’s impeachment would have rumbled like thunder through the land.”10

---

Central Bank of Libya11

On assuming power in 1969 al-Gaddafi took control of most of the economic activities in the country, including the central bank, which for all practical purposes was run as a state bank.  Foreign bankers were not permitted to operate.  Financing of government infrastructure did not attract interest and Libya had no national debt and no foreign debt.  Its foreign exchange reserves exceeded $54 billion, which may be compared to reserves of developed countries such as the UK and Canada which in 2010 were $50 billion and $40 billion respectively.  The official figure for inflation from 2000-2010 was -0.27% and GDP growth was 4.32% per annum.

Gaddfai was described by the mainstream media as being a “terrible dictator and a blood-sucking monster”, but the reality was that with the exception of Benghazi and its environs he had the support of 90% of the population.  The following benefits he provided explains why he was so popular: free education, students were paid the average salary for which subject they were studying, students studying oversees were provided with accommodation, an automobile and 2,500 euro per annum; free electricity, free health care, free housing (there were no mortgages), newly-wed couples received a gift of $50,000 from the government, automobiles were sold at factory cost free of interest, private loans were provided free of interest, bread cost 15 US cents per loaf, gasoline cost 12 US cents per litre, portion of profits from sale of oil was paid directly into bank accounts of citizens, farmers received free land, seeds and animals, and full employment with those temporarily unemployed paid a full salary as if employed.

Gaddafi ensured that the wealth of the country was fairly distributed to its people.  Beggers and homeless did not exist while life expectancy at 75 years was the highest in Africa and 10% above the world average.  Another major achievement was the Great Man-Made River Project, which supplied 6,500,000m of fresh water daily with costs ten times cheaper than desalinated water.  Although the central banks of Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, North Sudan and Syria do not fall under the direct control of the Rothschild banking syndicate, Libya had the only central bank run on genuine state banking lines, which exhibited the classic symptoms of full employment, zero inflation and a modern day workers’ paradise.  The question arises as to why NATO intervened on the pretext of fabricated human rights abuses, the so called responsibility to protect.  Since 1971 when the US abandoned the gold exchange standard for the petrodollar with the connivance of Saudi Arabia, any attempt to displace the United States dollar as the premier reserve currency has been blocked and opposed with violence.

Gaddafi announced in 2010 the creation of the gold dinar as a replacement for the settlement of all foreign transactions in a proposed region of over 200 million people.  Libya at that time possessed 144 tons of gold.  What was intended was not a return to the gold standard per se, but a new unit of accounts with oil exports and other resources being paid for in gold dinars.  Gaddafi crossed a red line and paid the ultimate price.

---

Iraq, Syria, Belarus and Burma12

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein of Iraq decreed that all oil payments would in the future be made in euros, as he did not wish to deal “in the currency of the enemy.”  The possession of weapons of mass destruction was a deliberately concocted hoax and it was this currency decision which cost him his life and the destruction of his country.

Belarus saw its President, Alexander Lukashenko, halt privatization, centralize power, and nationalize finance.  While Ukraine even prior to 2022 had lost 70% of it industry and sees 80% of its well educated population below the poverty line, Belorussian unemployment is 1% and her industry has grown by an average of 10% yearly since 2000.  The U.S. attempted a coup attempt in Belarus in 2021, which failed. Prior to the wars that ravaged both states, Libya and Syria were also registering double digit yearly growth, popular presidents and both countries were closing in on first world status.  Both countries had state controlled banks and state-directed investments.  The state was a partner in investment, not the result of it.  Saddam was doing the same thing until the US engineered war in Iraq.

The Burmese state bank is under the control of a major general.  The Burmese are taking no chances with foreign manipulation of their currency.  Given the country’s civil war, western sanctions and separatist movements, it has still managed to build 10 universities since 1999, several dozen dams, increased literacy to 80% and ensured that peasants own their own land.

***

Appendix B provides a caveat to the willpower behind the central bank system by discussing the rise of a self-perpetuating capitalist matrix.

---

1 Goodson, selected passages from 54-60.

2 Ibid, selected passages from 76-82.

3 Ibid, 95.

4 Ibid, selected passages from 121-136.

5 One detailed analysis argues that a 1% increase in Germany’s forces would have won them the war in Russia.

6 Goodson, 138-139.

7 Mullins, 109.

8 Goodson, 140-142.

9 Ibid, 66-68.

10 Perloff, 65.

11 Goodson, 151-154.

12 Ibid, 183-184.

Continued from Part 1…

This part offers some takeaways from this essay, which are much more about perspective re-alignment than calls for concrete action.

TAKEAWAYS AND REASONS FOR HOPE

Writing this essay has been like wiping ten layers of dirt off an old book.1  People in prior generations hadn’t suffered nearly as much virulent, pervasive, sophisticated and sustained propaganda as what we have experienced today.  Testosterone levels were higher, people were a healthy weight, average IQs were 14 points higher, they were more religious, more community oriented, and hadn’t undergone the process of media indoctrination that turned people who consumed it into zombie-like NPCs.  Today, most people don’t have a clue where to start in determining what their interests are.  As Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov observed, the West has been the victim of an extreme, long-term strategy of ideological subversion: “What it basically means is: [a deliberate effort] to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

This essay has attempted to explain to ideological dissidents how our elites attempt to confuse them what their interests are. It has attempted to provide mostly descriptive as opposed to prescriptive arguments, documenting each step in the chain of reasoning employed, arguing consequentially based on evidence and logic and not deontologically based on faith, for the reader to agree with or disagree with using his own discernment and conscience.

The following are some general takeaways that hopefully may be of some use.

---

Takeaway #1: A theory about society should ultimately be judged by its predictive value.  

If societal trends have been properly considered and analyzed, it should have predictive value about the future.  The mainstream perspective of history as progress, known as Whig history, woefully fails to explain the decline of America or the west generally, especially since the 1970s when average wages peaked.  Francis Fukuyama exemplifies this perspective with his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man where he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the end-point of human history and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.  Because the predictive value of history-as-progress has been so poor for multiple generations, alternative perspectives, such as the one laid out in this essay, should be considered and judged based on its predictive ability for future events and the clarity it brings to present and past events.  (The predictive value of any theory will never be perfect; but getting as close to possible to understanding reality is a noble objective, and as Robert Browning said, “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”).

For those with rigid, fixed world-views who are faced with new circumstances that go against their world-views, unless they are willing to demonstrate flexibility, admit error and update their perspectives, even if that involves difficult modifications, it can result in mental glitch-outs or breakdowns.  This has already happened to quite a few people, and as we descend further into hard living via neoliberal feudalism the phenomenon will become more common.  This can be ameliorated to an extent if a person tries to be consciously aware of the biases and assumptions that inform their views (we all have such biases and assumptions) and to be flexible if situations arise that cut against their current beliefs.

---

Takeaway #2: People respond to labels of “good” and “bad”, and the way people develop those labels is via morality tales.  

“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”  – Pope Felix III, quoted by Pope Leo XIII

This essay is a morality tale. While it describes how narratives are created, how they are disseminated, and why people believe them, at it’s core it is about a small, evil cabal that hijacks these instincts in most people in order to steal from them and murder them.  It is a tale of the masses of humanity who get bamboozled against their own interests when many just want to participate in their community, earn enough money to survive and leave a little positive mark on the world.  This cabal will start wars, they will lie, cheat and steal, they will do anything in the name of some nebulous “greater good” they pay lip service to that ultimately only benefits themselves, such as fake-concern about global warming or COVID or a Russia/Ukraine war or a 20 year Afghanistan war.  They will do anything, say anything, with a brutal end-justifies-the-means mentality every step of the way. This is a morality tale against these people.

---

Takeaway #3: Central banks need to be publicly owned.

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England 1928-1941

The ability for a privately owned central bank to print money out of thin air and lend it at interest to the government can and will be used to steal that nation’s wealth, first slowly and then quickly; and they will use those printed funds to aggressively repeat this process in other nations.  By purchasing the media, bribing politicians and establishing enforcement organizations like the FBI, DOJ, and CIA to protect the central bank owners and punish their enemies, a deadly energy is unleashed, creating a feedback loops that ultimately crushes opposition even when the public is overwhelmingly against their actions.

That being said, central banks are likely never going to be abolished.  History shows that centralization always beats decentralization as a general principle no matter how much one would wish it to be otherwise.  Christianity beat Hellenism, in part, because Christianity was much more centralized with its regional Bishops.  Technological societies also always beat less technologically advanced societies.  Central banks were an innovation and it seems unimaginable to return to an era without them.  But central banks should be publicly owned, transparent and with regular audits.  History shows that the wealth and well-being of citizens in publicly owned central banks vastly outstrips that of countries with privately (or crypto-privately) owned central banks.  See Appendix A for details.  

In an optimal world there would also be a re-introduction of a reoccurring, periodic debt jubilee, whereby all public and private debts are wiped out. 

This issue impacts every country that has a Rothschild owned central bank, which is basically every country in the world.  Everyone in these countries has been enslaved by this privately owned central bank scheme and therefore everyone has an incentive once they become aware of it to resist this structure in order to restore their independence.  This system is so pernicious precisely because the vast majority of people are unaware of their status as slaves.  Slavery in the world was never abolished, instead it broadened to a much broader population by becoming indirect; populations slaving away with physical labor to pay interest on unbacked fiat debt created out of thin air.  Thus central banks need to be nationalized – and not just nationalized in name, but fully and completely, with robust transparency and regular, professional audits to ensure that nasty games like the falsely nationalized Bank of England don’t get played. 

This global problem requires a global solution; all the people’s of the world are unknowing slaves and they all have an interest once they identify their real interests in resisting it. Compare the scope of this argument to a dissident ideology with a narrow focus like white nationalism.  While white westerners are increasingly developing a racial self-identity as they become a hated upcoming-minority in their own countries, America is only 60% white and quite indoctrinated against racial self-awareness, and the rest of the west isn’t far behind; the white percent of the world population has declined from 25% in 1900 to only 6.5% today. Juxtapose this with pre-World War 2 Germany which was 98% white and where white nationalism was an easy Schelling point.  Therefore, the central bank approach is a much better Schelling point for present conditions, and one broadly applicable to the world.

---

Takeaway #4: Awareness of the methods and intent of media programming is crucial toward freeing one’s mind from their propaganda.

The hope of this essay is that it serves as a deprogramming tool for a small number of people who are natural dissidents but whose brains have been fogged by propaganda; to restructure one’s worldview to focus on the importance of policies that concretely promote ones family, friends, and community. The goal is not some nebulous thing as “democracy”, the chase of which has led to nothing but death and destruction in its wake. The goal is the implementation of policies that improve the social, economic, and general well being for the majority of a country’s citizens even if it takes coming at the expense of the central bank owners, and to learn to make persuasive arguments to regular people to solicit their support for such ends that doesn’t trigger their fight/flight response.

Because people learn by repetition and not one-time exposure to truth, it takes lots of time repeating ideas before it sinks in for them.  This is not a rational process and one is never going to “win someone over” with one slam-dunk airtight argument in a single sitting.  You have to wear them down over time from all angles, gradually acclimating them to the alternative until they can break out of their programming.  Therefore, dissidents should be encouraged to find communities online and offline who reinforce one’s natural beliefs instead of confuse them (which can be a challenge in an era of mass censorship and crackdowns).

If free speech is allowed, online communities always become right-leaning over time.  This Salon article explains why any unmoderated forum always morphs into pro-law and order over time – the author tries to smear the concept as “fascist”, which is a Pavlovian trigger term.2 It is the reason why the government has worked so hard to keep dissident voices from gaining a critical mass on social media; if they allow the counter-programming to be normalized, the sheer message volume will result in capturing the minds of the masses, which is not based in logic but in repetition and consensus building. 

Deprogramming from a lifetime of propaganda brainwashing is something that takes years, decades, or perhaps a lifetime to accomplish.  Reading an insane news article by a clickbait pussyhat wearer and rejecting its conclusions still plants the seeds and framing of that argument within your mind – it’s much better not to read such an article at all.  To consume content mindfully and carefully will decrease globohomo’s propaganda control over our minds, and will decrease the establishment’s ability to herd us into the exact reaction they want in their false action-reaction-synthesis dialectic. Your mind is their target. 

Once you begin deprogramming yourself, it opens the door to questioning and re-examining every official narrative with a critical, unbiased eye no matter how low-status it seems: whether it’s the moon landing or chemtrails or the poisoning of the food supply or vaccines or the public school indoctrination complex or a million other things.  Establishment narrative control was comforting because it told everyone what to believe and established consensus. But now the consensus is shattered and everyone has to make up their own minds. The hope is that a new consensus can be formed around a belief that the establishment is evil and the Rothschild central banks across the world should be disbanded.

---

Takeaway #5: Christianity was likely concocted as a Paul-led meta-narrative to undermine and destroy gentile Rome.

Christianity featured a number of cutting-edge, revolutionary memetic features that allowed it to outcompete paganism over time: (1) a Heaven vs. Hell motivational carrot and stick, compared to Hades where everyone went under Hellenism; (2) centralized regional Bishops vs. decentralized, disorganized priests under Hellenism (a core trend in human history is that centralization (almost?) always beats decentralization); and (3) it focused on raising the status of the poor masses, both spiritually and by providing charity (offering free food and shelter). 

Despite its origins, Christianity eventually found its footing and balance with a rigid, hierarchical Catholicism that tempered the worst equality impulses of the religion.  By attacking and removing the hierarchical structure beginning with Luther, the subjective, individualistic Protestants led directly to Unitarianism which in turn led to the secular Unitarian globalism that most of society believes in today, hidden under a false belief in rationalism and science.  

Because core Christian doctrines encourage believers to turn the other cheek, wait for justice in the afterlife, and emphasize the equality of mankind, and with a weakening of the hierarchical Catholicism which balanced these energies, Christianity has become too patient, deferential and afterlife-focused to forcefully oppose the central bank owners or media manipulation schemes.  Even though they are fundamentally allies in this struggle against globohomo, the rigid hierarchy of Catholicism has been hollowed out from the inside – consider the current globohomo Pope or ponder the College of Cardinals that elected him – and one may unfortunately expect many to waffle and drag their feet on any necessary reform.

---

Takeaway #6:  The end goal is a balance between the extreme energies of equality and priestliness we have today and the energies of hierarchy, nobility, and warrior-hood.  

The way a civilization works is that whatever core value animates it is pushed and pushed to a more and more extreme level, like a snowball rolling down a hill, until it results in a singularity where that value wipes out all others, or that civilization is either conquered or undergoes a transvaluation of values.  In the case of western civilization, the core value is equality (expressed currently as the push for racial, sexual, and sexual orientation equality by leveling-down any higher functioning group down to the lowest common denominator), and it will be pushed far past the point of sanity, as is already occurring, until it either results in the leftist singularity or a transvaluation of values occurs (or the west is militarily conquered).

Having unbalanced priestly vs. warrior energies one way or the other is unhealthy both for society and for one’s soul.  There should be an equilibrium between these polarities and in modern society there is no middle ground; it is pure Rothschild central bank control with slave morality and racial strife for the masses.  The ideals of inequality and master morality should be appreciated for its positive values such as its emphasis on greatness, strength, directness, honesty, nobility, and for its benefits of creating stability and accountability, while balanced with a priestly degree of equality, dynamism and other-worldliness.

Whether such a balance comes from a new secular movement, a new religion (as Spandrell argues), or a reinvigoration of hierarchical Catholicism, people are only willing to fight and die for promises of reward either in this life or in the afterlife.  Christianity and Islam offer eternal rewards for faith; Nazism offered high status to all Germans even as it ignored the question of what happens in the afterlife; Western Democracy promised higher quality of secular life due to “freedom” and rampant consumerism; communism offered “free goods”.  Removing the Rothschild private central bank cancer from humanity’s midst would drastically increase people’s quality of life worldwide.  Could it serve as a sufficient motivational Schelling point for the world to transvalue these priestly energies and regain autonomy for people worldwide?

Any major change is unlikely to come from reform of Rothschild-controlled existing institutions.  Various attempts to reform the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, Homeland Security, the university system and the media have been tried and they have all failed (such as the Church Committee).  These organizations are too institutionally corrupt and insular to accept sunlight or reform, and they protect each other from any meaningful change using all sorts of underhanded, shady, corrupt practices.  The FBI now officially denies Congress a right of oversight.3  As H.L. Mencken put it more than half a century ago, “[The Department of Justice] has been engaged in sharp practices since the earliest days and remains a fecund source of oppression and corruption today.  It is hard to recall an administration in which it was not the center of grave scandal.”4  Professor Angelo Codvevilla, Professor of International Relations at Boston University and who served as a professional staff member of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate, specifically argues that the CIA needs to be dissolved.  One can vote for Republicans or outsiders to try to slow the establishment’s full takeover of society, but until a leader addresses the core of these issues head-on, the governmental issues plaguing society will keep rolling inexorably toward the leftist singularity.

---

Takeaway #7: Don’t despair even if things get much worse.  

This is a hard takeaway because everything looks like the forces of evil are winning and that God is non-interventionist and doesn’t care.  The reasons not to despair are that (1) the establishment really wants you to despair; the more you despair and are passive toward their agenda, thinking they are destined to win, the easier it will be for them to implement their agenda; (2) to despair is to assume you know the outcome of the future, which no one does and history is full of surprises (Spengler agrees with this5); (3) globohomo feeds off western civilization like a parasite feeds off its host, and western civilization is sick and dying; to assume a parasite can both survive and thrive after its host dies is questionable (this is the globohomo paradox: the more globohomo “wins” and levels down society to the lowest common denominator, the harder it may be for the system to continue to function because its competence level decreases); (4) globohomo is simply about materialist control over man, and we know that every ideological system of government over the past 2,000 years has failed, including Soviet communism, so western anti-white racism seems destined to fail sooner or later.  As the proverb goes, “Man plans and God laughs.”  In the grand cycle empires rise by promoting multiculturalism, which in turn decreases civic virtue, and which ultimately destroys the empire; hence empires always carry within them the seeds of their own end.  Despair plays into the hands of your enemies and you should reject it out of hand.  There is always hope.6

Furthermore, as times become more difficult as the Great Reset and neoliberal feudalism are achieved, the more people will be desperate for an answer to address it.  During times of plenty people are generally happy with the status quo and unwilling to consider change (this is part of the reason why Ron Paul’s messaging failed), but people’s quality of lives and standards of living are now decreasing drastically which increases the possibility for more radical change.  If the Great Reset is accomplished and if the Rothschilds and their allies take all the world’s wealth and centralize it, exposing themselves for the world to see (as they increasingly are) that may just be what is needed before their final unraveling.  Material wealth and spirituality have a strong inverse correlation, and weak economic times will result in an increased search for answers in God and religion. 

---

Takeaway #8:  Stop looking to anyone else to save you on an individual level.  

Based on thousands of years of history, it is a regular occurrence that group populations pay the price for actions of their leaders and forebears, and God’s laws includes a substantial amount of blood guilt; the wrongs you have caused today may not be felt until your grandchildren’s generation, no matter how much we may find such results unjust.  We collectively may have to pay a big price for the deeds of our ancestors.  Understand the rural vs urban divide between fertility rates and political orientation; conservatives living in rural areas have many more children than liberals living in cities and a much higher quality of life.  There’s a reason that pagan means “rural” or “rustic” in Latin; it’s because the pagan rural class were the most resistant to the expansion of Christianity in Roman times.  If one hopes to maintain the beliefs and traditions of Western Civilization as most of society becomes subsumed to the secular post-Christian cult of equality, being in a rural area is likely the best place you can be (well, at least until globohomo shoves as many illegal immigrants into rural areas as they can).  One should count on yourself and your family and friends, not on some far-off figure like Q, Trump, Carlson or Musk to save you.  

---

Final Takeaway: Keep believing in God and objective truth.  

The existence of evil manifested in sociopathic liberals plus their seemingly embodiment of a higher creative, destructive energy must, by the law of opposites, entail that an opposing Godly, good energy exists as well.  Even if a Godly energy didn’t exist, because people must always believe in something, the belief in a loving God protects them from putting their faith in dangerous ideologies that invariably result in the murder of tremendous numbers of people.  Pope Leo XIII said, “To suffer and to endure…is the lot of humanity.  Let men strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it.”7  

Or consider Ernst Jünger.  Jünger would ask himself during World War 2 what one could “advise a man, especially a simple man, to do in order to extricate himself from the conformity that is constantly being produced by technology?” In contrast to Carl Schmitt, the answer Jünger, an atheist, eventually settled on was: “Only prayer.” For, “In situations that can cause the cleverest of us to fail and the bravest of us to look for avenues of escape, we occasionally see someone who quietly recognizes the right thing to do and does good. You can be sure that is a man who prays.” Ultimately only a recovery of a sense of the transcendent, he decided, could serve as an antidote to nihilistic modernity’s temptations. Without it, “our freedom of will and powers of resistance diminish; the appeal of demonic powers becomes more compelling, and its imperatives more terrible.”8 

Alexander Solzhnetizyn sums up how the absence of belief in God leads to a person putting their faith in dogmas that results in death and destruction, regardless of any supposedly noble intention: 

“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’”  

One wrestles with how mankind can adapt itself to minimize suffering in the present and in the future by abiding by God’s will, but this globohomo oligarchy full of lies and destruction is not the way to anything but endless human suffering.  To move forward into the next chapter requires a greater awareness of the nature of propaganda among the general population, a reintroduction of hierarchy and a return to a serious belief in God.

***

Thank you for reading if you’ve reached this far. I hope this essay has been educational for your journey. This essay is and will remain free, and I may go back and update various points as time and circumstances permit.

Please note there are two appendixes: Appendix A provides a brief look at the history of central bank initiated wars, while Appendix B provides a caveat to the central bank owner system by discussing the rise of a self-perpetuating capitalist matrix.

---

1 It is a journey with no final destination; as Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss said, “It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment. When I have clarified and exhausted a subject, then I turn away from it, in order to go into darkness again. The never-satisfied man is so strange; if he has completed a structure, then it is not in order to dwell in it peacefully, but in order to begin another. I imagine the world conqueror must feel thus, who, after one kingdom is scarcely conquered, stretches out his arms for others.”

2 The term “fascism” derives its name from the Italian word “fasces”, meaning the bundle of rods which ancient Roman officials carried into court to punish offenders.  Thus, fascism historically means law and order, the rule of law, and the intent to punish criminals — which is what the central bank owners wish to avoid at all cost, and why they have created a Pavlovian trigger mechanism in the masses tying the term and its underlying concepts to evil.

3 “Oversight request must be weighed against the Department’s interests in protecting the integrity of its work.” Per this link.

4 Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 93.

5 Spengler, The Decline of the West, 140: “On the surface of history it is the unforeseen that reigns. Every individual event, decision and personality is stamped with its hall-mark. No one foreknew the storm of Islam at the coming of Mohammed, nor foresaw Napoleon in the fall of Robespierre. The coming of great men, their doings, their fortune, are all incalculables. No one knows whether a development that is setting in powerfully will accomplish its course in a straight line like that of the Roman patrician order or will go down in doom like that of the Hohenstaufen or the Maya Culture. And — science notwithstanding — it is just the same with the destinies of every single species of beast and plant within earth-history and beyond even this, with the destiny of the earth itself and all the solar systems and Milky Ways. The insignificant Augustus made an epoch, and the great Tiberius passed away ineffective. Thus, too, with the fortunes of artists, art- works and art-forms, dogmas and cults, theories and discoveries. That, in the whirl of becoming, one element merely succumbed to destiny when another became (and often enough has continued and will continue to be) a destiny itself – that one vanishes with the wave-train of the surface while the other makes this, is something that is not to be explained by any why-and-wherefore and yet is of inward necessity.”

6 On the flip side, try not to become an accelerationist, which (according to one meaning) is to hope things fall apart faster so more people will wake up, like the frog in a cooking pot.  Most of the accelerationists use magical thinking, assuming that 1. acceleration will somehow lead to collapse or overthrow of globohomo; 2. they personally will emerge out of such acceleration with their preferred political model and with much higher social status; and 3. even if they get desired collapse, that they wouldn’t starve to death or become a victim of a cannibal rape gang.  It is a naive perspective. 

7 Peikoff, 148.

8 But note that Jünger himself received criticism, although his concept of an anarch who maintains independent thought regardless of external circumstances is a powerful one.    According to Julius Evola, “Jünger…should be numbered among those individuals who first subscribed to ‘Conservative Revolutionary’ ideas but were later, in a way, traumatized by the National Socialist experience, to the point of being led to embrace the kind of sluggishly liberal and humanistic ideas which conformed to the dominant attempt ‘to democratically reform’ their country; individuals who have proven incapable of distinguishing the positive side of past ideas from the negative, and of remaining true to the former. Alas, this incapability to discern is, in a way, typical of contemporary Germany (the land of the ‘economic miracle’).” 

Continued from Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks: Part 2…

Before offering suggestions deriving from the information contained in this essay, this part first looks at commonly perceived competitors to our financial elites including Sunni and Shiite Islam, Poland, Russia and China, concluding that they are all as controlled as the West.

A PROBLEM CAN ONLY BE SOLVED TO THE EXTENT IT IS ADDRESSED

A problem can only be addressed to the extent it is known, identified and planned for.  As Chesterton said, “You’ll never find the solution if you don’t see the problem.”  A dying patient who has cancer and, as a result of that cancer, has multiple other issues affecting his health, can see improved health by addressing the symptoms of those issues by taking various drugs, but unless the cancer itself is directly eradicated the patient will still be dying even if it’s slowed down by the other treatments.

It is much the same way in politics and ideology.  Let’s consider examples of a person or group who mis-diagnosed problem and what happened thereafter:

• Trump was elected on a reformist platform; his supporters elected him to reform the excesses of society and bring it back to how it was a couple of decades ago.  His hero was Reagan and he tried to style himself that way, even copying his “Make America Great Again” slogan. The institutions he trusted were the institutions his boomer generation trusted.  He read the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post and did everything he could to ingratiate himself to these people.  Trump was small-minded with the heart and soul of a merchant, not a warrior, and simply wanted a reversion back to the “good times” of a prior generation.  His historical knowledge was absent and he stumbled from one crisis to the next with no vision.  Unable to see clearly the forces he was up against  – an entrenched civil service close to impossible to fire, a leadership of racial bolshevik partisans working to undermine the core fabric of society, Rothschild-owned central banks immune to “public pressure” with their own longterm plans, and the equality cult of supercharged crypto-Christianity – he was always destined to lose.
• The 1/6 protesters were the same way.  These people believed that America has a system of representative government and that they needed to show up and make their voice heard, to have their protest be seen in large numbers so the country could understand that the election was stolen. They were trying to solve a problem by “bringing the country back” to where it was a couple of decades ago.  By having such a fundamentally incorrect understanding of who runs America, how politics is “kayfabe” and power is centralized in a hidden, malevolent oligarchy that owns the media, utilizing D.C. institutions to frame people and events with embedded agents (they did this at Charlottesville too), they would have been well advised to stay away from such an event.
• Consider the example of Francisco Franco in Spain.  His vision for society was to keep it monarchical with traditional values and Christianity as its core.  In essence he wanted to keep society at an early 20th century level, static and frozen in time.  And he was able to keep it this way, with a sclerotic, atrophied ruling class for the time he was alive. The moment he died though, the youth, who were already heavily indoctrinated into globalism by liberal university professors, pushed Spain to join globohomo and overthrow all of their traditions, which happened immediately.  By having such a limited vision Spain under Franco was always destined to lose.Franco died in 1975; the elections of 1977 led to the liberalization of Spain and the immediate ruination of Franco’s legacy. Eventually Franco’s grave was exhumated and his remains moved to a common grave, forbidden from being draped in the Spanish flag.

There are an unlimited number of examples of those whose incorrect diagnosis of a problem rendered their efforts ineffective from the very start. 

The European blogger Kynosarges makes a similar argument, castigating the short-sightedness of right wing populism, which he believes has six major deficiencies:

1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation. 
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1). 
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists. 
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible. 
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2). 
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…

Because of these six issues, according to Kynosarges,

[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.

The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….

Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity.

Therefore, the solution to this supercharged equality cult can only be solved, to the extent it is possible, by addressing the heart of the matter and causing at least a partial transvaluation of priestly values back into warrior values which value strength, immediacy, and hierarchy; perhaps an equilibrium between priest/warrior values may be reached through something like a reinvigorated hierarchical Catholicism, or something new, either secular or religious.  The difficulty of addressing this core issue while relying on mostly allies with internalized lopsided priestly values (because the number of individuals who have transvalued the extreme hyper-focus on equality is very, very low) makes such a scenario difficult to imagine at this time.  It is up to the Fates how and if this is even possible at this late hour.

---

A REVIEW OF MAJOR NATIONS SEEN AS RESISTANT TO GLOBOHOMO

Before offering some suggestions and conclusions in Part 2, let’s look at the state of major nations which are publicly perceived as containing some degree of resistance to the established order – Iran, Sunni Islam countries, China, Russia, Poland and a brief look at Mormonism too. Are any or all of these ideologically resistant to globohomo? Do they possess a “dynamic counter-ideal” and if so are they “equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West”, or perhaps they may “become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers”? To what extent are they controlled, directly or indirectly, by globalist institutions?

SUNNI ISLAM

It was a question for years whether true believers of Islam (which itself has a questionable history1) would submit to globohomo, but if this data is correct (and it may not be, given the source is a compilation of establishment outlets) the trends indicate the Sunni Middle East is undergoing rapid secularization: 

Between 2012 and 2019 North Africa Muslim countries significantly liberalized, and it looks like these trends are continuing.  Even Saudi Arabia is liberalizing, allowing women to drive starting in 2018.  Other mainstream outlets have run with commentary on the same trends including the NYT and BBC. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Israel has become much more public, and both the Saudi Central bank and the Central Bank of UAE are moving forward with globalist, anti-freedom CBDC projects.  Saudi’s artificial The Line project in Neom will give their leaders a much greater degree of control of its citizens in line with World Economic Forum “15 minute city” goals. Saudi’s efforts at de-dollarization along with the BRIC nations are likely in-line with overarching globohomo goals.

On the other hand, over 80% of people polled in the Middle East rejected homosexuality as “morally unacceptable”, showing that cultural and moral resistance is greater than elsewhere. Either way, it will be interesting to see the impact of Islam’s increasing control as it demographically swamps Europe in the upcoming decades, as history consistently shows that it will seek to attain dominance.

SHIITE IRAN

Before 9/11 there were allegedly seven countries without Rothschild owned central banks: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran.  By 2003 Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone.  In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war after Gaddafi’s head banker Farhat Omar Bengdara proved to be a pro-globohomo mole. 

The two countries possibly remaining, Iran and North Korea, are regularly subject to extreme warmongering propaganda by the west, and this could explain why. It is also ironic because the western establishment overthrew the Shah of Iran because of his criticism of Jews; some like author Guido Giacomo Preparata believes Iran has always been controlled, where the Western intelligence services handed Iran to Khomeini (1979) who was living in Britain before the handover, much as the British handed Russia to the Bolsheviks (and Lenin was also living in the West beforehand).

With that said Iran is arguably cut off from the western financial system, suffering difficult sanctions, and they are vehement against the “Great Satan” (America) and the “Little Satan” (Israel).  Iran lives under Sharia law, homosexuals and transgenders have no place in society, and they place a strong emphasis on the family unit.  Ayatollah Khamenei tweeted in 2020:

“Women’s nudity and exploitation for men’s pleasure led to the destruction of families & the weakening of the foundation of the family in the West. When the family is weakened and destroyed in a society, corruption becomes institutionalized in that society. #FamilyDay.  In Western culture, a woman must expose herself to men in order to be a source of pleasure for them! Is there a graver form of oppression?! They call this ‘freedom,’ and the opposite they call ‘captivity’! While on the contrary, women’s modest dress brings them respect.  The West cunningly evades discussing the issue of the family. They bring up the issue of women in every discussion but don’t discuss the family. This is because the West’s weak point & record of failures are in the sphere of the family. #FamilyDay”. 

Iran is not totally immune to the issues that weaken a country against globalization, though.  Sharia law prohibits the charging of interest for loans but unfortunately Sharia compliant banking utilizes interest-based lending in all but name.

The major cities in Iran have dramatically secularized and liberalized: much of the 2009 pro-American protests against the Mullahs arose in its capital Tehran. Iran is also pursuing CBDCs which will be used to dramatically curtail individual freedom and expand the power of the state and they went along with the false COVID narrative, so even there it is unclear how truly independent they really are.

On a side note, Tehran has a dramatic sub-replacement birthrate despite being in a supposed ultra-religious country, while the rest of Iran has a birthrate of only 2.103 and declining.  This is reflective of a rural vs city divide for political beliefs throughout the world: cities worldwide are much more liberal than rural areas and rural areas have much higher fertility than urban areas, due in part to the increased religiousness and lower cost of living of living in the countryside.  Urban areas are also known as “IQ shredders”, where the country’s smartest (on paper) people go and compete and, due to the much higher cost of living, have sub-replacement fertility.2  In other words, the smartest (on paper) people in a country are continuously outbred by generally less intelligent (on paper) people living in rural areas.  So it seems the urban vs. city divide is a powerful one even in a religious country.

WHAT ABOUT MORMONS IN UTAH AND CONSERVATIVE COUNTRIES LIKE POLAND AND RUSSIA?

The degree of support for gay marriage is a decent indicator of the extent a country is willing to resist globohomo.  Judging by the below chart, Mormons in Utah and so-called conservative countries like Poland are only time-delayed from the degeneracy and societal breakdown experienced elsewhere; these areas will sooner or later have the same results as the rest of the world.  

Utah is so skin-suited that 2012 Republican presidential candidate and Mormon Utah Senator Mitt Romney voted in favor of nationally legalizing gay marriage in 2022, even though Mormons had led the drive against it in California in 2008, only 14 years prior. 

Russia, except for gay marriage, is already considerably more liberal than Poland in many ways.  Per Anatoly Karlin, “Russians are much less religious, at least in terms of active practice, and the [Russian Orthodox Church] is less influential than the Catholic Church. Abortion is legal, while it is not in Poland – and the conservatives there now want to make these restrictions all the more total by even banning “eugenic” abortion.”  Russia has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, higher than the United States.  Russians also have much less inclination to live in a homogenous society. Just like the rest of the west, Russia is likely controlled by the world central bank owners: it has a Rothschild owned central bank (which, per Russian blogger Stanley Sheppard, is used to keep Russia deliberately impoverished3), Putin was a World Economic forum young leader, he initially rose to power as a corrupt security apparatchik firmly under the thumb of the west, he fires critics of Chabad and helps finance the west’s war to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and Russia has been gung-ho about the COVID narrative, COVID vaccine passports and upcoming CBDCs.4  

On the other hand, Russia was reportedly suspended from the Bank for International Settlements in 2022, it has a very low debt to GDP ratio (11.9%, compared to 113.8% in the United States), and Russia remains somewhat resistant to social liberalism, but it’s ability to resist the onslaught of globohomo seems highly questionable.

For Poland, Russia, and Utah, then, these pseudo-right wing areas seem destined to lose and turn liberal over time.  This is because they have no proactive ideal for which to inspire a population, as opposed to merely reacting powerlessly to a disappeared history that will never return.  As Kynosarges stated above, these groups “have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas.”

WHAT ABOUT CHINA?

Currently China is either a peer or near-peer of the United States in terms of military and economic power.  A look at China’s post-war history, combined with its pro-globohomo policies on a wide variety of issues (COVID vaccines, lockdowns, social credit systems, CBDCs) as well as continued American financial and military elite support casts a great deal of doubt as to China’s independence, even though the specific control mechanisms by the world central bank owners are obscured.  Just a handful of examples of such support includes:

• General Milley promising to tell China ahead of time if Trump would attack them.
• Blackrock investing in Chinese military and spy companies.
• Blackstone investing heavily in China.
• US pension funds investing heavily in China.
• The Rockefeller’s bankrolling Chinese based “nonprofits” with ties to the government.
• Mitch McConnell’s wife abusing her office to help her family firm with China business and
• Hunter Biden being paid millions by a Chinese state-linked energy firm for pay-for-play favors.

This corrupt behind the scenes relationship is two-sided: Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy in her office for 20 years; Congressman Eric Swawell had an affair with a Chinese spy; the Chinese have bought up vast swaths of American and Canadian real estate, many Communist party members are employed by western companies and a large number of former Congressmen and Senators regularly lobby (e.g. “bribe”) on China’s behalf, are also just a handful of recent examples.

Could it be this is just part of “global integration” and they’re just using each other, without China being subject to actual globohomo control? That’s what many Chinese analysts argue, and pro-Chinese bloggers such as Spandrell believe Xi has “purged” many globalist elements there over the last decade. A look at the history of U.S. and communist China relations, however, provides substantial support that this view is false and that the Rothschilds control China, although the specific control mechanisms are hidden.  Let’s briefly delve into an account of this…

A brief history of modern U.S./China relations

In 1949 the communists took over China with the help of deliberate Washington meddling.  Chiang Kai-shek, a faithful nationalist ally of the U.S., was trying to establish a constitutional republic, but General Marshall, acting on President Truman’s instructions, demanded that Chiang accept the communists into his government or forfeit U.S. support.  Marshall also negotiated truces that saved the communists from imminent defeat and which they exploited to regroup and seize more territory.  Finally, he slammed a weapons embargo on the nationalist government, just as the communists had been urging him to do.  Marshall returned home and was appointed Secretary of State.  Thanks to the U.S. embargo, the nationalists ran out of ammunition.  Congress voted to send $125 million in military aid to Chiang, but Truman held up implementation until China collapsed.5  On January 25, 1949, John F. Kennedy declared before the House of Representatives: “Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government.” He reaffirmed this in a speech five days later, concluding: “This is the tragic story of China, whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.”6

Our China policy then worked toward rapprochement with the communists as swiftly as the American people could be persuaded to allow it.  Every President since FDR has had a part in this continuum: 

• Roosevelt ceded Manchurian ports to Stalin during World War II and agreed to equip the Soviets’ expedition into China, where they armed Mao Tse-tung’s revolutionaries.
• Truman through his proxy, George Marshall, permitted the fall of China by truce negotiations, a weapons embargo against the nationalists, and the obstruction of congressionally mandated military aid.
• Eisenhower forced Taiwan to relinquish the Tachen Islands to Peking and interceded to prevent Chiang Kai-shek from invading the mainland in 1955.
• Kennedy also prevented Chiang from invading the mainland in 1962 when it was in turmoil and ripe for overthrow.
• Johnson terminated economic aid to Taiwan.
• Nixon visited China, breaking the ice with the communists.  That same year, despite the atrocities committed by the CCP, the Rockefeller’s had this to say: “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
• Ford presided over the withdrawal of most of the U.S. troops from Taiwan, and visited the mainland.
• Carter broke relations with Taiwan, recognized Peking.
• Reagan proliferated trade with Red China and promised reduced arms sales to Taiwan.7

Step by step, our China policy followed an essentially unwavering course regardless of which party occupied the White House.  This history has a pattern, and as Thomas Jefferson once said: “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”8

China was then “allowed” to join the World Trade Organization in 2001.  An analysis by the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, a labor-oriented think tank, estimated in January 2020 that the U.S. trade deficit with China resulted in the loss of 3.7 million jobs from 2001-2018, greatly furthering the de-industralization of America:

American consumers profited from cheaper, poorly made goods, but the damage to society far outweighed the benefits.  And it was intentional: “The major problem was not that China joined the WTO, but that the U.S. failed to enforce China’s commitments even though in China’s WTO accession agreement we included extremely strict and unique enforcement provisions against China,” said Barshefsky.  Despite the relative ease with which affected companies could file for safeguard measures, only three such applications were filed during the Bush administration and the president denied all three of them “on some misplaced geopolitical calculation,” Barshefsky said. The sole import safeguard imposed against Chinese imports before the mechanism expired in 2013 was the Obama administration’s 2009 imposition of duties on Chinese tire imports linked to the loss of 5,000 U.S. jobs.  

Today companies like Ford, FedEx, Tesla, and Honeywell, as well as Qualcomm and other semiconductor manufacturers that fought to continue selling chips to Huawei, all exist with one leg in America and the other leg planted firmly in America’s chief geopolitical rival. To protect both halves of their business, they soft-sell the issue by calling China a competitor in order to obscure their role in boosting a dangerous rival.  Nearly every major American industry has a stake in China. From Wall Street — Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — to hospitality. A Marriott Hotel employee was fired when Chinese officials objected to his liking a tweet about Tibet. They all learned to play by CCP rules, including forced technology transfers.  “It’s so pervasive, it’s better to ask who’s not tied into China,” says former Trump administration official Gen. (Ret.) Robert Spalding.  Bill Gates sees China’s ascension as a “huge win for the world” – why would he say this unless he and the other elites in his class were personally benefitting from it? [Although, to be fair, George Soros seems like he may be cut out personally and is upset about it. Mark Zuckerberg, in an attempt of shocking cravenness to buy political influence, tried to get President Xi to name his child, which he declined.]

Detailed anecdotes of the preferment well-connected westerners receive attending university in China in the present day also demonstrate the heavy influence of the west on their educational system; see here.

With the Chinese elites likely controlled by globalist puppetmasters, one can only assume that if there is ever a military conflict between China and America the purpose of it would be to further the overarching Great Reset goals as well as to drive up central bank debt to unimaginable levels. Therefore the war would likely be as fake (in terms of the central bank owners controlling both sides) and as preplanned as the current Ukraine war.9

***

Part 2 of “Suggestions and Takeaways” will offer some conclusions and takeaways from this essay.

---

1 There is almost no contemporary historical evidence about the life of Mohammad, with no mention of him at all in historical texts until 70 years after his death.

2 One can even see this trend developing in Taliban controlled Kabul.

3 Per Stanley Sheppard: “Exactly the right definition…”Washington consensus”. The term was coined not that long ago, back in 1989, and essentially means how finances of the third world countries should be managed. Initially it applied to South America, but as Soviet Union was dissolved, Russia was given the status like that of Brasil or Argentina. The consensus consists of the three core principles – manage population using Darwinian principles, tightly control money supply primarily by the means of high interest rates, do everything possible to prevent internal investments in the manufacturing sector or anything else working to develop own economy and to create a favorable internal investment climate. The extent to which this consensus is applied to countries varies – Russia gets one of the harshest treatments. Now the bigger question is, how and why Russian fiscal authorities during the all out proxy war are still compliant with imposed rules? This drives many people to conclusion that perhaps this is not a real war between Russia and the West, but a make believe conflict at the expense of Ukraine designed to achieve totally different goals vs. those pronounced by Putin last February.”  His Substack is available here.

4 See Edward Slavsquat’s Substack for detailed coverage.

5 Perloff, 88.

6 Ibid, 88-89. Also see here.

7 Ibid, 207-208.

8 Ibid.

9 On a side note, at least some of the Chinese population are aware of the problem of white leftists.  They even have a term for them: “baizuo”.  According to wikipedia, “‘Baizuo’ is a popular political epithet commonly used on the Chinese internet. The literal translation is “white left” which refers to western white leftists.  According to Chinese political scientist Chenchen Zhang, the word “Baizuo” refers to those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT rights and the environment”, but lack a concept of “real problems in the real world”. It is also used to describe those “hypocritical humanitarians who advocate political correctness just to satisfy their own sense of moral superiority”.  Some used this word to indicate those “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.  Hopefully these sentiments will continue to grow, but in the meantime, globohomo in China remains firmly in the driver’s seat.

Continued from Part 1….

This part argues that the radical egalitarianism within Christianity continues to shape the West’s core beliefs throughout European history and up to this day. It formed the basis of the French revolution, the Russian revolution and Soviet communism and now the racial egalitarianism in the West, all with a message of “the last shall be first”. Those who consider themselves secular humanists retain these underlying beliefs and are essentially Christian in their metaphysics and beliefs whether or not they consciously acknowledge it. Furthermore, World War 2 forms the foundation origin myth of the modern West with Hitler in the role of the Devil (as every society needs a Devil) because Hitler tried to transvalue these egalitarian values back into inegalitarian values and failed.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE VICTORY OF SPIRITUAL BOLSHEVISM

For the next four hundred years after Christianity’s victory over Rome (i.e. 5th – 9th century AD), reason, intellect, science, and material wealth vanished from the Western world.  During these Dark Ages the West lost almost all of the philosophic and literary works of the ancient Hellenists. Apart from a few insignificant compilations by minor figures, nothing happened intellectually until the 9th century.  The Middle Ages between the 9th-14th centuries progressed slightly with Scholastics (a general name for the philosophy of the whole Middle Age period), who were ardent Christians committed to advancing the doctrines of the Church by substantiating and harmonizing the dogmas of the authorities.  Until the 13th century they engaged in specific disputes on technical matters and specialized problems.  Anslem in De Fide Trinitatis summarized the general opinion of the time: one began with faith as their premises and then tried to make sense out of things.  “No Christian ought in any way to dispute the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches.  But always holding the same faith unquestioningly, loving it, and living by it, he ought himself, so far as he is able, to seek the reasons for it.  If he can understand it, let him thank God.  If he cannot, let him not raise his head in opposition, but bow in reverence.”

The central factor for exiting the Middle Ages was that after more than 600 years, in the century between 1150 and 1250, the West recovered all of the major works of Aristotle.  This occurred as a result of increasing contacts with the culture of the Muslims, who had found a full copy of Aristotle’s works in a Syrian basement in the 600s — the most momentous archaeological discovery in history.  Once they were reintroduced to the West (as almost all of Aristotle’s works had been lost or destroyed under the Christians) they were translated from Arabic and other tongues into Latin, organized and systematized, and soon became widely known. 

Aristotle’s writings struck the 13th century like a bombshell.  At first the Church banned Aristotle’s works outright because there was a violent contrast between the Church and Aristotlean understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.  The better minds could not ignore Aristotle (or destroy the knowledge, as the Muslims possessed it), nor repudiate Christianity, and they struggled to come up with a reconciliation.  Thomas Aquinas had the best attempt with his Summa Theologica (1485) and his approach was ultimately adopted by the Church (but not officially until 1879), and it had profound significance. Aquinas advocated that man has some share in working out his own this-worldly destiny, that he ought to develop his rational powers and, as far as possible, enjoy his stay on earth. In constructing a Christian philosophy within an Aristotelian framework, he made Aristotelianism respectable and acceptable to the most advanced thinkers of the medieval world, which was the biggest factor in ending Christian persecution of reason and science.  This in turn opened the door to the Renaissance.  

Inventions during the Renaissance included the compound microscope, the telescope, the thermometer, the barometer, the air pump, greatly improved clocks, Gutenberg’s printing press which made the communication of ideas available to the public and the world was discovered by Columbus, Vasco de Gama and Magellan.  Manuscripts of the Hellenists were unearthed and translated.  Many of the schools of the ancient world flourished again. 

During this period the major religious development was the Protestant Reformation led by Luther and Calvin, which was a reaction to the tyranny of the clergy, the sale of indulgences, and their amassing of wealth by extractions from the populace.  For example, “In 1517 the following scale of fees was charged.  For an indulgence in the case of sodomy, 12 ducets; for sacrilege, 9 ducets; for murder, 7; for witchcraft, 6.”  

Protestants rebelled against the authority of the Church, and its basic principle was the right of each man to read the Bible and commune with God directly.  Luther’s belief was that what you do and how you live your life are not essential — “faith over works” unadulterated by reason, ritual or action was what mattered.  The end effect of this belief was to separate religion from daily living.  The lack of a formal dogma and the emphasis on the liberty of the individual conscience was quite anti-authoritarian, and all sorts of Protestant sects arose each with their own idiosyncratic beliefs.  

Martin Luther’s Protestant positions received widespread Jewish support.  In gratitude he wrote a laudatory publication, “Jesus Christ was Born a Jew”; however, this changed once he read the Talmud, which was introduced to him by a converted Jew.  Shocked by what he read, which he believed was deeply anti-Christian, he wrote the pamphlet “The Jews and Their Lies” and was extraordinarily vitriolic in condemning them thereafter.  John Calvin was a second generation Protestant Reformer and he helped to put Luther’s insights into a more comprehensive and covenantal context.

Christianity’s core focus on radical spiritual equality had been kept in check, to an extent, by a hierarchical, reactionary Catholic structure that evolved over centuries.  By discarding this structure, Protestantism unleashed wild egalitarian energies which would evolve to the secular universalism most of the upper class in the West believe today, as explained below.

---

SECULAR UNIVERSALISM IS HYPER-CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT THE BELIEF IN GOD

In England, Calvinist Puritans developed an “apocalyptic tradition [that] envisioned the ultimate sacralization of England as God’s chosen nation.”  The word apocalyptic means the idea that there is an approaching confrontation between good and evil that will transform society; and for Christians this involves the Second Coming of Christ. This Christian Apocalypse involves the Battle of Armageddon where God triumphs over Satan and then decides which Christian souls are saved and rewarded with everlasting life in the new Garden of Eden under God’s holy rule in a new millennium of peace. Puritan settlers transferred this notion to the New World colonies, and apocalyptic fervor and millennial expectation was common. If you think that time is running out, the saving of souls takes on central importance. After the United States was founded, these ideas were transformed into an aggressive variety of evangelizing to save souls for Christ before the final apocalyptic judgment that would send the unsaved to Hell.

From the 1730s through the 1770s there was a Protestant revival movement in the colonies dubbed the First Great Awakening.  The new evangelists tended to be zealous and judgmental. Not everyone was happy with the results of the First Great Awakening, and some rejected the trend and remained on the traditional orthodox Calvinist path. Others rejected both and developed what became Unitarianism as a response. By the early 1800s there were three tendencies in colonial Protestantism: Orthodoxy in the form of northern Calvinist Congregationalists and southern Anglicans; Revivalist rationalism and evangelism that drew not only from the Congregationalists and Anglicans (later called Episcopalians), but also swept through the smaller Protestant denominations such as the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians; and Unitarianism, still relatively small but influential in the northeast.

The Unitarians rejected the Calvinist idea that man was born in sin and argued that sometimes people did bad things because they were trapped in poverty or lacked the education required to move up in society. In the early 1800s the Unitarians split from Calvinist Congregationalism and succeeded in taking over many religious institutions in New England such as churches and schools. Harvard, which was founded as a religious college in 1636 by the Puritans, came under control of the Unitarians in 1805 as the orthodox Calvinist Congregationalists lost religious and political power. The Unitarians took the idea of transforming society and changing personal behavior popularized by the First Great Awakening and shifted it into a plan for weaving a social safety net under the auspices of the secular government.

Curtis Yarvin argues that Unitarianism, the predominant view of the elite higher education institutions, ultimately transformed into a secular crypto-religion which he called Ultracalvinism, an ideology with the same belief system as Unitarianism except with the belief in God dropped.  The benefit of this evolutionary change was it got around the separation of Church and State in the 20th century which allowed it to then outcompete its religious rivals.

A Time magazine article in 1942 describes how the Federal Council of Churches, an organization of mainline Protestant sects with Calvinist roots, endorsed “U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program” with a system of world government quite similar to the world we have today, which is what quickly evolved into Ultracalvanism:

Religion: American Malvern 

Monday, Mar. 16, 1942

These are the high spots of organized U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program for a just and durable peace after World War II: Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.” Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism. Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty. International control of all armies & navies. “A universal system of money … so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.” Worldwide freedom of immigration. Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade. “Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples” (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.). “No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations.” A “democratically controlled” international bank “to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans.”

This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. “As Christian citizens,” its sponsors affirmed, “we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living.”

Among the 375 delegates who drafted the program were 15 bishops of five denominations, seven seminary heads (including Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Colgate-Rochester), eight college and university presidents (including Princeton’s Harold W. Dodds), practically all the ranking officials of the Federal Council and a group of well-known laymen, including John Mott, Irving Fisher and Harvey Firestone. “Intellectually,” said Methodist Bishop Ivan Lee Holt of Texas, “this is the most distinguished American church gathering I have seen in 30 years of conference-going.”….

Politically, the conference’s most important assertion was that many duties now performed by local and national governments “can now be effectively carried out only by international authority.” Individual nations, it declared, must give up their armed forces “except for preservation of domestic order” and allow the world to be policed by an international army & navy. This League-of-Nations-with-teeth would also have “the power of final judgment in controversies between nations … the regulation of international trade and population movements among nations.” The ultimate goal: “a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international-administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority.”

According to Yarvin, this “super protestant new program” quickly thereafter dropped its belief in God and claimed its beliefs were based in reason and science.  The evolutionary benefit of secularizing Unitarian beliefs allowed it to outcompete its religious competition in an environment which enforced a separation of Church and State.  He states, “In the 20th century, rationalism—the claim that one’s beliefs are derived from reason and science—will always outcompete justification from revelation…Ultracalvinism, unlike the “super-protestantism” can twist the First Amendment and the general humanist tradition of religious tolerance into a weapon to assault its enemies, the unreformed revelationist Christians. Before the 1950s, the nature of the U.S. as a Christian nation was generally accepted. But when the Warren Court revised this tradition, it had the letter of the law (if not its historic meaning) on its side. Effectively, cryptocalvinism rose to power through Christianity, and then used that power to “pull up the ladder”—a classic Machiavellian maneuver.” Yarvin explains further:

The “ultracalvinist hypothesis” is the proposition that the present-day belief system commonly called “progressive,” “multiculturalist,” “universalist,” “liberal,” “politically correct,” etc., is actually best considered as a sect of Christianity.  Specifically, ultracalvinism is the primary surviving descendant of the American mainline Protestant tradition, which has been the dominant belief system of the United States since its founding. It should be no surprise that it continues in this role, or that since the US’s victory in the last planetary war it has spread worldwide.

Ultracalvinism is an ecumenical syncretism of the mainline, not traceable to any one sectarian label. But its historical roots are easy to track with the tag Unitarian. The meaning of this word has mutated considerably in the last 200 years, but at any point since the 1830s it is found attached to the most prestigious people and ideas in the US, and since 1945 in the world… The “calvinist” half of this word refers to the historical chain of descent from John Calvin and his religious dictatorship in Geneva, passing through the English Puritans to the New England Unitarians, abolitionists and Transcendentalists, Progressives and Prohibitionists, super-protestants, hippies and secular theologians, and down to our own dear progressive multiculturalists.  The “ultra” half refers to my perception that, at least compared to other Christian sects, the beliefs of this faith are relatively aggressive and unusual….

By my count, the ultracalvinist creed has four main points:

First, ultracalvinists believe in the universal brotherhood of man. As an Ideal (an undefined universal) this might be called Equality. (“All men and women are born equal.”) If we wanted to attach an “ism” to this, we could call it fraternalism. 

Second, ultracalvinists believe in the futility of violence. The corresponding ideal is of course Peace. (“Violence only causes more violence.”) This is well-known as pacifism. 

Third, ultracalvinists believe in the fair distribution of goods. The ideal is Social Justice, which is a fine name as long as we remember that it has nothing to do with justice in the dictionary sense of the word, that is, the accurate application of the law. (“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”) To avoid hot-button words, we will ride on a name and call this belief Rawlsianism. 

Fourth, ultracalvinists believe in the managed society. The ideal is Community, and a community by definition is led by benevolent experts, or public servants. (“Public servants should be professional and socially responsible.”) After their counterparts east of the Himalaya, we can call this belief mandarism….

Now, where do these beliefs come from? What is their origin and etiology? Why do so many of us in 2007 believe in these particular concepts? Were they invented in 1967? Or 1907? Or 1607? Or what?

The four points are common and easily recognizable tenets of Protestant Christianity, specifically in its Calvinist or Puritan strain. You can find them all over the place in the New Testament, and any subject of Oliver Cromwell’s saintly republic would have recognized them instantly. Rawlsianism is definitely the last to develop, but even it is very common in the 17th century, when its adherents were known as Diggers—a name that, not surprisingly, was later reused. Ultracalvinism fits quite neatly in the English Dissenter and low church tradition. (Note the blatant POV of the latter page, with loaded words like “reform,” a good indication that Wikipedians incline to ultracalvinism.)…

If the above is an accurate analysis, what we have here is very interesting. Because it is a modern, thriving, and remarkably well-camouflaged, example of crypto-Christianity.

Ultracalvinism’s camouflage mechanism is easy to understand. If you are an ultracalvinist, you must dispute the claim that the four points are actually Christian, because you believe in them, and you believe they are justified by reason rather than faith. Therefore they are universal and no one can doubt them, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew.

If you are not an ultracalvinist, you are probably some other kind of Christian, presumably one who still believes in God, the Bible as revelation, non-universal salvation, etc. Therefore you see ultracalvinism just as Catholics once saw Protestants, or Trinitarians saw Unitarians—as not Christians at all. So the result is the same. The ultracalvinist cloak of invisibility is only at risk from freethinking atheists, such as myself—a tiny and mostly irrelevant population.

The question is: why? How did we fall for this? How did we enable an old, well-known strain of Christianity to mutate and take over our minds, just by discarding a few bits of theological doctrine and describing itself as “secular”?…In other words, we have to look at the adaptive landscape of ultracalvinism. What are the adaptive advantages of crypto-Christianity? Why did those Unitarians, or even “scientific socialists,” who downplayed their Christian roots, outcompete their peers? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious, really. The combination of electoral democracy and “separation of church and state” is an almost perfect recipe for crypto-Christianity.

Powerful words. But why were the Unitarians able to drop their belief in God but keep its underlying ethics and metaphysics in the first place? It’s an odd thing.

The answer is that the seeds for such a modification already existed from the early days of Christianity. Specifically, Plato’s interpretation of Logos, which had an enormous impact on Christianity and formed a cornerstone of the religion, made it clear that reason was associated with divinity. Blogger Brett Andersen explains, quoting theologan William Inge: “Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology….[If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces.” Tom Holland writes that in Christianity “every human being had been made equally by God and endowed by him with the same spark of reason.” Andersen continues:

That “spark of reason” was intimately tied up with notions of moral equality. The connection of ideas goes something like this, in the form of a syllogism:

• If divine soul = reasoning capacity
• And moral equality = equality of souls
• Then moral equality = equality of reasoning capacity

Therefore, following this logic to its natural conclusion, the belief becomes everyone has equal inherent reasoning capacity except for the -isms and -phobias holding back equality: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. It wasn’t a large jump for Unitarians to drop their belief in God to become tabula rasa blank-slatists.

Interestingly, after these secular ultra-Calvinists outcompeted their evangelical and Catholic competition by getting around the separation of Church and State divide, they promptly turned around and let Jews take over their positions in society.  Per Kevin MacDonald:

My account would benefit from discussing the acceptance of Jews by the Protestant establishment after World War II. However, what I have seen thus far suggests Jewish involvement in the dramatic changes in Protestant sensibilities as well…Cuddihy focuses on the elevation of Judaism to the status of one of the “big three” U.S. religions, to the point that a rabbi officiates at the presidential inauguration even though Jews constitute approximately 2–3% of the population. Cuddihy argues that this religious surface served as a protective coloring and led to a sort of crypto-Judaism in which Jewish ethnic identities were submerged in order to make them appear civilized to the goyim. As part of this contract, Niebuhr acknowledged “the stubborn will of the Jews to live as a peculiar people”—an acknowledgement by an important Protestant leader that the Jews could remain a people with a surface veneer of religion….

What the Protestants gave up was far more important because I think it has been a contributing factor in the more or less irreversible ethnic changes in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western world. Judaism became unconditionally accepted as a modern religion even while retaining a commitment to its ethnic core. It conformed outwardly to the religious norms of the U.S., but it also continued to energetically pursue its ethnic interests, especially with regard to issues where there is a substantial consensus among Jews: support for Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church/state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties. What is remarkable is that a wealthy, powerful, and highly talented ethnic group was able to pursue its interests without those interests ever being the subject of open political discussion by mainstream political figures, for at least the last 60 years— since Lindbergh’s ill-fated Des Moines speech of 1941.

…The downgrading of the ethnic aspect of Judaism essentially allowed Jews to win the ethnic war without anyone even being able to acknowledge that it was an ethnic war. For example, during the immigration debates of the 1940s–1960s Jews were described by themselves and others as “people of the Jewish faith.” They were simply another religion in an officially pluralistic religious society, and part of Jewish posturing was a claim to a unique universalistic moral-religious vision that could only be achieved by enacting legislation that in fact furthered their particularist ethnic aims. The universalistic moral-religious vision promoted by Jewish activists really amounted to taking the Protestants at their own word—by insisting that every last shred of ethnic identity among Protestants be given up while Jews were implicitly allowed to keep theirs if they only promised to behave civilly.1

Therefore the supposedly secular beliefs that most people in the West have today are actually a form of crypto-Christianity.  When viewed in light of its anti-authoritarian, anti-hierarchical Calvinist origins, these beliefs led directly to a fanatical, secular religion hyper-focused on equality in all its forms, and was therefore easily susceptible to outside influence and control.  This strange dynamic continues today with Jews having a -40 favorability toward evangelicals while evangelicals are +39 toward Jews per polling – perhaps the latter simply want to immanentize the eschaton:

---

THE WORLD IS STILL DEALING WITH THE EFFECTS OF SPIRITUAL BOLSHEVISM TODAY

Was the equality and priestly-energy germ of the Christian religion always going to develop toward more and more equality, breaking down over the centuries whatever barriers stood in its way? Was a movement like Protestantism inevitable once Aristotlean reason was reintroduced to Europe and Gutenberg’s printing press was invented (allowing the plentiful, cheap propagation of information, which was a previous bottleneck favoring priests) given the core doctrine of Paul of Tarsus rests on spiritual bolshevism? 

If it was inevitable, did the diminishing of Catholicism via Protestantism’s anti-hierarchical and pro-equality spiritual impulses lead to the weakening of community spirit, eventually allowing non-integrating foreigners like the Rothschilds to take over society via central bank schemes?  If so, what would ideologically encourage the public to resist the Rothschilds buying up all the media and turning it against them, leading to all of the horrors discussed in this essay and white, western civilization imploding?  Were these trends inevitable based on the initial setup of the religion?  

The triumph of Christianity over Rome, destroying thousands of years of scientific progress and general knowledge, has ultimately led to a modern, extreme form of the priestly mindset, one based on subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering and self-hatred: in other words, the herd morality.  Greatness, strength, individuality, self-determination, immediacy of purpose, honor, acceptance of hierarchy and nobility has been shunned; one can scarcely devise a lower conception of man.  

This is not an idle, theoretical concept; the triumph of spiritual bolshevism affected society’s core values and colors how we feel about every aspect of life today, to the point where we no longer identify with the values that bred early western civilization.  Historian Tom Holland argues this point in his book “Dominion”, which tracks how Christianity remade the world:

“The more years I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, so the more alien I increasingly found it.  The values of Leonidas, whose people had practiced a particularly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognized as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.  It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value.  Why did I find this disturbing?  Because, in my morals and ethics, I was not a Spartan or a Roman at all.  That my belief in God had faded over the course of my teenage years did not mean that I had ceased to be Christian.  For a millennium and more, the civilization into which I had been born was Christendom.  Assumptions that I had grown up with – about how a society should properly be organized, and the principles that it should uphold – were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of ‘human nature’, but very distinctively of that civilization’s Christian past.  So profound has been the impact of Christianity on the development of Western civilization that it has come to be hidden from view.  It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those whose triumph is to be taken for granted.”2

Holland correctly points out that a pure master morality society results in exploitation and ignoring the basic dignity of most of humanity but, on the other hand, a pure priestly slave morality society results in the leveling of man to the lowest common denominator.  Secular ultra-Calvinists who rule the west today have lost all internal balance, containing all of the bad attributes of their religious forebears and none of the good.  They are hellbent on destruction of hierarchy and inequality everywhere they see it; a complete leveling which brings the good down to the lowest common dominator of the masses, destroying anything great or exceptional.  A world where this energy dominates is a world of gray dreariness, no laughter, no excitement, a world of Death.3 And they attempt this with the glee and sanctimony of the righteous pursuing a Holy War against their enemies who they think they are “saving” against their own judgment, while also possessing no ability to resist globohomo meta-narratives.

When society loses its equilibrium between priestly and warrior energies, between master and slave morality, a balance of which is necessary to maintain a healthy society, there is a big problem.  The question is: what changes are necessary to restore parity between egalitarianism and hierarchy, between priestly and warrior energy?  Can it be accomplished with existing institutions like the Catholic Church, and if so in such institution’s current incarnation, or does it need reform?  Or is something entirely new needed, either religious or secular?

For well over a millennium Catholicism had maintained some degree of balance between the poles of priestly equality and warrior inequality.  It employed a rigid hierarchy, focused on an individual’s salvation and piety with the man as head of household even as it preached the equality of (Christian) humankind, while displaying a willingness to defend itself physically against threats from other religions and cultures.  But Catholic numbers are decreasing – according to Pew Reserach, the American Catholic population declined by 3 million between 2008 and 2015, and worse, in 2015 41% of people who had been raised Catholic are no longer Catholic. And Catholic mass attendance has fallen by half since 1970:

Additionally, the Pope is a globohomo shill and according to Archbishop Vigano, there exists a deep Church pushing “heresy, sodomy, and corruption.”  He states: “There is a very strict relationship between the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the immorality of the clergy, that scandalously reaches up to the highest levels of the hierarchy. But it is also apparent that this crisis is being used by the ultra-progressive wing not only to impose a false morality together with a false doctrine, but also to irremediably discredit the Holy Church and the Papacy before the faithful and the world, through the action of its own leaders.”  Viganò added that a “gay lobby” has “infiltrated into the Church and that is literally terrified that good pastors will shed light on the influence that it exercises in the Secretariat of State, in the Congregations of the Roman Curia, in the Dioceses, and over the entire Church…[Pope] Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.” Viganò said that “these three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church.”

While Catholic respect for hierarchy and tradition makes them natural allies against secular ultra-Calvinists in restoring an element of balance to the world by reintroducing masculine warrior values, Catholicism at this time seems like it is declining and institutionally captured.

---

JEWISH AND GENTILE TENSIONS STEM FROM FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT OUTLOOKS

According to historian Karma Ben Jonathan in Reconciliation and Its Discontents: Unresolved Tensions in Jewish-Christian Relations, which deals with the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and the document Nostra aetate, in which the Catholic Church declared the abandonment of its anti-Jewish heritage and its desire to reconcile with Judaism, “Ben Johanan concludes that, whereas Christian discourse aimed at conciliation, Orthodox Jewish discourse responded to Christianity with growing hostility, which predated the Second Vatican Council and deepened thereafter.”  Maurice Samuel, a Romanian-born British and American award winning novelist (winning the 1944 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award and the Itzik Mangar Prize), translator and lecturer of Jewish heritage, argues that Jews and non-Jews are simply incompatible in his 1924 book “You Gentiles.”  In it he states: 

“Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divides all of you from us….that primal difference, which I have sensed more and more keenly as I have tasted more and more of life, your life and our life, is a difference in the sum totals of our respective emotions under the stimulus of the external world; it is a difference in the essential quality or tone of our mental and spiritual being.  Life is to you one thing — to us another.  And according to these two essential qualities we make answer to the needs and impulses which are common to both of us.

To you life is a game and gallant adventure, and all life’s enterprises partake of the spirit of the adventurous.  To us life is a serious and sober duty pointed to a definite and inescapable task.  Your relation to gods and men spring from the joy and rhythm of the temporary comradeship or enmity of spirit.  Our relation to God and men is dictated by a somber subjection to some eternal principle.  Your way of life, your moralities and codes, are the rules of a game – none the less severe or exacting for that, but not inspired by a sense of fundamental purposefulness…For you certain acts are “unbecoming” to the pertinent ideal type – whether he be a knight or a “decent fellow.”  We have no such changing system of reference – only one command….we will not accept your rules because we do not understand them…

This difference in behavior and reaction springs from something much more earnest and significant than a difference in beliefs: it springs from a difference in our biologic equipment.  It does not argue the inferiority of the one or the other.  It is a difference in the taking of life which cannot be argued.  You have your way of life, we ours.  In your system of life we are essentially without “honor.”  In our system of life you are essentially without morality.  In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you forever appear Godless.

Seen from beyond both of us, there is neither right nor wrong.  There is your Western civilization.  If your sense of the impermanence of things, the essential sportiness of all effort, the gamesomeness and gameness of life, has blossomed in events and laws like these I have seen around me, it cannot, from an external point of view (neither yours nor ours) be classified as right or wrong.  Wars for Helen and for Jenkins’ ear; duels for honor and for gambling debts, death for a flag, loyalties, gallant gestures, a world that centers round sport and war, with a system of virtues related to these; art that springs not from God but from the joyousness and suffering of the free man, a world of play which takes death itself as part of the play, to be approached as carelessly and pleasantly as any other turn of chance, cities and states and mighty enterprises built up on the same rush of feeling and energy as carries a football team – and in the same ideology – this is the efflorescence of the Western world.  It has a magnificent, evanescent beauty.  It is a valiant defiance of the gloom of the universe, a warrior’s shout into the ghastly void – a futile thing to us, beautiful and boyish.  For all its inconsistencies and failures within itself, it has a charm and rhythm which are unknown to us.  We could never have built a world like yours….

These are two ways of life, utterly alien to the other. Each has its place in the world – but they cannot flourish in the same soil, they cannot remain in contact without antagonism.  Though to life itself each way is a perfect utterance, to each other they are enemies.”4

Samuel’s contention is that there is an enormous, unsurmountable gulf between the perspectives of the Jews and the non-Jews, and such differences are reflected in the Jewish texts: “But I ask: Are Plato and Shakespeare and Kant in your life what the Bible, the Talmud, the rabbis are in ours? To our very masses, the Jewish masses, the wonders of the world are Moses, Elijah, the Rambam, the Vilna Gaon, the Dubna Maggid, the chassid in the neighboring village. These actually dominate our life, as governments, mass radio exploits, armies and Woolworths dominate yours. We are the people of the Book. But we were the people of the Book before a million copies could be printed in a single day.”5 6 

---

WHAT CAN ONE EXPECT TO HAPPEN IF RACIAL BOLSHEVISM WINS?

The spiritual bolshevik strategy pursued by Saul of Tarsus in Rome is closer to the racial bolshevik strategy being pursued today in the West than with the economic bolshevik strategy pursued in Russia.  In Russia, the Bolsheviks seized control of the government quickly, setting off a massive and bloody civil war, and then instituted a massive Gulag system which killed tens of millions to keep everyone in line.  It was fast, bloody, and brutal.  

On the other hand the Christian victory over Hellenist Rome developed slowly and was nurtured for hundreds of years.  Christians first took a foothold in the Middle East, expanded relatively peacefully, and slowly growing to such a size they challenged the Roman Hellenist traditions.  From there Emperors converted, enacting edicts against the Hellenist masses, destroying their temples and discriminating against them, getting worse over time until Hellenism was wiped out.  Then within 100 years Rome was sacked and destroyed by barbarians and Rome entered the Dark Ages which lasted 1,000 years in the Western Empire.  We can see much similarities with the racial bolshevism being pushed now against whites: created to undermine society at its weak point (inequality between races today; inequality between class in Rome), growing slowly over time with major victories via the 1965 Immigration Act and the subsequent 1980s Reagan amnesty, which together led to a drastic decrease in the white percentage of the population and which continues apace.

Just as the Hellenists were unable to push back the usurping Christian threat because Christianity doctrine was designed by Paul of Tarsus to target Rome’s weak point, the white population have been utterly unable, despite grumbling and complaints and occasional short-term voting successes, to coherently and vigorously address the anti-white “woke” crusade which has also been specifically crafted to attack western civilization’s weak point (racial inequality and central bank usury), and there appears few signs of that changing.  As the country has turned more brown since the 1960s, the establishment has increased the rhetoric against the majority white population, demonizing them and turning the law against them with greater frequency and intensity over time (and even proposing ignoring Supreme Court rulings it doesn’t like).   The boomer generation really doesn’t want to address these challenges.  Compare their collective head-in-the-sand behavior with that of the last Roman “pagan” generation, per historian Edward J. Watts: 

The ‘final pagan generation’…is made up of the last group of elite Romans…who were born into a world in which most people believed that the pagan public religious order of the past few millennia would continue indefinitely. They were the last Romans to grow up in a world that simply could not imagine a Roman world dominated by a Christian majority.  This critical failure of imagination is completely understandable.  At the beginning of the second decade of the fourth century there had never been a Christian emperor, and the childhood and early adolescence of members of this generation living in the East coincided with moments when the resources of the Roman state were devoted to the suppression of Christianity.  The longest-lived of this group died in an empire that would never again see a non-Christian sovereign, and that no longer financially supported the public sacrifices, temples, and festivals that had dominated Roman life in their youth. They lived through a time of dramatic change that they could neither anticipate nor fully understand as it was unfolding.7  

The same is happening today as the white Christian population is rapidly replaced by outsiders and the rhetoric increased against them.  If this pattern continues (as every indicator indicates it is) one could expect this to culminate in a leftist singularity leading to actual white genocide, or a slower pattern of descent and decline into something like Brazil, where very high income earners live in armed, gated communities surrounded by a sea of hostile, imported, impoverished foreigners and immigrants, and where the rich must be escorted by armed guards whenever they leave their compounds.  Without significant changes, one can expect a “victory” against the white masses followed by western civilizational collapse, leading to another dark ages lasting a millennia or longer, perhaps forever (all easily accessible energy on the planet has already been consumed, and it’s hard to imagine a high tech society without easily accessible energy); or, alternatively, a Rothschild neoliberal feudalism victory where aggressive, woke AI and total informational and financial control brings about Hell on Earth.

Still, Christianity had promised its believers a Heavenly afterlife, and communism had promised its believers economic abundance; it’s hard to imagine this anti-white “woke” religion, which has an entirely negative belief structure with no promises to its believers other than smash-and-grab, having much of an impact afterwards if it succeeds in destroying western civilization.

---

THE UPDATED FOUNDATION ORIGIN MYTH OF THE WEST

Blogger Cesar Tort states that every society in history has had a foundational origin myth, something used to inspire people and bring them together in shared belief and values.  In Rome it was Romulus8 and Remus; the Aztec’s migrated from a homeland called Aztlan.  A society can have multiple origin stories depending on its era: America’s origin myth was the Revolutionary War up through the Civil War, when the origin story updated to Lincoln freeing the slaves; and it updated again after World War 2 when America became a superpower.  

A foundational origin myth always has three elements:  first it must “comport and provide an origin, framework and superstructure for society and how it interacts with the world and itself. Second, it defines what is the ultimate good and conversely, ultimate evil for the reasons of defining values and from those to justify who holds power. And third it determines and defines what is held sacred in a society. 

For the modern West, the narrative of the Second World War has become our new foundation myth, and it fulfills all three functions. Whenever referring to modern history the line is drawn: we live in the post-war period. For the most part the lines on the maps, the institutions and more importantly how we define our era as a society—all find their origins in World War II.”

Unfortunately, the foundation origin myth that motivates modern western society is an entirely negative myth, making the society seem evil and beyond redemption:

“You learn from a very early young age that the ultimate incarnation of pure evil were the Nazis and thus those that oppose Nazis are the ultimate good. From this stance of ultimate good Western civilization drives its core values of anti-nationalism; unity being a weakness and diversity being a strength. All measure of civilizational confidence is bigotry. Any questioning with regards to the differences in people, cultures and their compatibility is taboo.

This is why for example the violence perpetrated by groups like Antifa can be morally justified at least to themselves. Anyone who is a nationalist; anyone who wants to retain tradition, anyone who wants to limit immigration or believes in things like gender roles is enacting, in their minds, the narrative of the ultimate evil. It is self-evident when you hear mobs of automatons screeching at any group or individual they disagree with ‘Nazis off our streets. Nazis off our streets’…

The only real value, topic or event that is held a sacrosanct and can not be mocked, joked about or even questioned on pain of imprisonment in many countries in Europe is the Holocaust. Throughout the Western world in its entirety, to question even the details of the Holocaust is to have yourself shunned by society and made a social pariah.

And it is here when we begin to understand the West’s self-loathing, and what really is a sincere desire for collective, cultural, physical and psychological suicide—because all three functions of our post-war foundation myth are negative in the extreme. Instead of the origin being of strength, fertility and of a new and blossoming beginning, it is one of violence, death and destruction. Instead of ultimate good taking the central position in the story, it is in fact occupied by ultimate evil.

In the post-war world Adolf Hitler is the personification of pure, unadulterated evil. And it is he that holds the central position in our World War II narrative.

Instead of the sacred being that which is revered, venerated and mysterious in Nature, it is the Holocaust: a crime against humanity.

Simply put: Our new, World War II foundation myth is an extremely negative one, and has poisoned the spirit of Western civilization, and has caused it to lose all confidence in itself, its values and even the reason for its very existence—and given time will destroy it, utterly.

All thought and what is considered the bounds and topics one may speak and orient oneself in are all downstream from this myth. And as long as the West’s understanding of itself is determined by this negative foundation myth the only direction is down.

The power of myths is not a trivial thing. Lose your original foundation myth and you will lose your identity.

Look at the United States. Before the World War II foundation myth supplanted its original foundation myth, its origins was settlers founding a new and just land. Ultimate good was central to the narrative and was centered around freedom and the ability to pursue happiness; and the sacred was encapsulated by family, community, country, God. America’s specific foundation myth—since the adoption of the all-new encompassing Western World War II foundation myth and through its lands—sees America’s origin in the theft of the land from peaceful and noble natives. Ultimate evil in the form of slavery is central to the narrative, and the sacred is the unquestioning belief in white supremacy and the need to dismantle it at any cost.

The entire West is not only losing their local but also its civilizational identity, and has been changed to this World War II foundation myth, which has born the West its new corrosive, self-hating and malignant identity—and will if not [stopped] utterly destroy it.

Maybe now you can understand Germany’s wild desire to destroy themselves as quickly as possible. They are the progenitors and genesis of this new foundation myth; whether truthfully or not, doesn’t matter.”

Regarding the Holocaust, two interesting points of note. First, historian David Irving, who is cancelled and considered “extremely far right”, seems to acknowledge a version of the Holocaust in his book “Hitler’s War”, page 577:

“In dry tables, Himmler’s chief statistician, Dr. Richard Korherr, had analysed the fate of the world’s estimated 17,000,000 Jews: Europe’s 10,000,000 had dwindled by 45 percent since 1938, owing to emigration, the high natural mortality rate, and the enforced ‘evacuation’ that had begun with the prohibition of emigration late in 1941.  To Himmler’s annoyance, on reading the sixteen-page document on March 27 he found that it stated expressis verbis on page 9 that of the 1,449,692 Jews deported from the eastern provinces 1,274,166 had been subject to ‘special treatment’ at camps in the Gneralgouvernement and a further 145,301 similarly dealt with in the Warthegau.  (Dr. Korherr, it should be said, still denies that the words meant ‘liquidated.’). On April 1 Himmler had the report abridged ‘for submission to the Fuhrer’;  and a few days later he instructed that he ‘did not want there to be any mention of “special treatment of Jews” whatever.’  According to the new text, the Jews would have been ‘channeled through’ the camps to Russia then ‘redirected to special treatment’ at the camps.  As Himmler explained to his staff on April 9, the report would serve magnificently for ‘camouflage purposes’ in later years.”9  

On the other hand, according to former South African central banker and author Stephen Goodson, in the 8,263 pages of World War II memories written by Winston Churchill (“The Second World War”), Charles de Gaulle (“Memoires De Geurre”), Dwight D. Eisenhower (“Crusade in Europe”) and Harry S. Truman (“The Memoirs of Harry S. Truman”), all written between 1948-1959, there is no mention of millions of Jews in Europe having been annihilated. Wouldn’t that have been incredible propaganda to play up in their memoirs if they had something to say about it?

Whatever one thinks about the Holocaust, one can acknowledge it’s an extremely potent meta-narrative pushed by the media for decades and one that has had the effect of pushing civilizational suicide onto the west — and not for just the Axis countries, but including, incredibly illogically, against the Allies that fought against them as well.  It’s been turned into a blood libel against all whites worldwide, and it’s illegal to question this meta-narrative in many European countries upon threat of imprisonment and asset forfeiture.   It has handed the trans-nationalist puppeteers an iron-clad defense against charges of undermining society.  The effect of this narrative has been entirely positive for pushing globohomo upon the world and entirely negative for nationalists and those believers in representative government.

---

THE REASON WHY HITLER LOOMS SO LARGE IN THE WESTERN PSYCHE

The Holocaust as a new, entirely negative origin myth of western society with Hitler as the embodiment of the Devil serves globohomo goals by sapping the strength and vigor of western civilization.  However, it could not have been pulled off if World War 2 didn’t represent a titanic spiritual battle between Hellenist Roman-esque warrior values and the Jewish/Christian transvaluation of those values into priestly values.10

Hitler himself saw World War 2 as a struggle to restore the pagan values that had been destroyed by the Christianity narrative, and he expounds on this in detail in his Table Talks (which were transcriptions of his uncensored, private comments).  His goal was to defeat the Allies and then, over time, mothball the Christian Church entirely, replacing it with Roman-style pantheistic paganism and nature worship. 

He decided to wait during the war because he did not want to sap fighting strength or divide the nation given most of Germany was Christian.  Even then, he thought the Christians were a roadblock during the war and he bemoaned the fact that the population wasn’t Islamic; he believed Muslims would have been much more eager to adopt a warrior lifestyle.11  Here is the relevant portion of the Table Talks, page 76-79:

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realize how little we have since evolved. I didn’t know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity. You should read what he says on the subject. 

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer….

Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus’s supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean’s teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated. It’s in this context that we must understand the famous “illumination”. Think of it, the Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god. 

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman state by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, he would possess boundless power. 

The ancient world had its gods and served them. But the priests interposed between the gods and men were servants of the state, for the gods protected the city. In short, they were the emanation of a power that the people had created. For that society, the idea of an only god was unthinkable. In this sphere, the Romans were tolerance itself. The idea of a universal god could seem to them only a mild form of madness—for, if three peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain. 

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences. St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman state. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound. Under cover of a pretend religious instruction, the priests continue to incite the faithful against the state…. 

St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that’s because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire. 

It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people….

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia. 

It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit, that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character. It became, to a certain degree, tolerable…. In the old days, as now, destruction of art and civilisation. The Bolsheviks of their day, what didn’t they destroy in Rome, in Greece and elsewhere? They’ve behaved in the same way amongst us and in Russia. 

One must compare the art and civilisation of the Romans— their temples, their houses—with the art and civilisation represented at the same period by the abject rabble of the catacombs. In the old days, the destruction of the libraries. Isn’t that what happened in Russia? The result: a frightful levelling-down. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. To-day, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. 

The fundamental reason why western society has gone into a singular focus on extreme equality is because the pagan warrior energy of a 2,000 year old conflict tried to re-assert itself and failed.  It is the result of that massive spiritual battle that has propelled Hitler into being equated by the modern world with the Devil, not necessarily the Holocaust itself.  This partially explains why the genocide of the Boers12, the Armenian Genocide13, the Holodomor14, Stalin and Mao’s murders of tens of millions of their own citizens, the Allied bombing of Dresden and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t have the same emotional or spiritual impact in the West — it is not tied to a two millennia old spiritual battle.

And the result of that supercharged, lopsided equality energy – utterly imbalanced and vigorously reinvigorated by a failed challenge to its rule – are spiraling humanity toward a terrible fate. Is it too much ask to live in a society where society’s equality and warrior impulses are in balance? Looking at the arc of human history, perhaps the fate of humankind is simply to fall victim to one fraudulent meta-narrative scam after another, with NPCs and sociopathic liberals leading the way toward increased centralization and decreased privacy and autonomy, destroying their enemies and anyone who speaks truth to power, a “leveling down” of man’s spirit to the lowest common denominator, forever, as we rapidly drain the world’s declining natural resources with billions of dumb, obese, cattle-like herd-humans, the rate of animal extinctions skyrockets and pollution, trash and micro-plastics disfigure the natural world, leaving a trash heap world of despair for future generations.

It almost feels as though there is some malevolent, creative, intelligent, devious, cynical, hidden — but awake and manifesting — spiritual entity animating and influencing the thoughts and behavior of our sociopathic liberal overlords, where they draw creative energy from this source, and that the God of goodness and light is non-interventionist or much weaker than the other force.  This idea matches up well with the Gnostic Christian conception (and later by the Cathars) of the Demiurge, which is a deeply evil, malevolent entity which created and maintains all of material reality; and that the Demiurge wants to keep souls trapped in physical bodies, imprisoned in the material universe to be tortured and manipulated forever (unless he betrays his sociopathic liberal worshippers at the end and destroys humanity entirely; a likely bet).  It would certainly explain the extreme, unrelenting evil in the world, and the fact that everything alive survives by subsisting on other alive substances – a concept made from nightmares.

***

This concludes Section 5, “Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks.” Section 6, “Suggestions and Takeaways”, will briefly look at major countries popularly perceived as resistant to our globalized system and then offer some takeaways and some reasons for hope.

---

1 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, 27-28.

2 Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, 16-17.

3 The capitalist machine serves as the medium which converts difficult to quantify things such as community, trust, positive values, spontaneity, nature — basically the things that make life worth living — into egalitarian flat dystopia.   As William S. Burroughs said, “What does the money machine eat?  It eats youth, spontaneity, life, beauty, and, above all, it eats creativity.  It eats quality and shits quantity.”

4 Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, 31-37.

5 Samuel, 114.

6 The rise of reform/secular Judaism in the 20th century has magnified rather than diminished these fundamentally different outlooks.  While religious Jews in the modern era are generally inward/community focused, many secular Jews, possessing of a surface-level integration into majority society which harm their community ties, hyper-focus on white Christians, obsessing about them constantly and driven by a bloodlust that can best be classified as genocidal and only slightly hidden. There are multi-faceted and debatable reasons for this.

7 Edward J. Watts, The Final Pagan Generation, 6.

8 See Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 226: “[Romulus’s] name was eponymous (essentially an early form of the word Roman), and his story was meant to exemplify ideal Roman aspirations and values, using a model similar to Greek tragedy, in which the hero sins in various ways but comes to self-understanding and achieves peace by the time of his death.  He otherwise exhibits in his deeds the ‘exemplary qualities’ of Rome as a social entity, held up as a model for Roman leaders to emulate, such as ending ‘the cycle of violence’ initiated by his sin and pride by religiously expiating the sin of past national crimes in order to bring about a lasting peace.”

9 Although Irving controversially questions Hitler’s personal knowledge about it given the lack of supporting documentation or any formal orders, although Hitler’s general antipathy toward the Jews is expressed strongly on p. 580.

10 Tom Holland discusses this key insight in this clip:

11 Per Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, p. 115: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

12 Also see Stephen Mitford Goodson, The Genocide of the Boers, available online here.

13 Not even officially recognized in America until 2021.

14 An anecdote in Robert Conquest’s Reflections on a Ravaged Century, p. 122-123, demonstrates how the western establishment deliberately minimized the devastation of the Holodomor:

“The conflict between Soviet reality and Western perceptions had become acute in 1933.  As we have seen, the Soviet official line was that no famine had taken place.  Spokesmen from President Kalinin down called reports to the contrary inventions by emigre or fascist circles, or by Western bourgeois attempting to divert their workers’ attention from their own miserable life.  But the Soviet line was supported by a whole range of Western correspondents and other observers in the USSR.  The most influential was New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty (who seems to have been blackmailed on sexual grounds by the secret police).

Duranty personally told Eugene Lyons and others that he estimated the famine victims at around 7 million.  An even clearer proof of the discrepancy between what he knew and what he reported is to be found in the dispatch of 30 September 1933 from the British charge d’affaires in Moscow: ‘According to Mr Duranty the population of the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga had decreased in the past year by three million, and the population of the Ukraine by four to five million.  The Ukraine had been bled white….Mr Duranty thinks it quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year.”

What the American public got was not this straight stuff but the conclusion that ‘any report of famine’ was ‘exaggeration or malignant propaganda.’ The influence of his false reporting was enormous and long-lasting.

Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize for ‘dispassionate, interpretive reporting of the news from Russia.’ The announcement of the prize added that Duranty’s dispatches were ‘marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment, and exceptional clarity,’ being ‘excellent examples of the best type of foreign correspondence.’ The Nation, in citing the New York Times and Walter Duranty in its annual ‘honor roll,’ described his as ‘the most enlightening, dispassionate and readable dispatches from a great nation in the making which appeared in any newspaper in the world.’

At a banquet at the Waldorf Astoria to celebrate the recognition of the USSR by the United States, a list of names was read, each politely applauded by the guests until Walter Duranty’s was reached; then, Alexander Woollcott wrote in The New Yorker, ‘the only really prolonged pandemonium was evoked…Indeed, one got the impression that America, in a spasm of discernment, was recognizing both Russia and Walter Duranty.’”

Continued from Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society: Part 3…

This part argues that Christianity was a revenge strategy concocted by Jews against Rome for their destruction of the Second Temple. It was successfully deployed in order to rile up the poor, the slaves, the unwanted against Roman society, serving as the blueprint for future egalitarian leftist movements.

THE GREATEST META-NARRATIVE IN WORLD HISTORY: SPIRITUAL BOLSHEVISM

The question arises: what is it about the nature of society that allowed the Rothschilds and their allies to first establish widespread influence and control over European kings, and then enact and control the central banks that so heavily dominate society to this day?  What was it about the nature of Christian Europe that allowed carve-outs for money-lenders to create a situation that they could exploit and leverage to control Europe as a whole?

To address this question, let’s go way back in time and consider a theory of an early meta-narrative from two thousand years ago – an example that changed the world forever.

The example of Christianity and spiritual bolshevism.  

As a preface, establishment propagation of meta-narratives are not conclusive of either the veracity of underlying source material used in their narratives, nor the results of how the meta-narrative ultimately develops. In this case, the theory that will be advanced is that Paul of Tarsus developed and spread Christianity as a weapon of war against Rome, by far the dominant military power in the world, because they were too weak to win against them by force of arms.  Paul’s intent was to transvalue, per Nietzsche, Roman warrior values and turn them into priestly values, and by doing so rile up the Roman slaves, women, and other low-status minority groups and use them as a cudgel to smash their Hellenist enemies.  They also hoped to do it in such a way that, if it was victorious, the masses of the world would no longer consider the Jewish people as one ordinary sect among a multitude, deserving of no special consideration, but instead that they were the Chosen People (or at least, former Chosen People) and deserving of a permanent special place in their new religion.

With that said, to emphasize: this theory does not speak to the actual historical figure of Jesus, who stood up to the Pharisees for interpreting the Torah via the Oral Law in ways which contradicted its underlying intent, or for bitterly opposing usury and paying the ultimate price as a result. Per Rene Girard, Jesus’s sacrifice – a stunning and unprecedented act – overturned the scapegoat mechanism that lies at the heart of human nature, and this makes Christianity unique among modern religions in the empathy it gives to victims of mob behavior.  Nor does the theory being presented speak to the spiritual strength of the hierarchical Catholic Church which eventually arose from this narrative.  

With that in mind, let’s begin.  Unlike previous Sections, this Section will start off in the form of a historical story.

____

In the 1st century AD the Romans engaged in two long, brutal wars with Israel, known as the Roman-Israeli wars.  The Jews wanted independence, they wouldn’t accept Roman rule, and they hated sharing space with polytheistic Hellenists.  Writers as diverse as Cicero (106-43 BC), Horace (65-8 BC), Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD), Seneca (4-65 AD), Quintilian (30-100 AD), Martial (40-105 AD) Tacitus (56-120 AD), Juvenal (55-130 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180AD) heavily criticized the Jews for their stubborn ideology and subversion, as well as their militant zealotry.1  Tacitus, the famous historian who praised the Germans, held them in particularly low standing: “For the Jews, everything that is sacred to us is despicable, and what is repugnant to us is lawful. The Jews reveal a stubborn bond with one another…Those who embrace their religion practice the same thing and the first thing they are taught is to despise the Gods.”2

According to Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

“From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections.  Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of humankind.  The enthusiasm of the Jews was supported by the opinion that it was unlawful for them to pay taxes to an idolatrous master; and by the flattering promise which they derived from their ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters, and to invest the favorites of heaven with the empire of the earth.”3  

The behavior of the Jews toward Rome and their attempts at Hellenization flabbergasted the Romans, according to blogger Europa Soberana:

Only naive men could think of forbidding the Torah, the Shabbat or the Brit Milah without realizing that the whole of Jewry would prefer to die rather than renouncing their traditions.  The Greeks and the Romans, from their Olympic naivete, were too myopic in their approach to the Jewish problem.  They ignored the particularities that differentiated the Jews from the rest of the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and thought that they could place their temples and statues there as if the Jews were nothing more than another Arab or Syrian province, either Hellenised or Persianised.  The persistent identity that Jewry had shown did not motivate the carefree Romans to sufficiently wrap their heads around the problem.  The conviction that the Greco-Romans had of being carriers of a superior culture made them fall into a fateful error: to think that a culture can be valid for all humanity and exported to peoples of different ethnicity.  The Hellenisation and Romanisation of the East and North Africa had only one effect: ethnic chaos, the balkanization of Rome itself, ethnic struggles and finally, the appearance of Christianity.

Even using the brute force of her legions Rome was slow to realize that the Jews, in their resentment and their desire for revenge, did not care to sacrifice waves upon waves of individuals if they managed to annihilate a single Roman detachment.  This fundamentalist fanaticism, which went beyond the rational, must have left the Romans speechless, who were not accustomed to seeing an ill-equipped military people immolate themselves in that convinced manner, with a mind full of blind faith coming from a jealous, vengeful, abstract and tyrannical god.  Jehovah is, without a doubt, an extremely real will, and also a force clearly opposed to the Olympian and solar gods of the European peoples, whose height was the Greco-Roman Zeus-Jupiter.4

Ultimately Rome won these wars with extremely high military losses; Jerusalem was destroyed and an enormous number of Jews were killed – ancient sources say 1,100,000 from the Great Jewish Revolt5 and Cassius Dio say as high as 580,000 from the later Bar Kokhba Rebellion, astronomical figures for that time period. 

The Jewish nation was scattered to the winds, creating a Jewish diaspora that would last almost 2,000 years. But Gibbon argues that the Romans were thereafter lenient with the Jews and let them rebuild outside of Jerusalem:

“Notwithstanding these repeated provocations, the resentment of the Roman princes expired after the victory, nor were their apprehensions continued beyond the period of war and danger.  By the general indulgence of Polytheism, and by the mild temper of Antoninus Pius, the Jews were restored to their ancient privileges and once more obtained the permission of circumcising their children…New synagogues were frequently erected in the principal cities of the empire; and the sabbaths, the fasts, and the festivals, which were either commanded by the Mosaic law or enjoyed by the traditions of the Rabbis, were celebrated in the most solemn and public manner…their irreconcilable hatred of mankind, instead of flaming out in acts of blood and violence, evaporated in less dangerous gratifications…”6

In the buildup to these Jewish/Roman wars and associated social upheavals, Saul of Tarsus, better known as Saint Paul, a man who had never met Jesus, had a vision of Jesus three years after his death and converted to the religion.  This conversion virtually coincided with the initial outbreak of Jewish-Roman antipathy during Pilate’s reign and occurred just prior to the major break in relations attributed to Caligula, suggesting some causal link.

Until the trip of Paul to Damascus, in order to be a Christian it was essential to be a circumcised, orthodox and observant Jew. That the doctrine of Jesus was addressed to the Jews is evident in Matt. 10:6, when he says to the twelve Apostles: ‘Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel’. The phrase implies that the purpose was to rescue those Jews who have strayed from the Law of Moses. This was because ‘if you believed in Moses you would believe me’ (John, 5:46).7  Indeed, Jesus was Jewish, his parents were Jewish, all of the Disciples were Jewish, all the early converts were Jewish, and the three other main figures of the New Testament, Mark, Luke and Paul were also all Jews.  This is why Nietzsche stated, “The first thing to be remembered [about Christianity], if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is that we are among Jews.”8

Once Paul got involved in Christianity, he decided to re-tailor its messaging to appeal to non-Jews and spread its message from its narrow Jewish circle and introduce it to the Hellenists.  As an elite Pharisee Jew, Paul likely resented the incursion of the Roman Empire into Israel in the decades prior to his birth.  He also likely shared the long-standing Jewish antipathy for his neighboring Hellenists.  Seeing the futility of violent resistance to the militarily dominant Rome, the greatest martial force on the planet, Paul was likely searching for nonviolent, indirect, psychological or moral means of undermining his enemy.  Under this theory, he decided to play up the alleged divinity of a recently-crucified Jewish Rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, and turn him into the savior of humanity.9  According to Jewish tradition Peter knowingly assisted in this process.10

In his 1928 tract “Commissary to the Gentiles: The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda”, Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jew, makes the argument that Christianity was deliberately crafted as a weapon against Rome (later echoed by others such as Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz11):

[Saul had] perceived, to begin with, how utterly hopeless were the chances of little Judea winning out in an armed conflict against the greatest military power in the world. Second, and more important, it came to him that the vagabond creed which he had been repressing might be forged into an irresistible weapon against the formidable foe. Pacifism, non-resistance, resignation, love, were dangerous teachings at home. Spread among the enemy’s legions, they might break down their discipline and thus yet bring victory to Jerusalem. Saul, in a word, was probably the first man to see the possibilities of conducting war by propaganda.

He journeyed on to Damascus, and there to the amazement alike of his friends and of those he had gone to suppress, he announced his conversion to the faith and applied for admission to the brotherhood. On his return to Jerusalem he laid his new strategy before the startled Elders of Zion. After much debate and searching of souls, it was adopted. More resistance was offered by the leaders of the Ebionim of the capital. They were mistrustful of his motives, and they feared that his proposal to strip the faith of its ancient Jewish observances and practices so as to make it acceptable to Gentiles would fill the fraternity with alien half-converts, and dilute its strength. But in the end he won them over, too. And so Saul, the fiercest persecutor of Jesus’ followers, became Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. And so, incidentally, began the spread into the pagan lands of the West, an entirely new Oriental religion…

[Paul’s idea] was at this stage purely defensive. He had as yet no thought of evangelizing the world; he only hoped to discourage the enemy. With that accomplished, and the Roman garrisons out of Palestine, he was prepared to call a truce. But the slaves and oppressed of the Empire, the wretched conscripts, and the starving proletariat of the capital itself, found as much solace in the adapted Pauline version of the creed as the poor Jews before them had found in the original teachings of their crucified master.12

Paul cleverly tailored his religious arguments to attract the masses of urban poor, those dispossessed and unhappy with the power of Rome, including women, children and slaves: “Paul’s speeches are political cries: intelligent, virulent and fanatical harangues that urge the faithful to accept Jesus Christ to achieve redemption…Another key point that must be recognized as very skillful by the first preachers was to take advantage of the affinity for the poor, the dispossessed, the abandoned, the vagabonds and those who cannot help themselves; and the establishment of institutions of charity, relief and assistance.” 13

By claiming that converts to Christianity were morally superior to Romans in the eyes of God so long as they believed in Christ, and by creating Heaven and Hell as a massive carrot and stick that Hellenist religions lacked (Hades wasn’t much of a motivator for anyone as everyone ended up there), with an all-seeing spying God that constantly watched and judged your every action14, Paul created a supercharged spiritual bolshevism to challenge the foundation of Rome itself.  Polytheistic, pluralistic, decentralized Hellenism would have no chance against a universalist, equality-obsessed, intolerant religion which centralized power via regional Bishops (Julian the Apostate planned to centralize Hellenism to compete via the creation of provincial High Priests, as well as to have Hellenist temples provide charity to the masses, but was likely murdered by a Christian soldier before he could). Christianity had too many memetic evolutionary improvements over Hellenism not to eventually spread.

Nietzsche called the creation of Christianity an attempt to transvalue the core values of society by turning it from a warrior to a priestly society — pre-Christianity, the Roman elite used a “good versus bad” system to judge behavior: what was elite, what was strong, what was powerful, what was noble, what was robust, what involved self-determination and personal excellence, what could be achieved in this lifetime and in the here and now was considered good and life-affirming; to be weak, to be like the masses, deferring gratification indefinitely was considered bad or life-denying.  After Christianity transformed Roman society, the population looked at things as “good versus evil”: what was good was the inversion of Roman values, i.e. “the meek shall inherit the earth”, “turn the other cheek”, “love your enemies”15, and to wait for justice in the afterlife (a lifetime delayed gratification) was considered saintly, and to be aggressive, to be strong, to be dominant was considered to be “evil”.  It was a total transformation of society from top to bottom.  Nietzsche claimed, “This is precisely why the Jews are the most disastrous people in world history: they have left such a falsified humanity in their wake that even today Christians can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.”16 17

Christianity was hugely revolutionary, because if a slave or an ultra poor urbanite was equal to the Emperor in the eyes of God, or superior!, then why should the Emperor rule over them?  

Historian Tom Holland discusses Christianity’s original transvaluation of values in this clip.

Christians superficially endorsed earthy hierarchy with the phrase, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) and “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13) to quell Roman trepidation about the radical nature of the religion.  Christians could point to it and say “oh, we aren’t trying to overthrow Rome after all!”  But when compared to the core of the religion — spiritual equality for all as long as one had faith in Christ — it was a flimsy response.  Additionally, these early Christians parried criticisms that the religion was simply Jewish subversion by ideologically separating it from Judaism, even including a moderate element of hostility to it.

Christianity initially had only middling success.  Jesus lived for 30-some years; 20 years then passed with no written record at all; and for 20 more years we have only the Pauline epistles. So 70 years gone by, and the sum total of recorded history for this group of Christian Jews is a handful of letters by their leader, Paul.  Paul then dies in 66, apparently executed in Rome, and the first Jewish Revolt begins, lasting four years until Rome’s victory in 70 AD which cumulated in the destruction of the Jewish temple. 

After this, something changes, the reasons for which can only be inferred — within a year of the destruction of the temple, the first Gospel appears, the Gospel of Mark, and it is written explicitly for the Hellenist masses (Jewish terms and concepts are explained in 5:41, 7:1, 13:46, 14:12, 15:42; miracles abound from the first page (6:13)) and a full-court press is made to spread it.  This time it is quite successful.18 19 

Marcus Eli Ravage argues that the Gospel of Mark came out immediately after the temple’s destruction because the Jews had nothing more to lose:

“It was only after the fall of Jerusalem that Paul’s program developed to the full. Hitherto, as I have said, his tactic had been merely to frighten off the conqueror, in the manner of Moses plaguing the Pharaohs. He had gone along cautiously and hesitantly, taking care not to arouse the powerful foe. He was willing to dangle his novel weapon before the foe’s nose, and let him feel its edge, but he shrank from thrusting it in full force. Now that the worst had happened and Judea had nothing further to lose, he flung scruples to the wind and carried the war into the enemy’s country. The goal now was nothing less than to humble Rome as she had humbled Jerusalem, to wipe her off the map as she had wiped out Judea.

If Paul’s own writings fail to convince you of this interpretation of his activities, I invite your attention to his more candid associate John. Where Paul, operating within the shadow of the imperial palace and half the time a prisoner in Roman jails, is obliged to deal in parable and veiled hints, John, addressing himself to disaffected Asiatics, can afford the luxury of plain speaking. At any rate, his pamphlet entitled “Revelation” is, in truth, a revelation of what the whole astonishing business is about. Rome, fancifully called Babylon, is minutely described in the language of sputtering hate, as the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, as the woman drunken with the blood of saints (Christians and Jews), as the oppressor of “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” and—to remove all doubt of her identity—as “‘that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” An angel triumphantly cries, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen.” Then follows an orgiastic picture of ruin. Commerce and industry and maritime trade are at an end, Art and music and “the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride” are silenced. Darkness and desolation lie like a pall upon the scene. The gentle Christian conquerors wallow in blood up to the bridles of their horses. “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” And what is the end and purpose of all this chaos and devastation? John is not too reticent to tell us. For he closes his pious prophecy with a vision of the glories of the new—that is, the restored—Jerusalem: not any allegorical fantasy, I pray you, but literally Jerusalem, the capital of a great reunited kingdom of “the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.” Could any one ask for anything plainer?”

As Christianity spread among the underclasses, then, per its claims of spiritual superiority to the Hellenists, it led to massive social unrest against Hellenists and the loss of the strength and cohesiveness of Rome.  This strategy is called spiritual bolshevism, and riling up the masses in order to smash the existing order and seize power served as the precursor to economic bolshevism in the Soviet Union and biological bolshevism in America. 

---

The Spread of Christianity and the Decline of Hellenism

In 170 AD a Greek intellectual named Celsus launched an intense, vitriolic attack against Christianity in a book called On the True Doctrine, focusing on its theological foundations, its contradictions and its hypocrisy.  His works and almost all information about the author have not survived to the modern era, and we only know about it because a Christian named Origen quoted his work in a lengthy counter-attack.  Celsus thought Christians were not just ignorant about philosophy but that they deliberately reveled in their ignorance.  He accused Christians of targeting the uneducated, unintelligent masses in their recruitment: “Their injunctions are like this,” he wrote. “Let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near.  For these abilities are thought by us to be evils.”  He went on that Christians “are able to convince only the foolish, dishonorable and stupid, and only slaves, women and little children.”  Christians “do not want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as ‘Do not ask questions; just believe,’ and ‘Thy faith will save thee.’”20 He further stated that Christians claim “Wisdom in this life is evil, but foolishness is good”, an almost precise quote from Corinthians.  In other words, Christians pursued a strategy of spiritual bolshevism, riling up the underclass against society’s Hellenist rulers.  

Even Origen, Celsus’s great adversary, admitted that “the stupidity of some Christians is heavier than the sand of the sea.”21  Paul of Tarsus had argued “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”  Blind obedience and faith was both expected and demanded of followers: one Christian writer railed furiously at those who “put aside the sacred word of God, and devote themselves to geometry…some of them give all their energies to the study of Euclidian geometry, and treat Aristotle…with reverent awe; to some of them Galen [a famous surgeon] is almost an object of worship.”22 These Christians argued deontologically23 instead of consequentially; they believed that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under the rules of Christianity, rather than on the consequences of their actions on the strength and cohesiveness of Rome or its ability to provide a decent material quality of life for its citizens.24

Christian observers looked on the tolerance of their non-Christian neighbors with astonishment.  Augustine marveled at the fact that the Hellenists were able to worship many different Gods without discord while the Christians, who worshipped only one, splintered into countless warring factions.  A major example is the Arian crisis, which was an intra-Christian dispute over whether Jesus was fully God or just partially God and which resulted in an enormous number of dead believers.  Many Hellenists like Celsus actively praised plurality while the Christians did the opposite: Christ was the way, the truth and the light, and every other religion was not merely wrong but plunged its followers into a demonic darkness and risked them eternal damnation.  To allow someone to continue in an alternative form of worship or a heretical form of Christianity was not to allow religious freedom; it was to allow Satan to thrive.25

With each individual soul the battlefield between Heaven and Hell, John Chrysostom preached that Christians should spy on each other and everyone else to root out sin.  They should watch their fellow congregation and when they found them sinning, they should hound them, shun them, report them.  Nowhere was to be beyond the gaze of the good Christian informer, even private homes.  “Let us be meddlesome and search out those who had fallen,” he advised in a sermon that encouraged Christians to hunt out those who were lapsing from true Christian ritual.  “Even if we must enter into the fallen one’s home, let us not shrink back from it.”  Lest any of his flock felt awkward about such an intrusion, Chrysostom reassured them that what they were doing was not done to harm others but to help them.  To turn on, hound and hunt their fellows in this way was not to harm them — it was to save them.26

Over time, as Christianity strengthened its hold on power, its followers began to discriminate heavily against Hellenists (who they called “pagans”, which was a epithet meaning “rural” or “rustic”, akin to a “country bumpkin” today).  The first Christian Emperor Constantine (who murdered his wife — he allegedly boiled her in a bath because of a suspected affair with his son and converted to Christianity because the priests of the old Gods said he was too polluted to be purified of these crimes27) decided to penalize Hellenists in numerous ways, including raiding their temples.  He turned to “those accursed and foul people” who had chosen to stubbornly “hold themselves back” from Christianity and continue visiting their “sanctuaries of falsehood” and demanded that the statues be taken from their temples.  The Great Roman and Greek temples were broken open and their statues brought out and mutilated.  A recent book on the Christian desecration of statues focusing just on Egypt and the Near East runs to almost three hundred pages, dense with pictures of mutilation.28  After all, the first Commandment stated: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”, “thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”  It was not vandalism; it was God’s will.  The good Christian had a duty to do nothing less.29  The temples themselves were attacked: their doors were removed at Constantine’s order; others had their roofs stripped, “others were neglected, allowed to fall into ruin, or destroyed.”…many objects were shipped back as prize baubles for the emperor’s new city, Constantinople.  Constantine, as his nephew Julian the “apostate” wrote, was a “tyrant with the mind of a banker.”  The desecration and destruction continued for centuries.30  

Christian preachers reminded their flocks that anything that saved a soul, even if it did so at the expense of law, order or even the body that the soul inhabited, was acceptable.  To attack the houses, bodies and temples of those affiliated by the “pagan error” was not to harm these sinners but to help them.  This was not brutality – it was kindness, education, reformation.31  They even inverted the definition of the Greek term “Logos” to mean its opposite, then made it one of the key terms of the religion.32

The Greek writer Eunapius, commenting on the destruction of the temple of Serapis — whose architecture was considered to be greater than the Parthenon or the Colosseum — felt the destruction was done out of avarice.  As he wrote with scorn, “these warlike and honorable men” had destroyed this incredible temple out of “greed”, yet once they had finished their vandalism they “boasted that they had overcome the gods, and reckoned their sacrilege and impiety a thing to glory in.”  Nothing was left — the Christians stole everything but the floor, toppling the immense marble columns.  The tens of thousands of books, the remnants of the great Library of Alexandria, were all lost forever.  Perhaps they were burned — Luciano Canford observed “the burning of books was part of the advent and imposition of Christianity.”  

A war against Hellenist temples was also a war against the books that had all too often been stored outside them for safekeeping.  Canford called this moment “the melancholy experiences of the war waged by Christianity against the old culture and its sanctuaries: which meant, against the libraries.”33  Indeed, in the third century there had been 28 public libraries in Rome and many private ones; by the end of the fourth century they were, as the historian Ammianus Marcellinus observed with sorrow, “like tombs, permanently shut.”34   In Alexandria, Antioch and Rome bonfires of Hellenist books blazed and Christian officials looked on in satisfaction.  Book-burning was approved of and even recommended by Church authorities.  “Search out the books of the heretics…in every place” said the 5th century Syrian bishop Rabbula, and “wherever you can, either bring them to us or burn them in the fire.”35  Ammianus Marcellinus writes with distaste that “innumerable books and whole heaps of documents, which had been routed out from various houses, were piled up and burnt under the eyes of the judges.  They were treated as forbidden texts to allay the indignation caused by the executions, though most of them were treatises on various literal arts and on jurisprudence.”36

Christian historians refused to cover much of the negativity associated with the religion.  The Christian writer Eusebius – the “father of Church history” – wrote that the job of the historian was not to record everything but instead only those things that would do a Christian good to read.  He stated, “I am determined therefore to say nothing even about those [abuses]…I shall include in my overall account only those things by which first we ourselves, then later generations may benefit.”37

A little over ten years after the newly Christian Constantine took power, laws began to be passed restricting “the pollutions of idolatry.”  During his reign it was decreed that “no one should presume to set up cult-objects, or practice divination or other occult arts, or even to sacrifice at all.”  Under Constantine’s son it was ordered that the temples were to be closed.  In AD 356 it became illegal on pain of death to worship images.  “Pagans” began to be described as “madmen” whose beliefs must be “completely eradicated.”38  Less than fifty years after Constantine, the death penalty was announced for any who dared to sacrifice.  In AD 399 the Christian emperor Theodosius announced that “if there should be any temples in the country districts, they shall be torn down without disturbance or tumult.  For when they are torn down and removed, the material basis for all superstition will be destroyed.”39  In AD 423, the Christian government announced that any Hellenists who still survived were to be suppressed.  Though, it added confidently and ominously: “We now believe that there are none.”40  The last Hellenist philosopher Damascius, who was the head of the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens, fled to Persia with seven followers under fear of death from the Christians, but life there was unbearable and he and his followers eventually returned, where they faded into obscurity.

---

The fall of Rome and the elimination of Hellenist knowledge

Ultimately, Paul’s strategy succeeded beautifully and resulted in Rome’s destruction only 100 years after the total victory of Christianity: Theodosius made Christianity the official state religion in 380 and Rome was destroyed in 476 or, arguably as early as 385.  According to Gibbon, Christianity had a substantial role in Rome’s fall:

“As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.”41

It’s success caused the complete destruction of the Hellenist way of life.   90-99% of Hellenist knowledge is estimated to have been destroyed by Christians, including books, art, history, temples, scientific knowledge, philosophy and statues, and the polytheistic, tolerant religions of the Romans were wiped from the planet.  Incidentally, the only religion other than Christianity that was not deliberately destroyed was Judaism.  In this sense, Nietzsche said, the slave had defeated the master: Judea had defeated Rome.  This “victory” in turn led directly to the Dark Ages.

Of the Hellenist knowledge that the Christians did not deliberately destroy, an almost wholesale policy of neglect destroyed most of the rest.  To survive, manuscripts needed to be cared for and recopied.  Classical ones were not.  Medieval monks, at a time when parchment was expensive and classical learning wasn’t valued, simply took pumice stones and scrubbed the last copies of classical works from the page.  Rohmann pointed out that there is even evidence to suggest that in some cases “whole groups of classical works were deliberately selected to be deleted and overwritten in around AD 700, often with texts authored by [the fathers of the Church or by] legal texts that criticized or banned pagan literature.”  Pliny, Plautus, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Livy and many more were scrubbed away by Christian believers.  The Christians delighted in it: John Chrysostom bragged that the writings “of the Greeks have all perished and are obliterated”, and that “Where is Plato?  Nowhere!  Where Paul?  In the mouths of all!”42

An example of lost Hellenist knowledge is as follows.  The Greek philosopher Democritus was a polymath who had written works on a breathless array of topics, a far from complete list of his titles includes On History, On Nature, The Science of Medicine, On the Tangents of the Circle and the Sphere, On Irrational Lines and Solids, On the Causes of Celestial Phenomena, On the Causes of Atmospheric Phenomena, On Reflected Images… The list goes on. Today Democritus’s most famous theory is the theory of atomism, which stated that everything in the world was made not by any divine being but by the collision and combination of atoms.  According to this school of thought, these particles were invisible to the naked eye but they had their own structure and could not be cut (temno) into any smaller particles: they are a-temnos – “the uncuttable thing”: the atom.  The Christians hated this theory because, as the Christian apologist Minucius Felix stated, if everything in the universe had been “formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, what God is the architect?”  Augustine disliked atomism for precisely the same reason that atomists liked it: it weakens mankind’s terror of divine punishment and Hell.  Every single one of Democritus’s works were lost during the decline of Rome, and as the eminent physicist Carlo Rovelli said, “the loss of the works of Democritus in their entirety is the greatest intellectual tragedy to ensue from the collapse of the old classical civilization.”  The atomic theory came down on only a single slender thread: it was contained in one single volume of Lucretius’s great poem, which was held in one single German library, which one single intrepid book hunter would find and save from extinction.  That single volume became a literary sensation, returned atomism to European thought and influenced Newton, Galileo and later Einstein.43

Another example of lost Hellenist knowledge is its infrastructure marvels.  Around a million people lived on Rome seven hills and they walked among world-famous monuments of awesome beauty and size.  Towering aqueducts disgorged millions of gallons of water a day, filling the city’s drinking-water basins, its baths and even a massive fake lake on which mock naval battles could be staged.  A million cubic meters of water flowed into the city every day – a thousand liters per head, double the amount available to those living in modern Rome.  After Rome fell, no city in Europe would come close to matching its magnificence – and certainly not its plumbing, whose sewer tunnels were so massive that a man might ride a fully laden wagon along them – for well over a millennium.44 

Vast troves of classical texts were also purged.  The writings of the Greeks “have all perished and are obliterated”: that was what John Chrysostom had said.  Monasteries erased the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca and Archimedes.  Pliny was scraped from the page.  An Arab traveler, Al Mas’udi, stated centuries later, “During the early days of the [Roman] empire…the sciences were honored and enjoyed universal respect.  From an already solid and grandiose foundation, they were raised to greater heights every day, until the Christian religion made its appearance among the [Romans]; this was a fatal blow to the edifice of learning; its traces disappeared and its pathways were effaced.”45  Imagine where mankind would be today if thousands of years of history, science, and math had not been lost?

Nietzsche’s overall perspective of the clash of values between Judaism, its Christian offshoot and Hellenist Rome is summarized as follows: 

Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values “good and bad,” “good and evil” have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. …The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called “Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome.” To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.” And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. 

By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of St. John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience… 

The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality… 

Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is that people bow down to today in Rome itself, as the personification of all the highest values — and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered.46

---

---

HOW DID TENSION BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY ORIGINALLY ARISE, AND HOW DO THEY RELATE TO ISLAM?

If the spread of Christianity was a Paul-inspired revenge plot as this theory alleges, why does the religion have a love-hate relationship with Jews and Judaism, and why in turn do Jews generally have such distaste for Christianity itself?  How did this develop?

Christianity had early on developed a self-conception that was different from Judaism, which was necessary for its propagation among the anti-Jewish Hellenist masses.  While Jesus, Mary, Paul, Peter, and the disciples were all Jews, Jews never did accept Jesus as their savior, they agitated for the Romans to execute him, and Jews still practiced exclusive customs and social mores.  Melito of Sardis made anti-Jewish comments in 160 AD; Tertullian too in 200 AD and Hippolytus in 220 AD, and they become explicit and harsh around 375 AD with Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Jerome.  Additionally, as the Catholic Church developed it established a rigid hierarchy that, by its very nature, became reactive against external pressures (such as financial and media pressures by non-believers) and one that served to check and limit the textual radical egalitarianism in the New Testament itself.

On the other hand, the Talmud is quite negative in its characterization of Jesus and Mary.  Many prominent Jews in the modern era (especially secular leftist ones) have what seems to be a visceral hatred toward white Christians.  What is interesting is that they don’t seem to feel such extreme emotions toward Islam and Muslims today; in fact they appear more or less neutral toward them, except perhaps to fear physical violence from them, to encourage them to vote Democrat for mutual political gain, and to calculate their impact in relation to Israel’s security (ultra-conservative Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Israel). So to compare the Jewish approach to the two religions may offer insight into this question.

Historically, while Jews lived under Islamic lands in the Middle East for 1,300 years, they were discriminated against as Dhimmis (i.e. treated as second class citizens) to the point where the famous Jewish Rabbi Maimonidies exclaimed, “God has entangled us with this people, the nation of Ishmael, who treat us so prejudicially and who legislate our harm and hatred…. No nation has ever arisen more harmful than they, nor has anyone done more to humiliate us, degrade us, and consolidate hatred against us.” And Jews were expelled from all Middle Eastern Muslim countries between 1948 and the early 1970s.  On the other hand, during many periods of Jewish life under Islamic rule, they experienced toleration (per many Jewish historians) and they were, per historian Mark R. Cohen, generally physically safer than under Christian rule.

Here are some possible explanations:

1. Intermarriage and conversions threatens Judaism’s longterm outlook: One possible explanation is that European culture and Christianity proved to be enticing for Jewish conversions and intermarriages in a way that Islam later was not.  Just as the Jews had bitterly fought the Romans and the non-Roman Jewish Hellenists in order to preserve their way of life, they ultimately came to see Christianity, so useful for the pressing purpose of revenge against Rome, as immensely threatening to the longterm continued existence of the Jewish community — they call it the “silent Holocaust” as it caused so many to abandon their community, intermarry and convert.  As Joseph Sobran said:“Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible.  It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.  Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.  The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.  The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it.  And, superiority excites envy.  Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.” That is quite possibly the reason why many Jews feel negatively about Christians, as western civilization is so awe-inspiring and attractive that it serves as a self-preservation technique for community preservation.
2. Commonality between the Koran and Old Testament:  Both Islam and Judaism are religions which regulate to minute detail every aspect of a believer’s life with their respective Sharia and Halakhah systems.   Both traditions contain detailed legal and ethical instructions for both religious and social life.  Unlike Christianity, which relies on councils or synods to rule on doctrine, ethics and behavior, the laws and beliefs in Islam and Judaism are derived through a process of debate. In fact the two religions are so close in terms of their structure that the tenth-century rabbinic leader Saadia Gaon unselfconsciously referred to Jewish law as shar’ia, the prayer leader in a synagogue as an imam and the direction Jews faced when praying as qibla.  Both religions emphasize correct action (orthopractic belief), versus the Christian focus on prayer/repentance for salvation and an emphasis on correct belief (orthodoxy).   Per Israel Shahak, Jews view Christianity as idolatrous but not Islam.47
3. Christian Tolerance in America Undermines Jewish Desire to Feel Oppressed: Jews are used to living in environments of outright repression and hostility, which Islamic countries provide by enforcing Sharia and Dhimmitude.  It feeds into the Jewish identity as persecuted victims.  According to this theory, Jews cannot function in a society in which they are not oppressed by a stronger tribe, because they live and breath perceived oppression, perceived slights, which they never forgive and never forget. Kevin MacDonald confirmed this point when discussing Jewish communal memory: “Non-Jews have a difficult time fathoming Jewish communal memory. For strongly identified Jews, the “vilely discriminatory” actions of immigration restrictionists are part of the lachrymose history of the Jewish people. Immigration restriction from 1924–1965 is in the same category as the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the marauding Crusaders of the Middle Ages, the horrors of the Inquisition, the evil of the Russian Czar, and the rationally incomprehensible calamity of Nazism. These events are not just images drawn from the dustbin of history. They are deeply felt images and potent motivators of contemporary behavior. As Michael Walzer noted, “I was taught Jewish history as a long tale of exile and persecution—Holocaust history read backwards.” From this perspective, the immigration restriction of 1924–1965 is an important part of the Holocaust because it prevented the emigration of Jews who ultimately died in the Holocaust—a point that Steinlight dwells on at length.”48On the other hand, modern Christian Americans are not in a position of domination, and they offer forgiveness freely as a condition of their faith, living lives unmarred by obsession over who wronged them generations ago. Mercy, grace and forgiveness appear confounding to the psyche of those who live and breath perceived oppression; it appears beyond their understanding, and it both terrifies and enrages them.
4. Christian Faith in God Prevents Ideological Indoctrination: A theory which serves as a corollary to #3 in that the Christian focus on God and on judgment in the afterlife, that this world is fallen and cannot be perfected, prevents true-believing Christians from wholeheartedly adopting the secular ideologies de jure, whether that is communism or critical race theory.  This in turn gives those who are obsessed with creating heaven on earth through endless ideological tinkering significant consternation.  People only have room in their hearts for one core belief, and if that belief is a religious God then there isn’t room in it for a secular ideology.
5. The Jewish/Christian conflict is a false dichotomy and Christianity serves as false opposition: Under the theory advanced by Adam Green, by Christians buying into the notion that Jews were originally the Chosen People, by adopting their Old Testament as a cornerstone of their belief system, and by adopting the Jewish God, Christians elevated Jews to a special position which they never possessed among the Hellenists; Romans had treated Judaism as an unexceptional sect among a multitude of sects that the Roman Empire managed without special status or preferment.  Adam Green posts many videos of Orthodox Jewish rabbis who publicly argue this point: they state, in a semi-conspiratorial tone, that Peter and Paul were Jewish double agents sent to convert Hellenists to Christianity so they would obey the Noahide laws and worship the Jewish God.  Therefore Christian antagonism is half-hearted and it serves Jewish purposes by preventing assimilation.  The same argument would apply to Islam, which is another religion “of the Book”.  Green further argues that the stories about Jesus were deliberately crafted by early converts to fulfill the requirements in Old Testament scripture pertaining to the arrival of a sacrificial Messiah to encourage Jewish conversion into the sect. 

Whatever the reason(s) are will continue to be long debated.

***

This brings us to the end of Part 1 of “Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks.” In Part 2, we will review what happened in the aftermath of the victory of spiritual bolshevism against Rome, how what we think of as secular liberalism arose, and explore how the echoes of this ancient conflict continue to affect us today.

---

1 Europa Soberana, Rome Against Judea; Judea Against Rome, 10-11.

2 Rome Against Judea, 10.

3 Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Vol. 1), p. 207.

4 Rome Against Judea, 51-52.

5 Rome Against Judea, 46.

6 Gibbon, p. 208.

7 Rome Against Judea, 27.

8 Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 44.

9 Per Adam Green, “The Eastern Orthodox Church venerates Gamaliel as a saint.  In the Talmud, Gamaliel is a top Pharisee, Jerusalem Sanhedrin leader, and one of the greatest Rabbis of all time.  Acts says Saul the Pharisee/Saint Paul was trained by Gamaliel.  Very suspicious to say the least.”

Acts 22:3 “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Clicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel…”.  “Gamaliel holds a reputation in the Mishnah for being one of the greatest teachers in all the annals of Judaism”; see here.

10 “According to an old Jewish tradition, Simon Peter joined the early Christians at the decision of the rabbis. Worried that early Christianity’s similarity to Judaism would lead people to mistake it for a branch of Judaism, he was chosen to join them. As he moved up in rank, he would be able to lead them into forming their own, distinct belief system. Despite this, he was said to remain a practicing Jew, and is ascribed with the authorship of the Nishmas prayer.”  Per here, also see here.

11 “Defeat led to Jewish dispersion.  From that dispersed seemingly hopeless position, the descendants of the Jews began to wage, in Graetz’s words, “a new kind of warfare against long-established Roman institutions” which would ultimately “modify or partly destroy them.”  Graetz is referring to Christianity – the most successful Jewish sect, in his view.  To conquer Rome from within, Judaism had to be modified, however, and it “became estranged from and placed itself in harsh antagonism to the parent source.”  E. Micahel Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History, page 28.  Greatz wiki here.

12 Marcus Eli Ravage, Commissary to the Gentiles.  Available to read here.

13 Rome Against Judea; 58. Or see Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, section 51: “Christianity was not “national,” it was not based on race–it appealed to all the varieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core–the instinct against the healthy, against health. Everything that is well–constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offense to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul’s priceless saying: “And God hath chosen the weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and things which are despised”: this was the formula; in hoc signo the decadence triumphed.”

14 “Roman and Greek intellectuals had shown profound distaste for such an involved deity.  The idea that a divine being was watching every move of every human being was, to these observers, not a sign of great love but a ‘monstrous’ absurdity.  The Christian God in their writings was frequently described as a prurient busybody, a peculiar ‘nuisance’ who was ‘restless, shamelessly curious, being present at man’s every act.’ Why was he so interested in the every doing of mere mortals?  Even before Christianity, sophisticated Roman thinkers had poured scorn on such an idea.  As Pliny the Elder had put it: ‘that [a] supreme being, whatever it be, pays heed to man’s affairs is a ridiculous notion.  Can we believe that it would not be defied by so gloomy and so multifarious a duty?’  Didn’t a god have better things to do?”  – Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 182.  

15 Although the interpretation of this particular phrase may be grossly misconstrued in the modern era.  Per Schmitt in Concept of the Political, section 3: “As German and other languages do not distinguish between the private and political enemy, many misconceptions and falsifications are possible. The often quoted “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27) reads “diligite inimicos vestros”, and not “diligite hostes vestros”. No mention is made of the political enemy. Never in the thousand-year struggle between Christians and Moslems did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love toward the Saracens or Turks. The enemy in the political sense need not be hated personally, and in the private sphere only does it make sense to love one’s enemy, i.e., one’s adversary. The Bible quotation touches the political antithesis even less than it intends to dissolve, for example, the antithesis of good and evil or beautiful and ugly. It certainly does not mean that one should love and support the enemies of one’s own people.“

16 Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, section 24. Nietzsche was the last philosopher.  This is because he is the first one who recognized the core egalitarian values that underlay society, that they had been transvalued by Jews looking to undermine Rome after the destruction of the second temple as a revenge strategy, and that only a transvaluation of core values back to greatness, strength, individuality, self-determination, immediacy of purpose, honor, acceptance of hierarchy and nobility could move humanity forward. A rebirth of philosophy is only possible after a society-wise transvaluation of core values occurs, which could then generate and build fresh philosophical world-views on the basis of those new values.  Until then, porn and Netflix will have to suffice as we hurtle toward civilizational and possible species-level collapse.

17 Nietzsche also described the Jews as incredibly powerful but hiding behind the guise of slave morality as a sword-and-shield strategy, i.e. they loudly claim they are victims even as they aggressively rile up the underclass masses in order to seize power; this confuses their enemies who can’t imagine acts so spiteful and underhanded:

“The Jews, a people “born for slavery”, “the chosen people among peoples,” as they themselves said and believed, achieved the amazing feat of inverting values, thanks to which life on earth for two millennia has possessed a new and dangerous appeal. Their prophets fused “rich,” “godless,” “evil,” “violent,” and “sensuous” into a unity. In this inversion of values (to which belongs the use of the word for “poor” as a synonym for “holy” and “friend”) lies the significance of the Jewish people: with them begins the slave rebellion in morality. [BGE 195]” 

Here is a representative quotation from Beyond Good and Evil:

“The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe.”[BGE 251].  Here is another, from The Antichrist: “Psychologically considered, the Jewish people are a people endowed with the toughest vital energy, who, placed in impossible circumstances . . . divined a power in these instincts with which one could prevail against ‘the world.’”[A 24].  He again praises the Jews for having the strength to rule Europe if they chose to: “That the Jews, if they wanted it—or if they were forced into it, which seems to be what the anti-Semites want—could even now have preponderance, indeed quite literally mastery over Europe, that is certain”[BGE 251]

18 Richard Carrier argues in On the Historicity of Jesus, page 156-159, that “A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum of the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time.  Those Jews who believed they could physically retake control of the temple naturally pinned their hopes on military messianism (as exemplified by the Zealots and the Sicarii, and everyone who led actual rebellions against Rome, from Judas the Galilean to Bar Kochba).  But if any Jews had realized that such a reconquest was impossible (as some must [given the long-standing overwhelming military might of Rome]) but still sought a means to escape their cognitive dissonance without denying the evident facts or abandoning deep-stated religious beliefs (and it is reasonable to assume at least some Jews did seek such means without going to such ends), then for them only one solution remained: to deny the physical importance of the temple at Jerusalem itself.

That would require replacing it, and not with another temple (as that would only recreate the same problem all over again and thus not in fact solve it, as was evident in the fate of the Samaritan messianic uprising at Gerizim), but with something intangible, which neither the Romans nor the corrupt Jewish elite could control (as the intangible cannot be seized or occupied), and which required neither money nor material power to bring about or maintain (the two factors perceived to have corrupted the original temple cult – and to always favor the Romans, who alone had boundless quantities of both), and whose ruler was himself incapable of corruption (and there was only one who was truly incapable of corruption: God).

This does not entail that anyone did think this, only that it would have been an easy and natural progression of thought from problem to solution, and therefore not implausible.  It fit the political and religious context and our understanding of human nature and ingenuity.  Therefore, if any religious innovator had proposed that God had arranged a supreme sacrifice capable of cleansing all once and for all (such as, e.g., through the ritual atoning sacrifice of his firstborn son), and further arranged that God’s spirit would, as a result, dwell forever within each individual who pledged himself to him (and thus no longer dwell, or dwell only, within the temple at Jerusalem), then his message would resonate among many Jews as an ingenious and attractive solution to the problem of Jewish elite corruption and Roman invincibility, by eliminating the relevance of the temple to messianic hopes, and thus eliminating the basis for any doomed military conflict with Rome, and further eliminating the problem of the corrupt Jewish elite by simply disinheriting them from God’s kingdom and removing them as middlemen between the people and their God – all without requiring the deployment of any physical or military resources.  One simply had to declare that it had been done.  God’s will.  Sorted.

The basic Christian gospel – imagining that the death of a messiah had conclusively atoned for all sins (as the OT could already be understood to say), and that by joining with him (through adoption by baptism; and through symbolic consumption of his body and blood) God would dwell in us (instead of the temple) – would thus be recognized by many Jews as an ingenious and attractive idea.  Especially since the end result would be that instead of taking orders from the Jewish elite, we would have as our sovereign no fallible men but Christ himself, God’s appointed Lord, directly speaking to his subjects from the right hand of God in heaven (by spirit and angelic communication, and secret messages planted in scripture).  Thus the problem of elite corruption is seemingly removed without requiring violence or money or diplomacy or military victory.  God has his victory; and all cognitive dissonance is resolved…

The only sacred space this doctrine required one to physically control was one’s own body, a notion already popularized by philosophical sects such as the Stoics, who taught that nothing external can conquer a man who in his wisdom remains internally free.  Not death, nor imprisonment, nor torture represented any victory over him.  This was therefore a battle one could always win, even against the ‘invincible’ Romans.  One merely had to believe it, to feel it was true, that God now lived in you.  No other evidence was required.  Thus it should not surprise us that Christianity converted all the military imagery of popular messianism into spiritual metaphor, to represent what we would now call a cultural war.  This aligns perfectly with the notion of a spiritual transfer of authority to the people, negating the relevance of the temple and the Jewish elite, while retaining the most fundamental requirements of being Jewish (namely, faith and obedience to the commandments of God; though even that would later be done away with).

The relevance of this observation is that the earliest Christian gospel makes far more sense as a product of its political context than it does when completely divorced from that context…The centrality of the temple was a continual problem for the Jews.  A physical location requiring political control entailed military domination.  So long as the Romans had the latter, the Jews would never have the former.  The Zealots took the logical option of attempting to remove the Romans and restore Jewish control.  But the Christians took the only other available option: removing the temple from their entire soteriological (or ‘salvation’) scheme.

Christians could then just await God’s wrath to come from heaven, while in the meantime, God’s promise could be delivered unto the kingdom they had spiritually created (Rom. 14.17-18; 1 Cor. 4.19-20), first in an anticipatory way (in the moral and ‘supernatural’ success of the Christian community), and then in the most final way (in the apocalypse itself: e.g. 1 Cor. 15.24, 50; 6.9-10; Gal. 5.19-25; 1 Thess. 4.10-5.15).  That the Christians and the Zealots both may have come from the same sectarian background, and pursued collectively the only two possible solutions to the problem facing the Jews at the time, reveals Christianity to be more akin to something inevitable than something surprising.”

19 Ravage.

20 Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 40-41.

21 Nixey, 41.

22 Nixey, 158.

23 The concept of deontological belief is explained by Nietzsche in The Anti-Christ, section 50: “It appears, unless I have been incorrectly informed, that there prevails among Christians a sort of criterion of truth that is called “proof by power.” Faith makes blessed: therefore it is true.”–It might be objected right here that blessedness is not demonstrated, it is merely promised: it hangs upon “faith” as a condition–one shall be blessed because one believes. But what of the thing that the priest promises to the believer, the wholly transcendental “beyond”–how is that to be demonstrated?–The “proof by power,” thus assumed, is actually no more at bottom than a belief that the effects which faith promises will not fail to appear. In a formula: “I believe that faith makes for blessedness– therefore, it is true.” But this is as far as we may go. This “therefore” would be absurdum itself as a criterion of truth.–But let us admit, for the sake of politeness, that blessedness by faith may be demonstrated (–not merely hoped for, and not merely promised by the suspicious lips of a priest): even so, could blessedness–in a technical term, pleasure–ever be a proof of truth? So little is this true that it is almost a proof against truth when sensations of pleasure influence the answer to the question “What is true?” or, at all events, it is enough to make that “truth” highly suspicious. The proof by “pleasure” is a proof of “pleasure–nothing more; why in the world should it be assumed that true judgments give more pleasure than false ones, and that, in conformity to some pre-established harmony, they necessarily bring agreeable feelings in their train?–The experience of all disciplined and profound minds teaches the contrary. Man has had to fight for every atom of the truth, and has had to pay for it almost everything that the heart, that human love, that human trust cling to. Greatness of soul is needed for this business: the service of truth is the hardest of all services.”

24 Per Nietzsche in The Anti-Christ, section 49: “At the opening of the Bible there is the whole psychology of the priest.  The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science, the sound comprehension of cause and effect. But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable conditions–a man must have time, he must have an overflowing intellect, in order to “know.” . . .”Therefore, man must be made unhappy,”–this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.  It is easy to see just what, by this logic, was the first thing to come into the world: “sin.” The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole “moral order of the world,” was set up against science–against the deliverance of man from priests.  Man must not look outward; he must look inward. He must not look at things shrewdly and cautiously, to learn about them; he must not look at all; he must suffer. And he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest… The concept of guilt and punishment, including the doctrines of “grace,” of “salvation,” of “forgiveness”–lies through and through, and absolutely without psychological reality–were devised to destroy man’s sense of causality: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and effect. When the natural consequences of an act are no longer “natural,” but are regarded as produced by the ghostly creations of superstition–by “God,” by “spirits,” by “souls”–and reckoned as merely “moral” consequences, as rewards, as punishments, as hints, as lessons, then the whole ground-work of knowledge is destroyed–then the greatest of crimes against humanity has been perpetrated.–I repeat that sin, man’s self-desecration par excellence, was invented in order to make science, culture, and every elevation and ennobling of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.”

25 Nixey, 48.

26 Nixey, 221.

27 Nixey, 100.

28 Nixey, 114.

29 Nixey, 116.

30 Nixey, 101-105.

31 Nixey, 239.

32 The term Logos is one of the main concepts of Greek philosophy — “a term whose original meaning was universal law.” “Logos in Greek and Hebrew means Metaphysics, the unifying principle of the world.” It is a common term in ancient philosophy and theology “expressing an idea of immanent reason in the world, under various modifications.” Plato and Aristotle understood Logos as “a law of being and principle of logic.” Among the Stoics, the term “Logos, denoted the law of physical and spiritual worlds in so far as they merged in a pantheistic unity.” To them God was immanent in the world constituting its vitalizing force and the law guiding the universe, which they called Logos; insofar all things develop from this force, they called it spermaticos Logos.” The profound modifications of Logos by John in the Gospel are i) the Logos becomes fully personified, ii) the spiritual life resides in the Logos and is communicated to men, and iii) the idea of Logos as reason becomes subordinate to the idea of Logos as word, the expression of God’s will and power, divine energy, life, love, and light. Per here.

33 Nixey, 94.

34 Nixey, 162.

35 Nixey, 168.

36 Nixey, 173.

37 Nixey 163-164.

38 Nixey, 117.

39 Nixey, 119.

40 Nixey, 86.

41 Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 38, part VI of Volume 3.

42 Nixey, 175-176.

43 Nixey, 40.

44 Nixey, 56.

45 Nixey, 258.

46 Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morality, I,16.

47 Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, 82-83: “According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned. The more popular accounts – which were nevertheless taken quite seriously – such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name ‘Jesus’ was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli Jewish schools.

Secondly, for theological reasons, mostly rooted in ignorance, Christianity as a religion is classed by rabbinical teaching as idolatry. This is based on a crude interpretation of the Christian doctrines on the Trinity and Incarnation. All the Christian emblems and pictorial representations are regarded as ‘idols’ – even by those Jews who literally worship scrolls, stones or personal belongings of ‘Holy Men’.

The attitude of Judaism towards Islam is, in contrast, relatively mild. Although the stock epithet given to Muhammad is ‘madman’ (meshugga), this was not nearly as offensive as it may sound now, and in any case it pales before the abusive terms applied to Jesus. Similarly, the Qur’an – unlike the New Testament – is not condemned to burning. It is not honored in the same way as Islamic law honors the Jewish sacred scrolls, but is treated as an ordinary book. Most rabbinical authorities agree that Islam is not idolatry (although some leaders of Gush Emunim now choose to ignore this). Therefore the Halakhah decrees that Muslims should not be treated by Jews any worse than ‘ordinary’ Gentiles. But also no better. Again, Maimonides can serve as an illustration. He explicitly states that Islam is not idolatry, and in his philosophical works he quotes, with great respect, many Islamic philosophical authorities. He was, as I have mentioned before, personal physician to Saladin and his family, and by Saladin’s order he was appointed Chief over all Egypt’s Jews. Yet, the rules he lays down against saving a Gentile’s life (except in order to avert danger to Jews) apply equally to Muslims.”

48 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, 16.

Continued from Part 2…

This part looks at the objectives of our rulers, who want to steal the wealth of mankind and destroy their connection to their distinctive histories and cultures in order to ensure that their rule will never be challenged in the future.

WHAT ARE THE UPCOMING PLANS OF OUR RULERS?

What are the goals for this four hundred year banking dynasty and their small number of core allies?  They seem to have all the power and money in the world, but it’s not enough.  They want more, they want everything.  How do they get everything?

These central bank owners look around and see eight billion+ people on earth, declining natural resources and various threats to their rule.  To counteract these threats their upcoming objectives are to:

1. Increase control to the maximum extent possible, especially using upcoming programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).  CBDCs have been undergoing research and development for years in 90% of the countries in the world (including the U.S., E.U., China, Japan, Russia, even Iran), and blockchain technology has been studied through the real-world use of Bitcoin and other non-government cryptocurrencies (supercharged by the unregulated proliferation of tether1).  CBDCs are getting close to being ready to deploy.  The benefits to our elites are multi-faceted: it will destroy the untraced cash economy by ledgerizing every transaction, increasing the tax base and decreasing the privacy of citizens; the government can expand the circulating amount of currency at the push of a button, program the CBDC to limit what items or under what conditions people can spend their CBDCs (i.e. maybe you can only spend them within five miles of your house, or you can buy only one pound of red meat a month, or you can’t use them without being up-to-date on mandatory vaccinations).  They will be able to cut you out from your funds with ease.  They will also use woke AI to scan your internet and search histories, your email and your conversations in order to assign you a social credit score: being below a certain score will impact your ability to hold down a job, have a bank account open or participate in society.  It is unclear exactly how this system will be rolled out: perhaps as part of domestic measures implemented during a war with Russia or China (a Rothschild-approved war with outcomes determined in advance), or possibly from a banking or currency crisis (hyperinflation from transitioning to a multi-polar world and losing reserve currency status? A stock market crash from rising interest rates?), or maybe it will be rolled out more slowly such as initially in the form of UBI or other welfare before expanding – the “war on cash” is also ongoing.  Either way, it is coming soon.
2. Continue existing efforts to drastically lower western consumption rates via Agenda 2030, Net Zero, the Great Reset and other initiatives.
3. Once CBDCs are ubiquitous and widely accepted, the central bank owners will push even more aggressively for population behavior modification to “thin the herd”; they will want to continue decreasing the independent white population, and possibly reduce the worldwide population to a much more sustainable number in order to preserve dwindling worldwide natural resources.  The tactics they use and the speed involved will likely be determined by political necessity as well as AI analysis; perhaps they go about it slowly and then ramp up, or perhaps they trigger a violent reaction from white populations in order to then crush them.
4. Of the remaining population, the elites will prefer to race mix them in order to lower average IQs down to 80-85 so they will be unable to challenge the elite’s power ever again, giving them permanent, perpetual control. The only thing better than unlimited money and total control is knowing that your rule, and the rule of your descendants will never be usurped. 

Does this sound extreme or farfetched?  It was the founder of the modern EU Richard Kalergi’s publicly stated strategy, where in his book Practical Idealism he stated that he “wanted to completely destroy the face of Europe” and that “Europeans are to become Asiatic-Negroid mongrels.”  Other European leaders have repeated this.  In 2009 French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the Brussels Journal: “…if the French do not interbreed of their own free will, it will be necessary for the French regime to resort to even more forcible measures.”  He repeated similar statements in a 2008 speech (starting at 53 seconds):

Kalergi stated that future Europeans “would resemble ancient Egyptians”, and the biennial Kalergi prize, an award bestowed in recognition of major concessions made toward achieving the Kalergi plan, have recipients including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl, Herman van Rompuy and Jean-Claude Juncker but their exact “achievements” to win this award are hidden.  Plus, they can conduct all sorts of experiments on the masses in order to supercharge attempts to achieve immortality…

Under a barrage of “diversity is our strength” and magic dirt theory propaganda, the white percent of the U.S. population has decreased from 90% to 60% in only 50 years and with projections to reach 15% by 2110.  In Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, and the rest of Western Europe, similar (but not quite as extreme) declines have occurred. White fertility rates are well below replacement where, in 2016, white deaths exceed births in a majority of states.  In France, a Muslim majority population is projected in less than 40 years based on trending demographics.   

Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, gleefully tracks the declining white percentage in America in a publicly available video.  

“Diversity is our strength”: which is diverse, the people of the world each with their own nation, or an elite forced interbreeding program to make everyone the same mixed-race slave?

To be fair, it’s hard not to be sympathetic to the elite’s population reduction agenda — look at the rate of animal extinction2, the rate of deforestation and natural resource extraction (all the easily accessible oil has already been pumped; companies have to use fracking and deep ocean drilling to get anything now), look at the levels of pollution and plastics everywhere, look at the overfished oceans filled with trash. The world is indeed filled with dumb, lazy, obese “useless people” (per Klaus Schwab’s mentor Yuval Noah Harari) where the population size is unsustainable — but a responsible leadership would never have allowed the world population to get as large as it has (Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution is the primary culprit for parabolic population growth) or to have behaved so irresponsibly with ‘nary a thought of the ‘morrow in the first place. 

In spite of the central bank owner’s goals, Bill Gates, one of their inner minions, singlehandedly increased the population of Africa by hundreds of millions of people or over a billion (directly and indirectly) with water access and vaccine initiatives.  Africa has never been able to support itself even before this rapid growth and it will be fully reliant on foreign aid forever which, if cut off, will immediately trigger a mass population die-off.  How is this even slightly responsible?

Yuval Noah Harari, the spiritual architect of the World Economic Forum and a mentor to Klaus Schwab, claimed that humans are now “hackable animals” and that “the idea of a soul, free will — these are over!”  He also said “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population” and he repeated his previous predictions of a “useless class” of “unemployable” humans.  In the 21st century, Harari argues, people “are no longer part of the story of the future.”  They simply have no role. Humanity 1.0 is being phased out, and only those humans willing to make the transition to Humanity 2.0 and join the all-new species of trans-humans will be welcomed in the emerging technocratic society.  “Part of what might be going [on] is people realize — and they’re correct in thinking that, ‘The future doesn’t need me.… Maybe if they are nice, they will throw some crumbs my way, like universal basic income.’…Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population,” he continued, “because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence and bioengineering.” Harari added that “these technologies increasingly will make redundant…whatever people are still doing which is useful,” and will thus “make it possible to replace the people.”  (Harari is a homosexual Israeli atheist.)

There are short (years), medium (decades), and long-term (centuries) goals plotted by the central bank owners and revealed to lackeys on a compartmentalized need-to-know basis.  There is lots of time spent on developing contingencies ready to go at a moments notice.  A mid-term goal described below is the World Economic Forum’s Agenda 2030, which is the follow up to 1992’s Agenda 21 and which is meant to dramatically lower the quality of life, freedoms and privacy for most people worldwide by 2030.  Klaus Schwab, the head of the WEF, is likely a Rothschild descendant although it’s hard to determine this conclusively with online searches.  The printing of $11+ trillion dollars alone in the United States during COVID, then giving most of that printed money to bankers to buy up assets and cause an enormous amount of inflation while simultaneously forcibly shuttering small businesses, was a deliberate part of that agenda and used to advance the WEF’s publicly stated Great Reset goal. 

One of the interesting things about the coordinating intermediaries for the central bank owners is that much of their agenda is available publicly on their websites and policy documents — however, the language they use is a deliberately non-standard, difficult to read English, couched in vaguely worded statements about improving the word, where the deeply sinister and anti-freedom specifics are de-emphasized and downplayed.  Go on weforum.org and look at some of their reports to get an idea.  One can also read about their coordinated plans in The Economist (the Rothschilds led by Lady Lynn de Rothschild have been shareholders in the magazine for decades) or Foreign Affairs (a mouthpiece for the globohomo-controlled Council on Foreign Relations) by interpreting their similarly obtuse writing styles.  The public statements about their objectives is an occult concept called revelation of the method; by telling the public what they plan to do, and when they don’t resist, the victims are metaphysically consenting to being victimized on a spiritual level.

Here is a 2016 WEF article making eight predictions about what will happen by 2030.  It’s easy to predict things when they conspire to carry them out, and among the correct “predictions” in that article so far include #1, predicting the mass vaccine push — they want humanity’s immune system as a paid-for reoccurring service; #2 predicting the rise of the ESG index, which is a corrupt tool of corporate favoritism; #3 predicting the rise of a multipolar world including Russia, China, Germany, India and Japan, all with Rothschild owned central banks; #5 the push to ban meat consumption, and #7 the failure of “democracy”.

Essentially, the WEF’s Agenda 2030 is that by 2030 “you will own nothing and you will be happy.”  Through a combination of inflation, high interest rates, a reduction in jobs, an imposed reduction on the food supply, most people will not be able to afford a house (in part because Federal Reserve loldollars are funneled through multinational funds like Blackrock to purchase vast swaths of single family homes3), a car, or anything else substantial. The government will enforce compliance through programmable central bank digital currencies which will be used coercively to change human behavior patterns, and will enforce mandatory vaccinations this way as well.  Failure to comply will result in being shut out entirely of the financial system with your funds stolen.  This will all be implemented in the name of global warming, COVID safety and the environment, but the real reason is to centralize power and control in furtherance of the central bank owner’s overarching agenda.

Indeed, the WEF is rebranding their surveillance and control monitoring in the media as a benevolent distributed trust: “By 2030, we’ll see, for example, credit scoring expanding into ‘life scoring’. Identity and reputation will be digitized and analyzed in minute detail, shaping a future where a personal ‘trust score’ will be the norm, with all the benefits and drawbacks that might bring.”

Read this 2016 Forbes article championing the WEF 2030 agenda titled “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better” (which is the actual title for the article unless later changed; they are shoving their control in the public’s faces and mocking them):

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me. [i.e. “revelation of the method”]

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.

One can see these dystopian WEF videos pushing their agenda so long as they are online: “The Great Reset”, a WEF ad:

“Can you rent everything you need in life?”, a WEF ad:

“The Great Reset: You’ll Own Nothing and You’ll be Happy”, a WEF ad:

Here Klaus Schwab warns his co-elites: “Be prepared for an angrier world” (as a result of the 2030 agenda):

And here the WEF sinisterly warns that we should get used to living “from owning to using” and calls for an end to private car ownership.

In Davos in May 2022, Schwab announced to a room full of elite allies: “Let’s be clear the future is not just happening, the future is built by us, a powerful community here in this room. We have the means to impose the state of the world.”    

On Instagram heir-apparent Alex Soros in 2016 bragged about bringing down entire nations: “The question is, which of these flags will fall first?” (including the U.S. flag)

Also see Alex Soros’s NYT comments about wanting to destroy white homogenous societies. He has visited the White House at least 14 times since Biden became president.  Note the head of the Open Society Foundations was chairman of electronic vote counter Smartmatic’s holding company, and he has had barely concealed genocidal intent after Biden won.

If we are looking at the present there are too many coordinated events across country levels to be an organic, cyclical civilizational decline. It is a system undergoing a controlled, fundamental transition to one of increased power for a small minority, decreased privacy and freedoms for everyone else to an extent never before seen in world history.  There must be and there is a deliberate hand behind it.  

A 2013 4chan comment describing the deliberate, controlled descent into neoliberal feudalism. 

Under this system, the general population will get poorer and poorer with more and more crime, homelessness and filth, until only the ultra-rich will be able to avoid being cast out into what is colloquially known as the thunderdome by living in armed, gated compounds, much like rich South Africans and Brazilians do today.  In the 90s an Al Bundy type could afford a house, wife, kids on a shoe salesman budget; today to have that lifestyle would cost $250,000 or more in most areas, which is 92% household income. Those requirements will only go higher with more and more cast out ruthlessly into the thunderdome. 

To the extent the explanation of our elite’s longterm goals sounds farfetched or unbelievable, consider how much of your reaction may be caused by fear of losing social status in your community and how much is caused by it being a “conspiracy theory” that has not been approved by officially sanctioned experts.  If you are using discernment and read the news regularly, look at how well or poorly the conventional “representative democracy” view of politics and events serves as a predictor for future events versus a conspiratorial central bank-owner model: a proper model of the world will be able to predict future events much better than a deficient model.  Consider both theories when looking at events such as these:

• In 2020 the Pope blessed the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, a group led by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, that represents $2.1 trillion in market cap and 200 million employees.  The group is pushing environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices that seek to bankrupt small/midsize businesses and consolidate further control among big business in the name of environmental sustainability.

• Why are the Rothschlds and Jeffrey Epstein intimately connected? “Mrs. de Rothschild was named chairwoman of the bank in January 2015. That October, she and Epstein negotiated a $25 million contract for Epstein’s Southern Trust Co. to provide “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms” for the bank, according to a proposal reviewed by the Journal. In 2019 after Epstein was arrested the bank said that Mrs. de Rothschild never met with Epstein and it had no business links with him. The bank acknowledged to the Journal that its earlier statement wasn’t accurate.”
• In a Wikileaks released Hillary Clinton email from 2016, Hillary begged penance of Lynn Forester de Rothschild for a minor transgression.  “Let me know what penance I owe you”, she wrote.  Known for her enormous ego and possibly killing dozens of associates who wronged her, regardless of any hyperbole or cute turn-of-phrase, is that the kind of phrasing someone in an authoritative or submissive role would write?
• In a 2017 interview Klaus Schwab said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been recognized as a Young Global Leader, and also mentioned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/SjxJ1wPnkk4?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0Klaus has mentioned Putin a second time as shown in the documentary Das Forum, which goes into behind the scenes footage of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. In the clip Klaus states “Mrs. Merkel, Tony Blair, even Putin, they were all Young Global Leaders before.”https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Vq6YaQNG05c?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
• During the 2022 Canadian trucker protests, Trudeau announced he would order the seizing of the trucker’s bank accounts.  Within a day or two he reversed course, getting a call from one of his banking masters that it would severely erode trust in the banking system and he must stop it immediately (it will be resumed once the CBDCs are in place).  Trudeau then announced a complete ban on gun ownership in Canada and then initiated the shutdown of 30% of Canadian farms to further “climate policy”, which coincided with the Netherlands farmer’s protests against their government’s attempts to shut down 30% of Dutch farms to also further “climate policy.”
• During the 2022 Brazilian election protests, Brazilian bankers froze protester bank accounts just as Trudeau did with the trucker protesters.
• Event 201, a pandemic simulation event conducted by Johns Hopkins, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was conducted in October 2019, just months before the outbreak of COVID and mirroring the COVID scenario in many respects.  A 2010 Rockefeller Foundation document envisioned a worldwide pandemic followed by the creation of a technocratic police state and its details also closely track how COVID-19 has played out.
• The coordinated worldwide response to COVID involving shutdowns, masks, and forced vaccinations4, with extreme and almost identical censorship employed in all of these countries.  Government leaders who didn’t go along were either bribed (such Aleksandr Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, who stated he was directly offered a bribe to go along with the worldwide COVID response which he turned down), shunned (the backlash that Sweden received for refusing to institute total lockdowns), or apparently murdered (the leaders of Tanzania, Burundi, Eswatini and Haiti).
• The intentional and coordinated strategy to decrease the quality of food available to the public.  The E.U. passed a law in January 2023 encouraging crushed bug additives to be secretly added to food. The media is heavily pushing bug eating as well with a “sexy ad” by Nicole Kidman as one example. The establishment is studying how to add the COVID vaccine to food so that vaccine refusers cannot avoid it; they are far along in this process with livestock. Ultra-processed, unhealthy meat alternatives such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are heavily funded and promoted, including in fast food outlets like Burger King, despite weak demand for them.   Chicken feed is being modified so chickens won’t lay eggs. It may quickly become the reality that unless you are either growing your own food or buying it from local, trusted suppliers, the food you eat will make you sick or worse.
• As discussed above, America, China, Russia, and other countries are seriously studying central bank digital currency technology in order to provide a traceable ledger for every transaction conducted.  By forcing CBDCs and removing cash from the economy (a process called the “war on cash” which is already underway in both the U.S., European Union and even India as a stated objective of the IMF), it will allow the government to track every transaction a citizen makes, remove people’s privacy, destroy the black market cash economy and give governments the ability to shut off a citizen’s access to their bank accounts with the push of a button.  CBDCs will be implemented soon.

When you look at nature of recent events and the actions of the leadership behind them, it is difficult to conclude that it is not consciously and deliberately orchestrated by elites with a long-term plan in mind.  For a partial caveat to this analysis see Appendix B.

To most people, the concept of central bank ownership and their focus on maximizing usury and control is both boring and confusing to their minds. The population is more comfortable thinking about the horrors of concrete things like abortions instead.  This explains why the Rothschilds and their allies are able to get away with their core strategies — the public just doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to focus on it.

***

This concludes “Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society.” But the question arises: what is it about the nature of society that allowed the Rothschilds and their allies to first establish widespread influence and control over European kings, and then enact and control the central banks that so heavily dominate society to this day?  What was it about the nature of Christian Europe that allowed carve-outs for money-lenders to create a situation that they could exploit and leverage to control Europe as a whole? This is where we turn to next in Section 5: “Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks.”

---

1 It is beyond the scope of this paper, but the contention is that globohomo controls non-governmental crypto not just via fiat on-and off-ramps but via their secret ownership and control over tether, which was used as an unregulated central bank to print tens of billions of unbacked “tethers” out of the air in order to inflate the crypto market, attract lots of attention and speculation, and then serve as a real-world test case for blockchain before the governments rolled out their CBDCs.  Keep in mind tether daily trading volume has essentially always exceeded the daily trading volume of every other top 10 coin *combined*.  The obviousness of the tether fraud has been known since 2017 (see Kalzumeus’s 2019 writeup); the fact that it has continued for so long, to such a historically unprecedented degree, without being taken down can only mean that it has NSA or CIA protection.

2 Or near extinction.  What happened to the American buffalo is a disgusting, tragic story. Also see here.

3 “Recent research by MetLife Investment Management (MIM) estimated that institutions own some 700,000 single-family rentals in 2022, about 5 percent of the 14 million SFRs nationally. MIM forecasts that by 2030, institutions will increase SFR holdings to 7.6 million homes, more than 40 percent of all SFRs. Institutional acquisitions of SFRs in communities of 50 or more units soared in 2021 to $2.5 billion, according to Yardi Matrix.” From here.

4 Vaccines mandates are a globalist phenomenon; as a counterpart, Nazi Germany removed mandates that were in force once they came to power.  This article from a far-leftist publication portrays it negatively, but removal of mandates were very popular.