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:
Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
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).
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.
The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
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).
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:
Notice how they use red/bad colors for religion and green/good colors for secularism; an easy example of bias.
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 Central Bank of Libya offices in Tripoli
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”.
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.
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
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:
At least 23 former U.S. senators and congressmen lobby for Chinese military or Chinese intelligence-linked companies
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
A youthful JFK
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:
China’s entry into the WTO gutted U.S. manufacturing
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.]
Malevolent globohomo psychopath Bill Gates argues China’s ascension is a “huge win for the world”
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.
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.
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.
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 Trinitatissummarized 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 first page of a 12th-century manuscript of Anslem’s De ConcordiaThe life of St Anselm told in 16 medallions in a stained-glass window in Quimper Cathedral, Brittany, in France
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.
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas
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.
This 19th-century painting by Julius Hübner sensationalizes Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses before a crowd. In reality, posting theses for a disputation would have been routine.
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.
Harvard Unitarian Universalist Church, Harvard MA
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 rasablank-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?
An early wooden printing press, depicted in 1568. Such presses could produce up to 240 impressions per hour.
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
Crucifixions along the Appian Way as depicted in the movie Spartacus
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 isaglobohomoshill 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.”56
The “People of the Book” vs a “Life of gallantry”: incompatible perspectives?
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.
An age of informational control leading to neoliberal feudalism
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.”
“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.”
Auschwitz: the Holocaust as foundation origin myth of the modern west
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.
Hitler’s Table Talks
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.
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.”
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.
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.’”
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.
Jesus vs. the Pharisees
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
The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, David Roberts (1796-1864)
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
The Roman Empire at its height could not be militarily opposed via rebellion
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 soldierbefore 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.”1617
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.1819
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
The First Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted beneath the feet of emperor Constantine the Great and the bishops
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.”
Ruins of Temple of Serapis in Colonna Garden, 1761
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
Raphael’s fresco depiction of the School of Athens featuring Aristotle and Plato
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
The 18th-century Trevi Fountain which marks the terminal point of the “modern” Acqua Vergine—the revived Aqua Virgo, one of the aqueducts that supplied water to ancient Rome
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
The Madonna della Pietà dolorous statue of Jesus and Mary at Mount Golgotha, carved by Michelangelo and enshrined within Saint Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
9Per 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.
13Rome 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 evenas 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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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:
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.
Continue existing efforts to drastically lower western consumption rates via Agenda 2030, Net Zero, the Great Reset and other initiatives.
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.
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…
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?
In spite of the central bank owner’s goals, Bill Gates, one of their inner minions, singlehandedlyincreased 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.
Real assets v. Financial Assets at an all-time low during COVID, reflecting the bankers buying up assets with endless money printed out of thin air.
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”.
Photos of Klaus Schwab, head of the enormously powerful World Economic Forum, in full Bond villain regalia.An alleged photo of Klaus Schwab, disputed by some globohomo “fact checkers” on the internet. It certainly looks like him though, and illustrates his weird, perverse trans-humanist agenda.
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.”
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):
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)
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.
A pyramid chart representing the structure of neoliberal feudalism. “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
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 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.
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.
This part asks: If this is some sort of grand conspiracy why don’t more people know about it? How do the central bank owners keep the public from discovering their strategies? How do they coordinate, and how do they prevent leaks?
HOW DO THE CENTRAL BANK OWNERS KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM DISCOVERING THEIR STRATEGIES?
As a preamble, one of the core central bank owner policies is their deliberations and decisions must not be covered by the mainstream media or scholarly publications in order to minimize public exposure.Scholarship from dissidents iscomparatively poorly sourced versus establishment publications because the funding and status incentives for research, publication, and publicity are provided to establishment employees and deliberately starved from dissidents. As the central bank owner’s primary goal is the centralization of wealth and power through neoliberal feudalistic debt practices, the following discussion regarding their tactics and strategies are based on
the words and actions of their step-down intermediaries in the public eye such as the World Economic Forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission which are used to coordinate policy decisions from the top;
public comments from current and former intermediaries who had access to the perspectives of those close to the power center;
analysis of the incentive structures for these elites; and
inferences drawn from the information provided in this essay, especially the close coordination between the world central banks, the media, and top industry figures to push the same agenda.
So how do the Rothschilds and their allies, including the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Schiffs1 keep the public from discovering their strategies? If enough people figure it out, they could have masses of people with pitchforks at their gates.
Early on they purchased as much of the media as they could. For instance, Paul Julius Reuters (i.e. the founder of Reuters news agency) was working directly with the Rothschilds as early as 1850. George Wheeler tells us: “Around [the early 1900s] the Morgan firm was choosing the top executives for the old and troubled Harper & Brothers publishing house…. In the newspaper field, Pierpont Morgan [who worked for the Rothschilds; discussed below] at this period was in effective control of the New York Sun,… the Boston News Bureau, Barron’s magazine, and the Wall Street Journal.”2 On February 9, 1917, Representative Callaway from Texas took the floor of Congress and provided further insight. He said:
“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press…. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers…. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”
Charles S. Mellen of the New Haven Railroad testified before Congress that his Morgan-owned railroad had over one-thousand New England newspaper editors on the payroll, costing about $400,000 annually. The railroad also held almost a half-million dollars in bonds issued by the Boston Herald. This web of control was multiplied by hundreds of additional companies which also were controlled by Morgan and other investment-banking houses.
Morgan’s control over the media at that time is well documented, but he was by no means alone in this. During the 1912 hearings held by the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee it was revealed that Representative Joseph Sibley was acting as a funnel for Rockefeller money to various cooperative congressmen. A letter was introduced to the Committee written by Sibley in 1905 to John D. Archbold, the man at Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company who provided the funds. In that letter Sibley said: “An efficient literary bureau is needed, not for a day or a crisis but a permanent healthy control of the Associated Press and kindred avenues. It will cost money but will be the cheapest in the end.” The Rockefeller’s leveraged their vast volume of petroleum and allied advertising to insure the fealty of a newspaper, and when advertising alone was not sufficient to insure loyalty the Rockefeller companies made direct payments in return for a friendly editorial attitude.
Today vast industry consolidation has made control easier to achieve than ever before. Per the Swiss Policy Research analysis, most western media coverage is provided by one of only three news agencies: the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse. Six companiescontrol 90% of U.S. media due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the top shareholders of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, News Corp are Vanguard, Blackrock and Statestreet, all establishment entities. This way the media will never report on central bank owner activities except as a fringe, low status conspiracy theory.
The consolidated media landscape
David Rockefeller states in his memoirs:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years……It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
After taking control over media, these central bank owners bribed and installed unthinking marionettes as government officials who were willing to push their policies without question. One can see this with multiple politicians like Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, Sanna Marin, Prince Charles, etc, who are all dull and unthinking puppets.
Evelyn de Rothschild poking his finger into Prince Charles. Who looks like the senior partner of this relationship?
“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers to their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantial financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called ‘international’ or ‘merchants’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks…”3
Jerome Powell is nothing but an actor serving as a figurehead for real power.
As the plundering of a nation’s wealth gets worse and more obvious, the central bank owners focused their media organs, who were already focused on bread and circus narratives and entertainment/celebrity stories, on wars and racial grievances to distract from class grievances: classic divide et impera. If whites and the blacks hate each other, gays and straights hate each other, and women and men hate each other, all the better because it will drain their precious energies from focusing on the ultimate cause of all of their grief and misery.
They also focused on weakening the population as much as possible so they can never rebel even if people figure out what is going on. Poison the water and food supplies to make the masses fat and low testosterone and give them plenty of Netflix and porn.4 Encourage abortion, casual sex and contraceptive use. Decrease the role of religion. Do everything to break up nuclear families so people are too emotionally shattered to figure anything out. Aaron Russo, producer of the film Trading Places and friends with a prominent Rockefeller, said the Rockefeller bragged about this strategy:
Single women make excellent foot soldiers for the establishment, repeating whatever propaganda is distributed by the media organs. Flood each troublesome country (i.e. the white countries which are too independently minded) with non-whites who will vote for policies and politicians the central bank owners want (as blacks vote 90% for larger government/debt and Hispanics vote 58%+ that way as well) so long as the media keeps up the racial grievance angle and the immigrants are thrown some public welfare funds. Isn’t it odd that the same strategies that central bank thieves would theoretically optimally use to demoralize, weaken and distract a host population from their theft is what the world has been experiencing for decades?
Essentially, the central bank owner strategy has been to turn the country into an atomized, impoverished, multi-ethnic, low IQ, highly estrogenated, obese and porn’d out mess, constantly arguing about race, gender, and sexual orientation instead of class. Their strategy has so far worked wonderfully.
HOW IS COORDINATION ACHIEVED?
How do the central bank owners coordinate all of their lackeys worldwide — the media orgs, the bribed and extorted politicians, the corrupt business leaders, the military officials, the NGOs, the major foundations and the underling everyday bankers pushing their policies?
Coordination based on formal meetings: The Bildberberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission5, the Round Table, and the World Economic Forum are used to promulgate and coordinate policies promoting the central bank owner goals. These groups hold both regular and special meetings as well as war-game various future meta-narrative contingencies with cutting edge AI-technology as an assist. They come up with new public-facing front groups every generation when the public becomes too aware of the previous one’s functions or, alternatively, in order to let the leaders of the next generation make their own imprints. The World Economic Forum is the one currently in the spotlight, but at some point it will exeunt stage left and the next one will enter the picture.
To be clear, none of these organizations have power in and of themselves; they are merely representatives of and coordination for the policies ordered by the powers at the level above them. Eustace Mullins states that, taking the CFR as an example,
“The members of the Council on Foreign Relations have never originated a single item of policy for the U.S. Government. They merely transmit orders to our government officials from the RIIA (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the parent organization of the CFR) and the House of Rothschild in London. It is true that the CFR comprises a ruling elite in the United States, but they are mere colonial governors absolutely responsible to their overseers in the World Order…Not only do they transmit orders to the White House, the Cabinet, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and other government institutions, but they also maintain absolute control of the foundations, whose duty it is to formulate policy or organize it in acceptable form to be transmitted to the government. Shoup’s Imperial Brain Trust, 1969, notes that the CFR includes 22 trustees of Brookings Institution, 29 at Rand, 14 at Hudson, 33 at Middle East Institute, 14 of 19 trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, 10 of 17 at Carnegie, 7 of 16 at Ford Foundations, 6 of 11 at Rockefeller Bros. Fund. This proves that the CFR runs these major foundations. In the academic world, CFR members number 58 on the faculty at Princeton, 69 at the University of Chicago, and 30 at Harvard. Of the banks which are principal owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock, directors of Chase include 7 CFR members, 8 at J.P. Morgan, 7 at 1st Natl. City (now Citibank), 6 at Chemical Bank, and 6 at Brown Bros. Harriman.”6
Coordination based on shared education and upbringing: The central bank owners use useful idiots wherever possible, i.e. those who graduated from elite universities who have accepted the racial and sex grievance, global warming, gender fluidity and other approved dogmas, and place them in media and un-fireable civil service jobs. These people will naturally coordinate based on a shared upbringing and outlook shaped from education, propaganda consumption and career incentives. The more these types can be used to advance the overarching agenda without knowing what the longer-term goals are, the better; their worldview is limited enough that they get caught up in each meta-narrative being pushed, unknowing pawns in a greater game. For example, the journalists involved in JournoList, CabalList, and whatever current incarnation it now is know that they are manipulative narrative disseminators meant to follow the establishment party line, but except for a few at the top most are satisfied with virtue signaling and don’t understand the bigger picture.
Coordination based on tax exempt foundations:The central bank owners control the United States through tax exempt foundations which create and implement government policy through staff members in key positions in the executive, legislative and judiciary branches; they create educational policy throughtheir staff members in key positions in the educational system; and religious policy through their staff members in key positions in leading religious denominations. Foundation is really in inapt term; they are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises while they push world slavery on nations and people. In an attempt to investigate tax exempt foundations, Norman Dodd, Director of Research for the Reece Committee, was asked by Congressman B. Carroll Reece in January 1954:
“Do you accept the premise that the United States is the victim of a conspiracy?” “Yes,” said Dodd. “Then,” said Congressman Reece, “you must conduct the investigation on that basis.” B.E. Hutchinson, chairman of Chrysler Corp., although approving the goals of the investigation, warned Dodd, “If you proceed as you have outlined, you will be killed.”
Dodd stated, “The foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being. The foundations are the biggest single influence in collectivism.”7
Norman Dodd, whose 1954 Dodd Report offered a blistering attack on tax exempt foundations, accusing them of subversive behavior
The foundations all use language counter to their actual goals in their public facing statements and charters. They use such phrases as “the wellbeing of mankind” “the elimination of poverty”, the “elimination of disease”, “the promotion of world brotherhood”. Compassion, caring, charity, these are the buzzwords of the foundations. But their true intentions are to promote the enslavement of mankind at the orders of the central bank owners.
According to Mullins,
“Examining the dominant members of the Rockefeller Foundation, we find men whose lives have been devoted to war and revolution, chemical warfare, international intrigue, and mass murder; we find the chairman of the board was John Foster Dulles, who inherited the title of “most dangerous man in America” from his mentor, William Nelson Cromwell; Dulles obtained crucial financing for Hitler, and sent the key telegram involving the U.S. in the Korean War, while his brother, a director of Schroder Bank, set up the CIA; we find Karl T. Compton, who gave the word to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945 and unleashed the horror of atomic warfare on the entire world (he was also trustee of Ford Foundation); we find Lord Franks, key member of the Rhodes Trust, the Schroder Bank; what we do not find is anyone who has ever engaged in any charitable endeavour. The Rockefeller directors of what is properly the “Rockefeller Syndicate” interlock with the nation’s major banks, corporations, universities and government departments. This is the network which illegally rules America, which, by its tax evasion, places a tremendous tax burden on all American taxpayers, and which makes our elections a farce because these men determine all policies which are implemented in the United States…through the Sealantic Fund, the Rockefeller’s control American schools of theology and the religious institutions of America; through the Rockefeller Brothers Fund they control government policy.…The list of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation shows it continues to be the ruling hierarchy of the U.S.”8
Norman Dodd stated that while investigating tax exempt foundations, he interviewed H. Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation. Gaither explained to Dodd, “Most of us here were, at one time or another, active in either the OSS or the State Dept., or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House, the substance of which was to the effect that we should make every effort to alter life in the U.S. as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.” The Ford Foundation spends vast amounts of money to promote racial agitation and possibly civil war in America, completely polarizing the races, and has backed many revolutionary groups in the U.S. engaged in riots and other criminal offenses.9
Think tanks such as Rand are funded by the foundations for military and espionage work. Morgan and Rockefeller directors are heavily represented on the board of The Brookings Institution, whose budget is funded by the major foundations – Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Milbank Memorial Fund. The Brookings Institution, among its other tasks, originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy American farmers (which is ongoing10), who are especially vulnerable to Fed policies because of their need for significant capital for their operations. Just as in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s when Stalin ordered the kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural Soviets or trusts.11
The Tavistock Institute, heavily funded by the foundations to the tune of billions per year, developed the mass brain-washing techniques which have been widely used on the American public by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations, along with the personnel of the foundations. Tavistock originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill12 against Germany as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the “guinea pigs” reacting under “controlled laboratory conditions.” They were also responsible for the experiment in compulsory racial integration, the use of drug experiments (see MK Ultra), and placing German foster children with pedophiles. The goal of their research is to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose Rothschild central bank owners.Any technique which helps to break down the family unit and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior is used by Tavistock as weapons of crowd control. Ten major institutions are under Tavistock’s direct control with 400 subsidiaries and 3,000 other groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase establishment control.13
Tavistock also conducted a longterm study on gender transitioning teenagers with extensive brainwashing beginning in 2011, years before transsexualism was unleashed onto the public.
The Tavistock Centre
According to an article by William H. What in Fortune magazine in November 1955, the foundations only grant funds to “big team” projects in institutions which are under their control. Whyte says 76% of all foundation grants are made to these “team” projects”, citing huge sums given to the Russian Research Center at Harvard by Carnegie, and Ford grants to the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Foundation grants are rarely given to individuals and most can be traced to some underlying propaganda drive.14
HOW ARE LEAKS PREVENTED?
How do the central bank owners prevent traitors in their midst? While the core of the conspiracy is the Rothschilds and a small, mostly Jewish ruling aristocracy of England and Europe, most of whom have owned stock in the Bank of England since 1700, along with a couple others such as the Rockefellers, based on circumstantial evidence there are various levels or rings of access and knowledge: the inner sanctum where much of the overarching long-term goals and strategies are revealed; the middle sanctum, where an individual can have a say on strategy but must obey orders; and the outer sanctum, loyalists without knowledge of the overarching plan but who serve as loyal foot soldiers and receive preferment in society.
The core only let those people into the inner sanctum and reveal this grand strategy to those who are wholly dependent on its favors; in other words, if they swear allegiance to their anti-humanistic goals and the central bank owners have enormous leverage on them. That way an inner sanctum member can never leave and if they try they would be destroyed or murdered. “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class,” said Treasury Secretary John Sherman. There have been swirling rumors that to reach the inner sanctum one must be a pedophile and let others in the group have evidence of one’s misdeeds as blackmail (see the Marc Dutroux case as an example); this isn’t farfetched as it is exactly what Jeffrey Epstein was caught doing – note his safe was cleared out by the FBI post-arrest, it “went missing” and the issue dropped. And Epstein was intimately connected to the Rothschilds.15 Additionally their lackeys in the security agencies are infested with pedophiles which is also public knowledge. Not every family member of the core families are involved in the overarching plans – they have quite large extended families at this point and occasionally one of their own even falls for the propaganda fed to the masses.
An example of an inner sanctum member — but not a core central bank owner — was J.P. Morgan. Morgan became known as the most powerful banker in the world although his principal role was to secretly carry out commissions for the House of Rothschild. He carried out his assignments covertly, cultivating a sleigh-of-hand reputation as anti-semitic to keep public distance from his masters. Morgan was a direct descendant of Alexander Hamilton, who had chartered America’s first central bank at the behest of Rothschild interests. The Morgan-Rothschild connection explains the otherwise incomprehensible mystery of why Morgan left such a modest fortune at his death in 1913, a mere $11 million after his debts were paid. Although the present members of the Morgan family seem financially secure, none of them is counted among the “big rich.”16George Soros is another well known inner sanctum member as is Bill Gates.
Only let those into the middle sanctum (i.e. those who have a say on mid-term strategy but are not let in on long-term goals) those who are willing to tow the party line publicly without exception. An illuminating Larry Summers and Elizabeth Warren anecdote illustrates the role of the middle sanctum, per Warren’s autobiography, “involv[ing] a dinner that Ms. Warren had with Lawrence H. Summers, then the director of the National Economic Council and a top economic adviser to President Obama. The dinner took place in the spring of 2009, after the oversight panel had produced its third report, concluding that American taxpayers were at far greater risk to losses in TARP than the Treasury had let on. After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders. I had been warned,” Ms. Warren concluded. Warren shut her mouth and followed orders after that.
Elizabeth Warren and Larry Summers
Another example of a middle sanctum member is well-known Soviet double agent Henry Kissinger. Russian Ambassador Dobrynin casually referred to Kissinger, saying “I am the laughing third man, sitting still. Kissinger is negotiating for us too”, and later Brezhnev, dictator of Russia, stated he didn’t take a role in Middle East negotiations because “We don’t need representation. Kissinger is our man in the Middle East”.
For the outer sanctum, i.e. loyal foot soldiers who carry out the plans and receive preferment but are not let in on mid- or long-term plans of their masters, the central bank owners try to limit access to relevant media, government and industry jobs to racial allies, especially left-wing Jews who won’t pose an ideological danger to the overall plan17 or otherwise minorities with racial, sexual or sexual orientation grievances. These people receive limited notifications and instructions from higher up before the public is informed but they have no voice in matters; globohomo enforces rigid task compartmentalization18 to minimize the number of people who understand what is occurring within an organization to prevent damaging leaks like Edward Snowden or Seth Rich.
How do the central bank owners silence any domestic enemies? First, they establish a rigid Overton window, enforced by controlled media and corporate HR departments, over which speech is allowed and which is career and reputation ban-worthy (ban-worthy speech is any speech that threatens the goals or legitimacy of the establishment and is referred to as being “political incorrect”). They discourage and ruin any governmental whistleblowers and make examples of other wrong-thinkerswhile over time shrinking the allowed discourse as the agenda advances. The discourse allowed in America today is far more narrow and rigid than a generation ago. They also brainwash the youth via education and media propaganda so the next generation has no idea how to think about things clearly. As Orwell argued in 1984, limiting discourse has a significant effect on limiting wrong-think in general.
Once satisfied that external enemies to their objectives have been destroyed (such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, both of whom had publicly owned central banks; see Appendix A for details) and internal enemies have been sufficiently silenced, the central bank owners took the next step toward their goals of wealth consolidation: they ordered the U.S. off the gold standard, enabling printing of fiat currency at an exponentially increasing rate thereby spiking inflation, widening the wealth gap, enabling corporate consolidation into megacorps (including too-big-to-failmegabanks) and decreasing the wealth of the masses.
While the Rothschilds had already been manipulating the price of gold while on the gold standard, where they publicly fixed on a daily basis19, this new approach would generate astronomically greater profits.
Is it any wonder why the disconnect between the general population’s productivity and compensation started growing in 1971, the year of the end of Bretton Woods Agreement which had limited monetary printing to physical gold holdings? The end of Bretton Woods allowed the central bank owners to start printing infinite fiat currency, handing much of it to themselves and their allies and greatly increase the inequality in America:
1971 cost of living, when a house cost 2.5x average incomes, college tuition cost 1/4 average incomes, rent costs were negligible, and food was inexpensive.Cumulative Inflation 1913-2015 Consumer Price Index, 1775-2012U.S. National Debt, 1900-2020 U.S. debt has risen parabolically regardless of administration.
For a whole series of data showing the shocking decline in American quality of life starting in 1971, see: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
According to a RAND study, the aggregate income for the population below the 90th percentile between 1975-2018 would have been $2.5 trillion (67%) higher in 2018 had income growth since 1975 remained as equitable as it was in the first two post-war decades. From 1975-2018, the difference between the aggregate taxable income for those below the 90th percentile and the equitable growth counterfactual totals $47 trillion.
Following this staggering theft, the central bank owners continued their strategy of undermining and destroying any countries worldwide that had their own independent central banks or that tried to go back to the gold standard. Qaddafi in Libya and Saddam in Iraq are two recent examples. Libya had the only central bank in the world run on genuine state banking lines which exhibited the classic symptoms of full employment, zero inflation and excellent worker’s rights, and in 2010 Qaddafi announced 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; this is why he was murdered. In November 2000 Saddam Hussein decreed that all oil payments would be made in euros as he did not wish to deal “in the currency of the enemy”, which is also what cost him his life. See Appendix A for further details.
To recap, the central bank owners bribed, threatened or coerced any individual or nation that could potentially weaken their position with respect to worldwide control and domination, and they smeared or destroyed any that resisted. They stole the wealth of the masses via endless monetary printing, inflation and taxes while confusing, weakening and dispiriting them under a massive propaganda deluge of bread-and-circus distractions, poor education designed to turn students into unthinking automatons and race baiting agitation, along with physically weakening them with various chemicals and poisons in their food, water and air, until they became too weak to resist additional destructive measures.
Marina Abramović poses with Jacob Rothschild in front of ‘Satan summoning his Legions’, 1796-1797. Interestingly, D-Day in World War 2 began on 6/6 at 6am (666), and the bottom of the S&P 500 during the 2008 financial crisis was exactly 666. Concealed bragging to globohomo allies and mocking of their enemies, perhaps?
See photos from the 1972 Rothschild Illuminati Ball here.
*****
What is the goal for this four hundred year banking dynasty? They have seemingly all the power and money in the world, but it’s not enough. They want more, they want everything. How do they get everything? This is where we turn to next in Part 3.
1“Seven men in Wall Street now control a great share of the fundamental industry and resources of the United States. Three of the seven men, J.P. Morgan, James J. Hill, and George F. Baker, head of the First National Bank of New York belong to the so-called Morgan group; four of them, John D. and William Rockefeller, James Stillman, head of the National City Bank, and Jacob H. Schiff of the private banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb Company, to the so-called Standard Oil City Bank group… the central machine of capital extends its control over the United States… The process is not only economically logical; it is now practically automatic.” John Moody, The Seven Men, McClure’s Magazine, August, 1911, p. 418., from here.
2 John Swinton, editor of the New York Sun, had this to say about the profession of journalism in 1883: “There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
4 Streaming video porn is incredibly expensive to provide; why else would it be offered free of charge, in most cases without any ads at all?
5 A David Rockefeller invention. Senator Barry Goldwater termed the Commission “David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” Perloff, 155.
10 Per Gore Vidal in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, p. 61: “But Dyer has unearthed a genuine ongoing conspiracy that affects everyone in the United States. Currently, a handful of agro-conglomerates are working to drive America’s remaining small farmers off their land by systematically paying them less for their produce than it costs to grow, thus forcing them to get loans from the conglomerates’ banks, assume mortgages, and undergo foreclosures and the sale of land to corporate-controlled agribusiness. But is this really a conspiracy or just the Darwinian workings of an efficient marketplace? There is, for once, a smoking gun in the form of a blueprint describing how best to rid the nation of small farmers. Dyer writes: “In 1962, the Committee for Economic Development comprised approximately seventy-five of the nation’s most powerful corporate executives. They represented not only the food industry but also oil and gas, insurance, investment and retail industries. Almost all groups that stood to gain from consolidation were represented on that committee. Their report [An Adaptive Program for Agriculture] outlined a plan to eliminate farmers and farms. It was detailed and well thought out.” Simultaneously, “as early as 1964, congressmen were being told by industry giants like Pillsbury, Swift, General Foods, and Campbell Soup that the biggest problem in agriculture was too many farmers.”….So a conspiracy has been set in motion to replace the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation whose backbone was the independent farm family with a series of agribusiness monopolies where, Dyer writes,”these companies controlled 96% of U.S. wheat exports, 95% of U.S. corn exports,” and so on through the busy aisles of [grocery stores]. Has consolidation been good for the customers? By and large, no.”
15 “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.” Also see this Substack post “What does a Rothschild, a Goldman Sachs top lawyer and a CIA agent have in common?”
17According to the Hudson Institute, compared to other ethnic groups this is highly irregular: “All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: ‘Jews earn like like Episcopalians (then the most prosperous minority group in America) and vote like Puerto Ricans (who were then the poorest).’ Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has argued, ‘whatever the promptings of their economic interests,’ Jews have consistently supported ‘increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor.’…on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data shows that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.”
18Per Sundance: “It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.”
19 Per the News Chronicle of December 12, 1938, which reads “The story of the gold-fixing has often been told. How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold….A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.” From Mullins, 30.
This part argues that a handful of families own the central banks of the world, controlling society via unlimited fiat printing and a sophisticated propaganda and security apparatus. It then offers a historical overview for how this system took over the world.
WHAT DO THE POWERS THAT CONTROL GOVERNMENTS WANT?
“History, as seen by a Monetary Economist, is a continuous struggle between producers and non-producers, and those who try to make a living by inserting a false system of book-keeping between the producers and their just recompense…The usurers act through fraud, falsification, superstitions, habits and, when these methods do not function, they let loose a war. Everything hinges on monopoly, and the particular monopolies hinge around the great illusionistic monetary monopoly.” – Ezra Pound, An Introduction to the Economic Nature of the United States (1950)
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build an integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”1 – David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405.
Cutting to the heart of the matter, the objective of the powers that control governments is to enslave mankind through the expansion of individual, corporate, and governmental debt as high as possible to the point where humanity will end up slaving away solely to service the interest on its debt.2 This objective necessarily entails the complete disappearance of the middle class throughout the world, leaving a tiny number of central bank owning families, a small cadre of working professionals servicing them, and the vast multitudes of the world’s population living hand-to-mouth in perpetual bondage to the banking class. To put this system into place requires total ownership and control of the media, which is used as a weapon to distract the public via bread and circus propaganda and divert their energies into fighting with each other (using race, gender, and sexual orientation divide et impera tactics) so no force rises to challenge it. The banking class seeks nothing less than a permanent neoliberal feudalism where they control the entirety of the world’s wealth, a system they intend to last forever.
Debt, debt, and more debt
Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, a man possessing impeccable liberal credentials and extensive high-level contacts, revealed the network behind this in his 1350-page 1966 book Tragedy and Hope. He spoke highly of this group and was given special access to insider records, including archived files from the Council on Foreign Relations. Quigley stated the network’s aim is “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”3 Worse, they want total control over all individual actions. Quigley argued that an individual’s “freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”4
Father Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit Order of the Roman Catholic Church, was well aware of this group and he made the following charges during his remarks to the Ecumenical Council in 1965: “This…Godless society operates in an extremely efficient manner at least in its higher levels of leadership. It makes use of every possible means at its disposal, be they scientific, technical, social or economic. It follows a perfectly mapped-out strategy. It holds almost complete sway in international organizations, in financial circles, in the field of mass communications; press, cinema, radio and television.”
The best way at explaining the banker’s motivations and strategies is to delve into how this system developed from the start. There are two eras to this process: the pre-central bank money-lending era in Europe and the central bank era.
The Pre-Central Bank Era
Before the era of central banks that began in the late 17th century, European kings would turn to money lenders to finance their wars. These kings were worried about short term problems and the survival of their regimes; to borrow funds from third parties was an immediate solution while longer-term loan payback issues could be dealt with later or by future generations. These money lenders were Jewish, unshackled by the strict anti-usury practices Christians and Muslims were subject to5, and they were able to leverage the debts placed on the kings to carve out special privileges, especially the ability to lend at exorbitant rates to the nation’s nobility and general population. Any industry that received expansion of credit in this manner resulted in major price appreciation, so individuals were forced to take out debt at whatever rate was demanded or get priced out of their industries. For example, Jewish money lenders first arrived in England in 1066 in the wake of William I’s defeat of King Harold II at Hastings. They had financed the war and, in return for their support, William I richly awarded the money lenders by allowing them to practice usury under royal protection. By charging rates of interest of 33% per annum on lands mortgaged by nobles and 300% per annum on tools of trade or chattels pledged by workmen, within two generations 1/4 of all English lands were in the hands of usurers. At his death in 1186, the English financier Aaron of Lincoln’s wealth exceeded that of King Henry II. The famous economist Dr. William Cunningham compares “the activity of the money-lenders in England from the eleventh century onward to a sponge, which sucks up all the wealth of the land and thereby hinders all economic development.”6
The money-lenders attempted to finance both sides of European conflicts, hoping for long, drawn out wars to increase the debts owed to them and thus their leverage against the debtor kings. These lenders sought to obtain a balance of power among European countries so that if any king tried to cancel their debt arrangements they could finance other nearby countries to overthrow them. In this way they could ensure kings would pay their debts and not abrogate them by decree. They also used less savory methods including allegedly paying for Charles I’s assassination7 and likely assassinating the heirs of King Louis XIV, the Sun King.8 But these lenders were still ultimately subject to the laws of the countries they were in and they had to tread with a measure of caution — the sovereign could always try to cancel the debts owed or even kick them out of the country, both of which King Edward I did in 1275 and 1290, compelling the entire Jewish population of 16,511 to leave England.9 These money-lenders did not have sovereign power until the era of central banks.
The Central Bank Era: War and Debt Slavery in Perpetuity
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild
In 1696 the money-lenders achieved one of their core objectives: the establishment of the Bank of England. William of Orange had dethroned his brother James II in 1688 with their financial support, and in return William surrendered the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest to them. This led directly to the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England, whose ostensible purpose was to lend King William unlimited sums at interest to enable the prosecution of war, but whose hidden purpose was to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money out of nothing at interest. Coinciding with the establishment of the bank were a large number of new taxes on citizens, including a 20% corporate and personal income tax which were needed by the government to pay interest on loans they would subsequently seek from the central bank10 (while the money-lenders utilized tax exempt foundations and other loopholes to avoid the taxes that the masses had to pay11).
With their new ability to print money out of thin air and lend it to the government at interest (instead of using their own money which had always carried with it some measure of risk), the owners of the Bank of England achieved a level of supra-sovereign power above that of the king.They had won and England was theirs. This dynamic has continued into the present.12
The Bank of England
The central bank owner’s next step was to involve England in a series of wars in order to dramatically increase the national debt (printed out of thin air!), thereby increasing the interest payments that the English public would be forced to pay. The equation was simple: the more debt owed on printed money, the more interest paid into the pockets of the central bank owners, so the incentives of this model always favored the accumulation of more debt. They placed direct and indirect pressure on the government via the media (which they controlled as a first order priority through various shell companies and intermediaries) and via other tactics. As a result England became involved in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), American War of Independence (1775-83), war against France (1792-1815), War of 1812, War War I and II, each of which assisted in raising its national debt from a minuscule amount to over £5 trillion in 2017.13
They also tried repeating their Bank of England coup in other countries, especially France and Austria. According to Professor Stuart Crane as told by Gary Allen, “If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power’. With each reshuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.” They even provided loans to the Holy See of the Catholic Church.
The money-lenders were happy to continue funding both sides in European wars (like Nathan Rothschild funding all the belligerents, England, Prussia, and France, at Waterloo, with France receiving a loan of 10 million pounds14) as well as funding both sides of the U.S. Civil War (the North through their American agent August Belmont and the South through the Erlangers, Rothschild relatives15). In The Rothschilds, the Financial Rulers of Nations, John Reeves noted that when the family met in London in 1857 for a wedding, Prime Minister of England Benjamin Disraeli declared: “Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild – a name famous in every capital of Europe and every division of the globe. If you like, we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel. Napoleon will do exactly and all that I shall advise him.”16 Otto Von Bismark stated in 1867: “The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the civil war by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.” Rothschild family biographer Niall Ferguson notes a “substantial and unexplained gap” in private Rothschild correspondence between 1854-1860. He says all copies of outgoing letters written by the London Rothschilds during this Civil War period “were destroyed at the orders of successive partners”.17
That being said, the central bank owners learned that even better than driving up public debt of countries at war with each other and profiting from increased interest payments from both was to use their central banks as a cudgel of expansion against any countries that did not have privately-owned central banks, especially any country that had implemented interest-free, publicly owned state banking systems. Their goal became to destroy the sovereignty of other countries in order to establish central banks there that they would own. They were ruthless in its implementation. Combining industrial production of the advanced nations they controlled, unlimited monetary printing and the use of the ignorant, unwashed masses as boots-on-the-ground, they defeated Napoleon in France18, Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya in 2011. These were all states which had state banking systems which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equitable basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries. See Appendix A for details on each of these examples.
THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE CENTRAL BANK DISTINCTION AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE
Circling back and to restate, private ownership of all of the central banks of the world by a handful of families is at the heart of the elite’s conspiracy. There are two types of central banks: truly publicly owned central banks, and privately owned central banks (whether private or nominally public in name only).In a publicly owned central bank, the bank prints money without payment to third parties and then uses it to stimulate economic activity. In a privately owned central bank, the private bank prints money and then loans it to the nation’s government and charges interest on it. The interest charged on the printed money creates wealth out of thin air for the owners of these central banks without having done any work, and it creates an inflationary tax on the citizenry and impoverishes them (without the vast majority of people even knowing! Which is the genius of it, a world of slaveswho don’t know the status of their slavery). Their goal is to grow the debt owed by the public at a faster and faster rate, forcing even greater interest payments paid to the privately owned central banks, bringing their ultimate objective of controlling all of the wealth of the world closer and closer. Governments with privately owned central banks are forced to institute significant personal income taxes on their citizens in order to pay the interest accruing on the loans printed out of nothing.
In the United States the 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) all came into existence in 1913, after two previous failed Rothschild-sponsored central bank attempts.19 The establishment of the Federal Reserve required much financial shenanigans by the perpetrators, including artificial bank runs such as the fake panic of 1907, bribery of politicians, and incorporating powerful figures like the Rockefeller’s into their alliance. Senator Aldrich met with Henry P. Davison of J.P. Morgan; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-owned National City Bank; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Benjamin Strong of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; and Paul Warburg, the Rothschild’s direct representative, at Jekyll Island, where they conspired to bring about the central bank under a great veil of secrecy.20
Formation Of The Fed: The Meeting At Jekyll Island
Second to the Rothschilds, the Warburgs were considered the most important international banking family of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1814, the Warburgs became one of the first affiliates of N.M. Rothschild of London. They were related to the leading banking families of Europe, the Rosenbergs of Kiev, the Gunzburgs in St. Petersburg, the Oppenheims and Goldschmidts in Germany. Moritz Warburg was apprenticed to the Rothschilds in Italy and Paris. He had five sons who spread out and coordinated their actions and strategies: Aby founded the Warburg Instituted; Max financed the German struggle in World War I and later the Nazi regime; Dr. Fritz Warburg was the German commercial attache in Stockholm during World War I; Paul and Felix emigrated to America and joined the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. with Jacob Schiff, who had been born in the Rothschild house in Frankfort.21 Paul wrote the Federal Reserve Act and saw it through Congress. He represented the U.S. at the Versailles Peace Conference, while his brother Max represented German interests.22
According to a Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing Staff Report from the House of Representatives in 1976, a few families which owned controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks at their founding, and examination of the charts and text and the stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show the same families in control in 1976. These are our overlords, and they sit, hidden out of view, constantly scheming against the blissfully unaware public.
The Federal Reserve Act was presented as a “victory of democracy.” In reality, private bankers could determine inflation, recession, and boom periods; they could swing the stock market at will; and they could subordinate the fiscal powers reserved for Congress. They sought to run up the debt through the expansion of government spending. Simultaneously, they benefited from the increased money supply and bid up the stock market or destroyed it at their leisure. Paul Warburg arranged the 1929 stock market crash; first he advised all member banks to get out of the stock market or sell it short on March 9, 1929, then on October 24 the Federal Reserve Bank suddenly increased the rediscount rate to 6%, thousands of orders hit the exchange to sell “at market”, and six days later the Federal Reserve Bank ordered the contraction of brokers’ loans in the amount of $2.3 million, the combination of which caused the crash. Congressman Louis T. McFadden stated “It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international [central] bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”23
Laws were made to allow the central bank owners to set up tax-free foundations, avoiding the taxes they imposed on everyone else. They compounded their wealth tax-free. Since Woodrow Wilson took his oath of office and signed the Federal Reserve Act, which he later reportedly regretted24, the national debt has risen from $1 billion to over $30 trillion. Continuing the tradition, after printing $11+ trillion dollars during the two years of COVID and handing much of it to the central bank owner’s friends and allies, the United States hired 87,000 new IRS agents in 2022 to shake down the population to pay the interest owed on this newly created debt.
Unlimited debt, unlimited slavery
WORLD WAR I
After conquering America in 1913 the central bank owners turned their attention to World War I. They wanted an attenuated, long, drawn out war in order to drive up national debts. In 1916, the promoters of the war were dismayed when Germany insisted it could not continue fighting because of shortages of food and money. To keep Germany fighting Paul Warburg, head of the Federal Reserve System, hastily arranged for credits to be routed to his brother, Max Warburg, through Stockholm to M.M. Warburg Co. Hamburg. Food presented a more difficult problem. It was decided to ship it directly to Belgium as “relief for the starving Belgians.” The supplies could then be shipped over Rothschild railway lines into Germany. As director for this “relief operation” the Rothschilds chose Herbert Hoover. The plan was so successful that it kept the war going for an additional two years, allowing the U.S. to get into the “war to end wars”.25
Lloyd George told the N.Y. Journal American, June 24, 1924, how the international bankers were the decision makers and not the heads of state of the participating countries in the settlement to the war: “The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparations settlement. The Protocol which was signed between the Allies and Associated Powers and Germany is the triumph of the international financier. Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of the international bankers. They swept statesmen, politicians and journalists to one side, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees…the orders of German financiers to their political representatives were just as peremptory as those of allied bankers to their political representatives.”26
After the war the international bankers copied their successful central bank model and spread it throughout most of the countries of the world. By the turn of the twentieth century there were only 18 central banks, yet after a conference in 1922 attended by heads of state, governors of the Bank of England, Banque de France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a host of other international bankers, it was resolved to set up central banks in all countries where they were not in existence, and that the central banks should be “independent” of their governments (i.e. immune from public influence). The number of new central banks increased dramatically and currently stands at 157, the coordinated establishment of which proves that they are “part of an international monetary trust”.27 Coordination of the central banks is via the Bank for International Settlements, set up in 1930.
The Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland
THE CENTRAL BANK OWNER’S DECISIVE SUPPORT FOR SOVIET COMMUNISM
Even the Soviet Union, supposedly the “enemy” of the United States, was financed from the beginning by the Rothschilds and their allies. According to Gary Allen’s research, the USSR was practically manufactured by the U.S. elite and they played a major role in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. He quotes W. Averell Harriman, ambassador to the USSR from 1943 to 1945 as saying, “Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.” Allen explains how financiers in America and Britain intentionally created an enemy for the West; he divulges how Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (where the two Warburg brothers worked) even financed the First Five-Year Plan of the Soviet Union. Through these means, plutocrats gained a geographic homeland from which to launch assaults against other nations of the world. Indeed, The New York Journal-American stated on February 3, 1949: “Today it is estimated even by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, a prominent member of New York Society, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. Other New York Banking firms also contributed.”28 In the summer of 1917, fifteen Wall Street financiers and attorneys led by Federal Reserve director William Boyce Thompson traveled to Petrograd – the nerve center of the Russian Revolution – and provided $1 million by J.P. Morgan to the Bolsheviks through the National City Bank, the only bank in Russia the Bolsheviks did not nationalize.29 During the 1920s the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank helped found the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, scoop up Russian oil fields, build the Soviets a refinery and made an arrangement to market their oil in Europe and it was involved in financing Soviet raw material exports and selling Soviet bonds in the United States.30
Jacob Schiff, who spent a fortune financing the rise of the Bolsheviks
Three of the most prominent officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are on record as supporting Bolshevism: William Laurence Sanders, George Foster Peabody and William Boyce Thompson. Thompson announced he was giving $1 million dollars to promote Bolshevik propaganda in the United States. Because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was controlled by five New York banks which owned 53% of its stock, and because these five banks were directly controlled by N.M. Rothschild & Sons of London, we can only conclude that these three men were merely stating the preferences of their employer.31
Of particular interest in the financing of the revolution is the role which Maxim Litvinov, born Meyer-Genokh Mojsjewicz Wallach-Finkelstein, played as a “revolutionary” in destroying Imperial Russia and handing it over to the international bankers. Litvinov became the source of all foreign funds and was appointed treasurer of the Russian Socialist Democrat Party. He was a representative of the Rothschilds with powers exceeding that of Lenin. When Stalin became leader of the Soviet Union Litvinov, who feared no one, remained pre-eminent. His rudeness to Stalin was legendary. During World War 2 the Americans were reluctant to lend money to the Soviet Union but Litvinov sorted everything out; a Lend Lease agreement was signed and over the next four years $11 billion worth of supplies and services were provided. Litvinov “could call the White House at any time and the President [Roosevelt] would see him immediately.” Molotov, Litvinov’s successor in 1943, stated “Litvinov was utterly hostile to us…he deserved the highest measure of punishment at the hands of the proletariat. Every punishment.”32
Indeed, the central bank owners retained control over even the top Soviet leaders. Because of the struggle for power which developed between Stalin and Trotsky, the Rockefellers intervened in October 1926 and backed Stalin, ousting Trotsky. Years later, they would again intervene when the Kremlin was racked by disagreements; David Rockefeller may have fired Khrushchev during a trip there.33 John D. Rockefeller instructed his press agent to promote communism in the U.S. and to spark a public relations drive which culminated in 1933 with the U.S. recognition of Soviet Russia. In 1927 Standard Oil of New Jersey built a refinery in Russia after having been promised 50% of the Caucasus oil production. The Standard Oil operation was directed by its Rothschild bankers, maintaining close supervision of the “Rockefeller” fortune. In 1935 Stalin expropriated many foreign investments in Russia but the Standard Oil properties were not touched. The Five Year Plans (1928-32, 1933-37, and 1938-42) were all financed by the international banking houses.34
According to Gary Allen, “In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its true existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth men like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners. But obviously these men have no fear of international communism. It is only logical to assume if they financed it and do not fear it, it must be because they control it. Can there be any other explanation that makes sense? Remember that for over 150 years it has been standard operating procedure of the Rothschilds and their allies to control both sides of every conflict. You must have an ‘enemy’ if you are going to collect from the King. The East-West balance-of-power politics is used as one of the main excuses for the socialization of America. Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalization of Russia the Insiders bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate, complete with mineral rights, for somewhere between $30 and $40 million.”35
It appears that no country remains outside of this privately owned central bank deathgrip today other than potentially heavily-demonized North Korea. Two other holdouts, Libya and Iraq, were brutally crushed by the establishment under various pretexts in the last 20 years. The publicly available information on world central bank ownership is deliberately opaque, never investigated (there has never been an audit of the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is insane) but they ultimately trace their origins through various intermediaries and shell companies to the Rothschild and Warburg families and their allies (the continued Rothschild/Rockefeller alliance was confirmed publiclyas recently as 2012). This control is either via direct or indirect ownership where, for purposes of public consumption and public relations, many central banks are nominally publicly owned but, via various methods, intermediaries and loopholes are still ultimately owned by these families (such as the Bank of England which nominally nationalized in 1946 but still remains under Rothschild control; the bank is not wholly subject to public or parliamentary scrutiny36).
For a brief history of the central bank owners’ role in European wars and their vicious destruction of any nation that attempted to establish a publicly owned central bank, see Appendix A.
THE DIALECTIC OF MATERIALISM: THE WORLD AS POWER AND THE WORLD AS REALITY
When Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, the fifth plank read: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Lenin later said that the establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of communizing a country.37
With the core activity of the central bank owners being the usurious theft of the population’s wealth via printing money out of thin air, lending it at interest to the government and then enticing the government to maximize their spending (especially via war against countries with publicly owned central banks) in order to maximize interest payments, the goal of this small group of individuals is deeply antithetical to the dreams, goals and aspirations of the vast majority of the world. The Rothschilds and their allies despise the populations that they rule over as well as fear them, for if the public ever wakes up to the structure of modern society they could be overthrown and stripped of their wealth in a heartbeat.
According to Eustace Mullins, “the central bank owners adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality. It denies all other powers and all other realities. It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis…Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups. It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles and try to destroy each other. By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome. In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other. John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi. David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist…a distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order. Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group…If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect. You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.”38
To clarify on this point further, to take a group of people that do not believe in an afterlife, do not believe in God’s judgment after death, that believe life is purely a matter of who dominates who and therefore one needs to do everything possible to dominate others less they become prey themselves, this group is going to be much more incentivized than others, it will act with a much greater sense of urgency, it will be willing to perform morally dubious actions that others would blanch at, and because of these factors it is therefore generally going to outcompete, at least in this physical realm, those who hold themselves to higher moral and ethical standards and those that believe in God’s judgment and an afterlife.
While it is the destiny for humanity to be ruled by a small, ambitious minority, whether it be kings or an upper class nobility, the difference between them as our rulers versus the central bank owning rulers as our rulers is twofold: first, a king or nobility is ultimately responsible for their decisions to the public, whereas the central bank owners constantly hide in the shadows, immune from responsibility, with intermediary paid actors in political roles suffering the consequences of the policies advanced on their behalf. Second, kings were not motivated to punish and destroy their own populations; they were generally motivated by a sense of noblesse oblige, whereas the core activity of the Rothschilds and their allies is fundamentally parasitic and filled with noblesse malice, seeking to divide and conquer their own populations and weaken them so they won’t be able to resist perpetual debt slavery.
***
If this is some sort of “grand conspiracy” why don’t more people know about it? How do the central bank owners keep the public from discovering their strategies? How do they coordinate, and how do they prevent leaks? This is where we turn to next.
5 See Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World: “There was a good reason why Venetian merchants had to come to the Jewish ghetto if they wanted to borrow money. For Christians, lending money at interest was a sin. Usurers, people who lent money at interest, had been excommunicated by the Third Lateran Council in 1179. Even arguing that usury was not a sin had been condemned as heresy by the Council of Vienna in 1311-12. Christian usurers had to make restitution to the Church before they could be buried on hallowed ground. They were especially detested by the Franciscan and Dominican orders, founded in 1206 and 1216 (just after the publication of Fibonacci’s Liber Abaci). The power of this taboo should not be underestimated, though it had certainly weakened by Shakespeare’s time.
Jews, too, were not supposed to lend at interest. But there was a convenient get-out clause in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy: ‘Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.’ In other words, a Jew might legitimately lend to a Christian, though not to another Jew. The price of doing so was social exclusion.”
6 Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History fo Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind, 24. This is a very important book by a South African central banker with impeccable establishment credentials (and a descendant of the Mitford sisters). He was allegedly murdered by globohomo for writing it. It can be read in its entirety here.
7 Goodson, 32. See letter from Oliver Cromwell to Ebernezer Pratt.
11 In 1953, Congress established the Reece Committee to investigate tax-free foundations. For what was probably the first and last time, the central bank owners came under official scrutiny. The Committee’s findings stated: “In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote “internationalism” in a particular sense – a form directed toward “world government” and a derogation of American “nationalism.” James Perloff, The Shadow of Power, 105.
12 The British mindset as a nimble sea-power, adept at diplomacy and treacherous double-dealing which earned them the nickname “Perfidious Albions”, has made them natural allies of globalist banking families, both of whom sought to keep the European continent divided and weak. Protestantism in general removes the hierarchy which had helped keep external influence out of the Catholic Church, at least to an extent, and at least partially explains why Protestant Oliver Cromwell was very pro-Jewish; he invited Jews back to England after their expulsion by (nominally) Catholic Edward I 350 years earlier.
An occasionally bumpy alliance but one that thereafter has lasted for hundreds of years.
This dynamic has continued into the present era. Halford Mackinder’s 1904 Heartland Theory posited control of Europe as belonging either to a land power (Germany) or a sea power (England). Mackinder provided a warning to England that continent-sized powers with a strong industrial base, large populations, and national resources could dominate world politics—not those that ruled the seas. One can see such tension also in Rome vs. Carthage. This served as a contrast to Alfred Thayer Mahan‘s highly influential 1890 argument in The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, that island states such as England or the United States could prevail in the world through sea power.
The thesis of the 2005 book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich by Guido Giacomo Preparata furthers this argument, explaining that Britain and globalist banking families deliberately funded and supported the Bolsheviks in Russia to create an anti-western European ideology, and deliberately funded and supported Hitler in Germany to create an anti-Slavic ideology, so that they would destroy each other and allow England to control the continent, after arranging a similar dynamic in World War 1. To England, the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the continent which would have relegated England to a secondary power. This also explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the present.
16 Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, 25.
17 As a side note, slavery ending was a direct result of the industrial revolution decreasing the need for coerced manual labor, so to assign retrospective moral judgments for ending what was really a result of technological innovation is to miss the point (this is not a comment on the extent of brutality of such coercive measures. To the extent industrial society ever fails, one can hardly doubt that slavery would quickly return).
Also, a critical insight is that slavery never really ended, it simply shifted from (a) direct coercion with threat of physical punishment applied to one class of people to (b) indirect coercion with threat of imprisonment, applied to the entire taxpayer base whose tax burden is many times worse than those paying taxes to the British in 1776.
18 Napoleon relied on Rothschild loans for his Waterloo attempt, but not before that.
19 Andrew Jackson killed the second Rothschild central bank after a long and very difficult drawn out fight. Before his death he was asked what he regarded as his greatest achievement, and he replied without hesitation: “I killed the bank.” Later when the Federal Reserve was established (the third central bank), they ultimately put his face on the $20 bill as a “screw you, we won”, because it was everything he was against, where it remains to this day.
24 He is quoted as saying, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men”, although part of this quote is disputed.
33 Allen, chapter 6: ““Indicative of this was a strange event which occurred in October of 1964. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, took a vacation in the Soviet Union. This is a peculiar place for the world’s greatest “imperialist” to take his vacation since much of Communist propaganda deals with taking all of David’s wealth away from him and distributing it to “the people.” A few days after Rockefeller ended his “vacation” in the Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev was recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired. How strange! As far as the world knew, Khrushchev was the absolute dictator of the Soviet government and, more important, head of the Communist Party which runs the USSR. Who has the power to fire the man who was supposedly the absolute dictator? Did David Rockefeller journey to the Soviet Union to fire an employee? Obviously the position of premier in the Soviet Union is a figurehead with the true power residing elsewhere. Perhaps in New York.”
This part examines possible theories of naturalistic explanations for the West’s decline, arguing that each proposed theory contains substantial flaws. It then explains that the establishment’s reaction to Trump unexpectedly winning the 2016 election and the worldwide coordinated response to COVID in 2020 as “mask off” moments that revealed the actual inner-workings of our elite’s system of control to those paying close attention.
WHY IS SOCIETY ON A MASSIVELY DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY? A REVIEW OF COMPETING THEORIES
We have established that the quality of life for Westerners has been rapidly declining, that bureaucratic institutions make problems worse and that the establishment has many tools to prevent the population from effectuating change. The next question is why is this happening? Are there natural processes involved or are there deliberate actors with specific goals? Before presenting a comprehensive theory in Section 4, let us review other possible explanations.
Is the decline of the west part of an organic Spenglerian cycle?
Traditional models of history utilize either a Whig history-as-progress approach or a linear Eurocentric model of cause-and-effect, the latter of which is expressed as follows:
On the other hand, Oswald Spengler argued that civilizations rise and fall naturally like the birth and death of an organism, and he wrote an influential book on the subject, The Decline of the West. For Spengler – later echoed by others such as John Glubb1 – civilizations experience an early phase, an adolescent phase, a climax, a budding, and then disintegration known as civilizational winter.
Spengler’s civilizational cycles.
In 1918 Spengler believed western civilization had already entered civilizational winter. He predicted:
The 20th century has and will continue to be…a period of imperialism and annihilation wars. Science will stop reaching certainties (although technology continues to accelerate…). The people reject common goals. Art is reduced to fashion, and innovation as a concept is cheapened and trivialized. Between the 21st and 23rd centuries, Caesarism [will rise] again in the continuation of ‘civilizational winter’. The politics of brute force returns to break the stranglehold of money…it seems that tribal strength surges and ‘impersonal’ institutions decay. Weak ties and complex bureaucracies (fueled by “money”) are severed in favor of strong ties and absolutism (fueled by “blood”). Nuance and the essence of the high culture decays gently into the dirt.
If Spengler is correct and we are in for two more centuries of civilizational winter as part of a broader cycle, we would expect to see the rise of populism, failing institutions, increased chaos, and the rise of strongmen who could battle the entrenched bureaucracy. One can see the start of such trends with Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, Viktor Orban, and Putin. A counter to this argument, though, is that these strongmen are losing re-elections (Trump, Bolsonaro), they are weak on the world stage (Orban), and/or continuing massive cooperation with globohomo (Putin2). It looks like this system, highly reliant on technology for ever increasing control, is rapidly advancing instead of buckling before populist politicians. If so, it would disprove Spengler’s thesis, although it remains to be seen if these trends continue.
Furthermore, to be explained in Section 4, the transnational elites are rapidly implementing technologies that will give them a historically unprecedented level of control over their citizens, technology that will enable them to micromanage billions of people on an individual basis using a combination of programmable CBDC technology and aggressive, woke AI. If this vision is realized it’s hard to envision this as simply the winter phase of a civilizational cycle — it could look more like the deaths of multiple civilizations all at once.
Many other countries including Russia are resesarching and adopting CBDCs since the above 2020 analysis.
Is the decline of the west due to a human version of the Calhoun experiments?
In John Calhoun’s 1962 experiments four pairs of mice were introduced into a utopian environment. There was no shortage of food or water or nesting materials, no predators, with the only limit being limited space. The population grew rapidly and reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth starting decreasing rapidly. Day 600 was the last surviving birth bringing the total population to 2,200 mice, even though the experiment setup allowed for as many as 3,840 mice in terms of nesting space. The period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and mating partners, increasing anger in both non-dominant males who didn’t mate and females who couldn’t nurse or raise pups properly, and the rise of “beautiful ones”, mice who didn’t do anything eat and groom and sleep. After day 600 the population declined toward extinction where females ceased to reproduce and male counterparts withdrew completely – they ate, drank, slept and groomed themselves, all solitary pursuits. The conclusions from the experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.
A picture of Calhoun in a mouse utopia in 1970.
The question then arises: is the breakdown in society and western civilization is experiencing simply a world-scale human version of the Calhoun experiments? Like the phrase, “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times”, perhaps human society has simply been in a period of prosperity for such a long time that it has removed Darwinian selection mechanisms and the killer instincts that keep people sharp, motivated and productive.
The problem with this theory is that the breakdowns being experienced are not random — if they were then societal breakdowns would be experienced in multiple directions. However, these societal breakdowns all flow in one direction: toward the destruction of white Christians and the weakening of resistance to the transnational elites and toward centralizing wealth and power in the hands of a few, as described below and in Section 4.
Is the decline of the west simply related to the advancement of technology?
In Industrial Society and It’s Future Ted Kaczynski argues that the rapid advancement of technology has destabilized society, inflicted severe damage on the natural world and led to enormous human suffering. He states that humans have something called a “power process” where people need goals whose attainment requires effort and one must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining those goals. If a goal comes too easy or a goal is impossible to achieve an individual will not be satisfied. The goal also needs to be meaningful, i.e. to contribute to the attainment of food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. Unfortunately in industrial society only minimum effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs, and other needs, such as the need for security, are close to impossible to obtain (“We live in a world in which relatively few people – maybe 500 or 1,000 – make the important decisions” said Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995), so people focus instead on what Kaczynski called surrogate activities with their time. Surrogate activities are hobbies which are not as meaningful or fulfilling as independently satisfying real needs. The lack of fulfillment of the power process according to Kaczynski has been a main contribution to the mental illness that plagues society, along with excessive population density, isolation of man from nature, rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.3
According to Kaczynski, there have been numerous advancements in technology which strengthen the industrial system, but only at a high cost in individual freedom and autonomy: any changes designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to fundamental long-term trends moving in the opposite direction. Technology as we know it follows a well-worn path: when it’s new it promises greater freedom for its users, but when the technology is perfected the freedom turns out to be an illusion; it disappears and the hard reality sets in, that the technological advancement is purely for increased governmental control and decreased freedoms, and it’s here to stay. One can see this with social media, with the internet in general, and with crypto and upcoming CBDCs which will be used to track and control all human actions. Even something as innocuous as the interstate travel system ultimately furthered the atomization of society by encouraging families to live across the country from each other and drastically increasing commute times to work. This isn’t even considering the moral corruption that technology causes — the ease of killing scores of people with the push of a button, the ease of massive financial theft, or the scale and impersonality of the industrialized meat production system which is worse than anything imagined in a horror film. Technology is poison.
Technology as dystopia.
Kaczynski argues that the system must regulate human behavior closely in order to function (quoting at length):
The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate must depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. Thus most individuals are unable to influence the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.4
Industrial society has taken on a mind of its own. The needs of the system will take precedent and result in tyranny, forcing extreme population modification in order to meet its requirements:
Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies, industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.
Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases there will be a humanitarian justification….
Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents….
Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance.5
Kaczynski’s solution to the problems of increasing technology and decreasing freedom was to hope to inspire a mass movement against technology itself via terrorism. His attempt was a complete failure. There was some public discussion about his manifesto, but no societal changes. As Kaczynski himself acknowledged history is one of ever increasing centralization, ever increasing control and decreasing freedoms. This increased control gives elites leverage to extort populations for greater wealth centralization at the cost of declining quality of life for the masses.6 It is even becoming questionable to what extent, if any, the system needs the masses at all: increased automation is making more people unproductive, and it is unclear whether the system plans to remove those they call “useless eaters”7 or otherwise pacify them with limits on their consumption.8
Regardless, Kaczynski’s rebellion against technology was also ideologically incorrect: technology must continue to its natural endpoint because technology provides power advantages over others, so if one country does not maximize its technology on its own, it will be dominated by a neighbor who will, just as western civilization was so thoroughly able to dominate other less advanced societies in the past four hundred years. Additionally, individuals desperately seek out technology to make their own lives easier; people care about convenience and comfort more than they care about freedom.
Wall-E was a decent representation of mankind’s endless desire for increased comfort and convenience.
Therefore, the line of question of whether the advancement of technology is leading to the decline of the west is an irrelevant one. Yes, it is at least in part the cause of the declining freedoms that Americans have been suffering under for many generations – but it is not going to end until it reaches its own endpoint, whatever it happens to be.
Is the decline of the west related to a lack of competition post-cold war?
One of the major limitations on the United States’s power was the status of the Soviet Union as a peer competitor. The Soviet Union argued in various ways to the world that communism reduced inequality and was therefore better than western-styled capitalism. This argument applied pressure on American elites to keep them from becoming too greedy. The veracity of the Soviet Union’s claim was looked at in a Polish study between 1892-2015. The results demonstrated (1) inequality was high in Poland before World War 2, (2) inequality abruptly fell after the introduction of communism in 1947 and stayed at low levels during the whole communist period, and (3) inequality experienced a sharp rise with the return to capitalism in 1989. In the United States income gains were widely shared in the early postwar decades, but starting in around 1980 inequality started to grow, and after the fall of the Soviet Union inequality grew much faster.
It seems like the removal of the United States’ competition was a factor in the rise of inequality but, as discussed later, the removal of the U.S. from the Bretton Woods system tying monetary printing to gold reserves was a much larger reason.
THE REVELATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT’S POWER AND CONTROL TO THE PUBLIC
When Trump inexplicably won the hidden owners of the government and the media, panicking, decided on their strategy: oppose Trump at every turn for four years straight, call him the equivalent of a dictator and Hitler, call him a Russian stooge, cause the NPCs to short circuit with endless “Orange Man Bad”, illegally spy on him and his administration, frame and destroy his advisors (Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort (but not Manafort’s pro-globohomo senior partner, Tony Podesta, who avoided charges despite the same underlying actions)), run endless fake “unnamed sources” leak stories which have never stopped, bring out the fake Mueller investigation to tie Trump up even though it found nothing after a year and a half of “investigation”9, create two impeachments against him (one over Biden’s corruption, which was later proven conclusively by emails and documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop — “10 for the big guy” – and one over an unarmed civil protest where one Trump supporter died). All of this and a lot more which had to be lived and experienced to really understand it.
Furthermore, Trump himself was close to the exact opposite of the “reincarnated Hitler” that the media portrayed him as – the gulf between that portrayal and reality was a wide chasm. Trump was a dumb, bumbling doofus; a fat, lazy boomer who wanted to sit around watching TV for up to 8 hours a day and call into television stations, feud with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski over petty grievances; to eat fast food and play golf and to tweet mean things with no follow through or action behind it. He betrayed his supporters at every turn; Charlottesville, 1/6, and plenty of others. His own campaign staff were blocked from positions in the administration in 2017 after never-Trumper Johnny de Stefano was put in charge of hiring. Not to mention that his daughter was a converted Jew and his grandchildren were Jewish!
For the whole world to see how this bumbling doofus was treated for four years while he sat back and absorbed it all, doing nothing illegal and nothing unsavory other than using language unbecoming of a president, to see the whole apparatus of the government weaponized against this man and how coordinated it all was — it was an inadvertent gift from a clown to America, perhaps the biggest gift he could have given America short of a successful challenge to globohomo. America arguably wasn’t ready for such a fundamental change at that moment in time. History will look back at the Trump presidency as the moment that conclusively revealed the existence of the deep state for all to see, and it can never be put back in the box. And then the COVID nightmare supercharged the “mask-off” moment when the whole world coordinated in lockstep, unleashing the same lockdowns, required face-masks and then mandatory untested, dangerous, experimental mRNA poisons.
Trump will also forever be a symbol of white historic America because of his shocking 2016 election victory, which is why the establishment will always hate him and try to destroy him no matter how much he flails about helplessly post-presidency.
***
This concludes Section 3, “Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society.” The next Section, “Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society” argues that a handful of families own the central banks of the world, controlling society via unlimited fiat printing and a sophisticated propaganda and security apparatus. It then offers a historical and psychological framework for their behavior and investigates their objectives.
1 John Glubb, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, available here.
6 If we lived in a society that was not purely focused on dialectical materialism and control it is a question to what extent the human race would be able to successfully assert a conscious mastery of technology to serve its ends rather than blindly and recklessly allowing technology to enslave humanity without consideration of the consequences, a concept explored by Carl Schmitt. But this question remains theoretical.
7 Per World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab’s chief mentor Yuval Harari:
8 Kaczynski, 26: “On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.”
9The report concludes that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”.
This part looks at the nature of bureaucracy itself, arguing that it naturally seeks to expand the scope of the problems it seeks to solve (without solving them) in order to justify their expansion into larger organizations with more personnel, bigger budgets, and more power.
THE INCENTIVES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO MAKE SOCIETAL PROBLEMS WORSE
If the country is falling apart at the seams, indoctrinated and sick, dying from a fentanyl epidemic, with open borders, a large and increasing wealth gap between rich and poor, high crime rates and the masses fooled by meta-narratives, unwilling to think Bad Thoughts because of the decrease in status associated with them and swayed by the deradicalization tools the government employs, can the government itself fix these problems, either by an elected president on a reform platform or from bureaucratic changes?
First, even if an elected leader wanted to institute significant reforms, it is close to impossible to fire entrenched federal civil service employees. This is because back in the 18th and 19th centuries most federal jobs were considered “patronage”, a perk that the party that won the presidential election could shower upon its supporters via the spoils system. However, this resulted in large turnover every election with government positions directed to loyal and well connected but unqualified individuals. Starting in the 1880s various acts were passed to establish federal jobs as “civil service” which would not be subject to elections or regular turnover, beginning with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. Over time more and more protections were added until it’s become extraordinarily difficult to fire anyone, making them immune to the popular will.
Our civil service as it was, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast showing a statue of Andrew Jackson on a pig, which is over “fraud”, “bribery”, and “spoils”, eating “plunder”. Included in Harper’s Weekly on April 28, 1877, p. 325.
According to a report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) only 77,000 full time federal employees were fired from 2000-2014:
“The 77,000 employees the MSPB says were fired over the past 15 years averages out to 5,133 employees annually, or just 0.26% of the 1,940,000 civil service workforce. But the percentage is even lower. MSPB [stated] that 41% of the fired employees were in their first-year, probationary period. These employees lack the extensive job protections of permanent federal employees. Adjusting to include only those employees past their probationary period, we arrive at a figure of just 0.15% of federal employees who are shown the door each year. Statistically, that is close to impossible.”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics annual Job Openings and Labor Turnover survey, between 2005-2017 the private sector workforce maintained an average discharges and layoff rate of 17.27%, while the public sector maintained a rate of 3.37% over the same period, including terminations both for cause and general reductions in force. Once these figures are separated, it shows only 0.53% of federal employees were terminated for cause.
According to James Sherk at the Heritage Foundation, it’s much harder to fire government workers because of time-consuming and costly protections. “Federal law makes it very difficult to separate poorly performing federal employees from their jobs,” Sherk says. “Managers who need to fire problematic employees, whether because of misconduct or poor performance, must go through draining and time-consuming procedures that take about a year and a half. Consequently, the federal government only rarely fires its employees, even when their performance or conduct justifies it,” he said. “In fiscal year 2013 the federal government terminated the employment of just 0.3% of its tenured workforce for performance or misconduct.”
An analysis by USA Today revealed particularly fast wage growth at the top end of the federal workforce. By 2009 there were 383,000 federal civilian workers with salaries greater than $100,000, 66,000 with salaries greater than $150,000, and 22,000 greater than $170,000. It has increased significantly since then.
These government workers are extremely sensitive to their salaries and positions within American society and they are hostile to any politicians or party that claims to want smaller government. Given this, is it any surprise thatin the 2016 election Washington D.C. voted 90.86% for Hillary and 4.09% for Trump?
Imagine the fair composition of juries in D.C. for trials of Trump supporters!
As the federal government employs 364,000 people in the D.C. area, not including contractors and other ancillary government jobs, one can conclude that the vast majority of federal workers voted for Hillary. When Trump won, many did everything they could to stymie his agenda from within their agencies without concern about being fired; see Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andy McCabe, John Brennan, James Comey as examples of civil service attempts to undermine elected officials. Indeed, these people bragged about it. Should an unelected civil service be able to override the policies goals of an elected president?
Worse than this, though, is the basic incentive structure for these organizations. For these bureaucracies, solving problems is actually the worst thing that they could do. This is because these organizations rely on government funding and they have to justify their budgets to the government on a yearly basis. For example, if the DEA solved the problem of drugs on the street what would happen to their funding? Their funding would get dramatically cut. This would be terrible for the careers of the people working there as well as for the organization itself and must be avoided. So how do you instead increase the size, prestige, and budget of your organization? The answer is simple: you create more problems to solve, not less (Parkinson’s law).
This is fundamentally why government is incapable of solving the problems it sets out to solve. This problem is summarized by Pournell’s iron law of bureaucracy, which states “In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that [it] is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.” This is summarized by Robert Conquest’s Third Law of Politics: “The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.”
Based on these incentives any sector the government involves itself in experiences a marked decline in quality and an enormous cost increase. Consider the price change for selected U.S. consumer goods and services compared to wages from 1997-2017:
Per the creator of this chart, “The greater the degree of government involvement in the provision of a good or service, the greater the price increases over time, e.g., hospital and medical costs, college tuition, childcare with both large degrees of government funding/regulation and large price increases vs. software, electronics, toys, cars and clothing with both relatively less government funding/regulation and falling prices.
As somebody on Twitter commented: Blue lines = prices subject to free market forces. Red lines = prices subject to regulatory capture by government. Food and drink is debatable either way. Conclusion: remind me why socialism is so great again.”
Basically, anything the government touches turns to hell.
Compounding these issues, governmental employees have developed a class consciousness over time. They belong to the same social circles; they speak the same vernacular; they deal with each other daily; their children go to the same schools. They see each other as part of the same class, and that outsiders — particularly middle America — pose a threat to their cushy jobs where they don’t have to work much, they can’t be fired, and they have extremely generous pensions. If middle America really knew the setup they would agitate to change it to the managerial class’s detriment, and that must be prevented. The label of “Republican” or “Democrat” is irrelevant here, it is about class: James Comey was desperate for Hillary to win despite being a registered Republican (the establishment joining together against the outsider Trump), and Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, was close personal friends with witch-hunting Robert Mueller (also a registered “Republican”) and had ties to Jeffrey Epstein (Barr’s father gave Epstein his first teaching job). Barr also vigorously defended the sniper that killed Vicki Weaver, weaponless and holding a baby, at Ruby Ridge. There are a thousand examples of this.
Bill Barr, the “Republican” who defended the sniper who murdered a woman and baby in cold blood because Randy Weaver was a white separatist.
It’s an incestuous environment and the unwritten rules require these government employees to defend each other regardless of transgressions. Even Andrew McCabe, caught redhanded lying to investigators regarding his leaking to media outlets and fired for cause, ultimately had his extremely generous pension reinstated and went on to write a book and receive generous media appearance fees. To the extent this managerial class identifies with other classes, it is with the globalist, jet-setting class of transnational elites, the Davos crowd, the oligarchical crowd. They make a show verbally of identifying with the lowest classes, illegal immigrants and various minority groups against white middle America — but it is a show, and they do everything they can to avoid seeing them within their own enclaves. For example, despite agitating for open borders, the D.C. mayor called in the national guard to remove busloads of illegal immigrants that Texas had sent over to them.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser calls in the National Guard to help deal with illegal immigrants being bused in. You get to be “enriched” by diversity, not them, peasant.
In his 1911 book Political Parties, German-born Italian sociologist Robert Michaels developed a political theory called the iron law of oligarchy to explain why this rising governmental class consciousness naturally arises from democracy and why it inevitably leads to oligarchy. Quoting from its Wiki:
“Any large organization, Michels pointed out, has to create a bureaucracy in order to maintain its efficiency as it becomes larger—many decisions have to be made daily that cannot be made by large numbers of disorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization has to occur and power will end up in the hands of a few. Those few—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.
According to Michels, this process is further compounded as delegation is necessary in any large organization, as thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of members cannot make decisions via participatory democracy. This has to date been dictated by the lack of technological means for large numbers of people to meet and debate, and also by matters related to crowd psychology, as Michels argued that people feel a need to be led. Delegation, however, leads to specialization—to the development of knowledge bases, skills and resources among a leadership—which further alienates the leadership from the rank and file and entrenches the leadership in office. Michels also argued that for leaders in organizations, “The desire to dominate … is universal. These are elementary psychological facts.” Thus, they were prone to seek power and dominance.
Bureaucratization and specialization are the driving processes behind the iron law. They result in the rise of a group of professional administrators in a hierarchical organization, which in turn leads to the rationalization and routinization of authority and decision-making, a process described first and perhaps best by Max Weber, later by John Kenneth Galbraith, and to a lesser and more cynical extent by the Peter principle.
Bureaucracy by design leads to centralization of power by the leaders. Leaders also have control over sanctions and rewards. They tend to promote those who share their opinions, which inevitably leads to self-perpetuating oligarchy. People achieve leadership positions because they have above-average political skill (see Charismatic authority). As they advance in their careers, their power and prestige increases. Leaders control the information that flows down the channels of communication, censoring what they do not want the rank-and-file to know. Leaders will also dedicate significant resources to persuade the rank-and-file of the rightness of their views. This is compatible with most societies: people are taught to obey those in positions of authority. Therefore, the rank and file show little initiative, and wait for the leaders to exercise their judgment and issue directives to follow.”
Michaels became a fascist supporter of Mussolini in Italy as a result of his observations.
German-italian sociologist Robert Michels
The other problem of bureaucratization is it saps the energy and motivation of the general population by depriving them of the ability to influence political decision-making. In the foreword to the George Schwab translation of Carl Schimtt’s Political Theology, Tracy B. Strong argues:
“When Max Weber described the workings of bureaucracy he asserted that in no case are bureaucratic (rationalized, rational-legal) relations, relations between human persons, between human beings. Bureaucracy is the form of social organization that rests on norms and rules and not on persons. It is thus a form of rule in which there is “’objective’ discharge of business according to calculable rules and ‘without regard for persons. What he meant is that it was in the nature of modern civilization to remove the non-rational from societal processes, replacing it by the formalism of abstract procedures. (He did not think everything was always already like this—merely that this was the tendency.) The disenchantment of the world is for Weber the disappearance of politics, hence the disappearance of the human, hence the lessening of the role that the non-rational and non-rule-governed play in the affairs of society. “Bureaucracy,” he will proclaim, “has nothing to do with politics.”
This is Schmitt’s theme also. “Today nothing is more modern than the onslaught against the political….There must no longer be political problems, only organizational-technical and economic-sociological ones” (PT, 65)….[If] the political is in danger of disappearing as a human form of life, this can only be because sovereignty as Schmitt understands it is increasingly not a constituent part of our present world. Thus in his book on Hobbes, he will write ‘the mechanization of the conception of the State has ended by bringing about the mechanization of the anthropological understanding of human beings.’”
****
We have established that the quality of life for Westerners has been rapidly declining, that bureaucratic institutions make problems worse and that the establishment has many tools to prevent the population from effectuating change. The next question is why is this happening? Are there natural processes involved or are there deliberate actors with specific goals? Before presenting a comprehensive theory in Section 4, let us review other possible explanations in Part 6, the final part of “Dissonance to Informational Control in Modern Society”.
This part looks at a non-comprehensive list of ways the establishment has of dealing with the rise of cognitive dissonance among the masses, ranging from providing deradicalization agents to cognitive infiltration tactics to murder.
HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT DEAL WITH COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?
The establishment recognizes that it’s propaganda only works on a portion of the population, that it is far more likely to work with women, with non-whites, and with sexual deviants than with heterosexual white men. They use a variety of tactics to prevent those who are dissatisfied with official narratives from organizing or influencing others. We will review a non-exhaustive list of twenty of their methods; the actual goals the establishment pursues will be explained in a future section.
Deradicalization agents: The establishment utilizes social media “influencers” to push narratives slightly outside the Overton window as an attempt to control informational flow. Their strategy is to argue “it’s OK to think this far but no farther”. With many far-right personalities being banned on social media, these moderately right e-celebs attempt to keep dissatisfied young males from becoming more radical. This serves a useful role for the regime. For example, when Brett Kavanaugh was accused of being a rapist during his Supreme Court hearings, heavily-media-boosted Jordan Peterson — a man who claims to be an expert at resisting mob mentality and of the Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitzyn – tweeted “If confirmed Kavanaugh should step down.” When Canada rolled out the COVID vaccine mandates, instead of resisting Peterson gave in and got the shot, then later regretted it (“you’d have to kill me first” to get the booster, he tweeted). He cried when discussing how Israel was a “moral city on a hill” while being held up as some kind of hero to the right. Another example is neocon Ben Shapiro, a rabid proponent of the Iraq war, duplicitously pro-COVID vaccine, a vocal never-Trumper, pro-censorship, who used underhanded tactics to try to get Trump’s campaign manager fired1, andmore. This guy is some hero as well? There are a lot of examples of this. Sometimes deradicalization agents are forced into their role under duress. Kanye West demonstrated this by releasing the text messages of his “celebrity personal trainer”, Tavistock educated, Canadian- governmental-handler Harley Pasternak who threatened to forcibly institutionalize him (Pasternak “trained” i.e. managed Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Halle Berry, Katy Perry, Megan Fox, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Pattinson and others). Or see Kyrie Irving, who had to attend numerous ADL brainwashing sessions in order to continue playing in the NBA after a minor incident, or Nick Cannon2; celebrities must conform to a specific role or be cut off from celebrity and wealth. Blogger “Judge Dredd” refers to a seven step process for celebrities who act out of line, with each step serving as an escalation until the celebrity capitulates: (1) they receive a warning, (2) they are smeared by the press, (3) they are cut off from social media, (4) they get boycotted or fired, (5) they get cut off from bank and credit card access, (6) they get sued, and (7) if a celebrity still insists on acting out, they may be murdered.
Reserve deradicalizaiton agents: Deradicalizaiton agents don’t have to be actively used; they can be kept in reserve for special occasions. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a hero among many on the right, said “Screw your freedoms” to the unvaccinated in 2021. Tucker Carlson, considered the furthest right media personality that was allowed on air at the time, forced his head writer to resign for offering slightly offensive views the day after he did a segment on not caving into woke mobs. During the 2020 election results controversy Tucker was told not to say anything about it by his employer and he kept quiet, publicly arguing the election was legitimate. In this way he massively helped the establishment even as he railed against it on a day to day basis. Tucker is also close friends with Hunter Biden and may be a CIA asset. Leaked texts also show Tucker writing “I hate [Trump] passionately.” In plain terms, Tucker, Fox News3, the NY Post4, Newsmax, and other mainstream right-wing publications build up trust among the masses in normal times in order to cash in that trust against them at key points, undermining the people that trusted them in order to help globohomo. How can one determine who is a true believing dissident vs. a larper chasing money and fame? The best way to tell, but not a surefire method5 is if a person publicly suffers for their beliefs and doesn’t recant. Kanye lost the vast majority of his fortune and has not publicly apologized; Andrew Anglin gets his website shut down every month and globohomo has monetary judgments against him; Steve Bannon has been criminally prosecuted; Stephen Miller has been cut out from the Jewish community. Sometimes it can be hard to tell: Nick Fuentes allegedly had $500,000 stolen from his bank account by the government but he encouraged his followers to storm the capitol on 1/66, then disclaimed them after they were charged although he himself has not been charged. Public suffering plus lack of recantation seems to be the best, but not a guaranteed way to separate the true believers from larpers; this is the “handicap principle”. Another factor to assess is who the media highlights vs. who it downplays: generally the greater the media hate/hysteria toward a target, the better that targeted individual is, while the quieter/nicer, the more controlled.
Pushing outlandish figures publicly to discredit a movement: The establishment puts the media’s spotlight on far-right individuals whose attitude or behavior makes a public mockery of their movement, regardless of whether or not the individual is well intentioned. Examples of this include Richard Spencer who playacted publicly as a neo-Nazi (although he may have been on the government’s payroll) and George Lincoln Rockwell who served as a public clown figure even though he was likely honest in his beliefs. Alex Jones has always skirted this line as well, having the personality of a big, bombastic doofus, and he regularly mixes realistic conspiracy theories with outlandish ones like inter-dimensional aliens controlling our politicians.
Frivolous lawsuits with chilling effects: “To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law” said Peruvian dictator Óscar R. Benavides – a message the establishment has taken to heart. Frivolous lawsuits called “lawfare” are used to silence dissent, a broad term which also includes conspiracies to battle state election reform legislation. Targets of lawfare include the organizers of the Charlottesville rally and more than 840 people who attended the January 6 rally; defendants go bankrupt trying to defend themselves even if they are found not guilty, the FBI destroys exculpatory evidence, and often judges and juries are biased with D.C. juries that vote 90% Democrat. The FBI will be embedded in any mainstream or semi-mainstream populist organization, so to attend politically charged public events and rallies is to invite the power of the law to target and destroy you. Civil lawsuits against Alex Jones and Kanye qualify as lawfare as well. Another victim of lawfare was General Flynn who was seen as a threat to the establishment due to his DIA experience and willingness to serve with Trump, and so he was framed by the FBI and spent years defending himself in court. He even had to sell his house to pay legal bills. Benjamin Wittes of the Lawfare blog is a major proponent of lawfare by the left. An early example of lawfare was the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 which used to silence and intimidate prominent anti-communists, and these tactics were pioneered by then-litigator and eventual Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his 1908 Brandeis brief. Lawfare is used in other contexts too such as pushing radical gerrymandering modifications nationwide on behalf of the establishment, or to paralyze opponents (i.e. a Hawaiian district court judge (!!) who issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s travel ban).
Murder to silence dissent: The following is a partial list of modern-era dissidents who died under questionable circumstances. The CIA likely murdered Michael Hastings, who was about to run a negative media story on CIA Director John Brennan and highlight illegal governmental spying, by hacking his car and ramming it at high speed into a wall; General Patton died in a suspicious “car accident” for being publicly anti-communist (although prominent anti-globalist general George Van Horn Moseley was left alone given he had retired, but his reputation was smeared); brilliant establishment critic Professor Angelo Codevilla died suspiciously in 2021; Andrew Breitbart, who ran the popular anti-governmental website Breitbart and dropped dead of a suspicious “heart attack” at 437; whistleblower Seth Rich; Jeffrey Epstein (to keep him from talking about his CIA/Mossad handlers and all the powerful men he blackmailed); governor Brian Kemp’s daughter’s boyfriend was possibly blown up as a warning to keep Kemp from conducting a 2020 Georgia audit; Hillary Clinton has a list of associates who died under mysterious circumstances a mile long, and she publicly questioned whether the U.S. could drone strike Julian Assange. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his face. Republican Senator Ted Stevens’s plane went down in an official “accident” after forcing him out of office on trumped up charges; the establishment potentially conspired with the Soviets to murder the head of the John Birch Society, Dr. Lawrence Patton McDonald, by downing Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983.8 Congressman Jim Traficante, controversial for being a Democrat who regularly voted with Republicans, died under questionable circumstances. Prominent Federal Reserve critic Congressman Louis T. McFadden was likely poisoned.9South African blogger Uhuru Guru who highlighted the genocide of whites was arrested and murdered. The list goes on and on. (On the flip side, even though the establishment potentially didn’t murder nationalist Shinzo Abe of Japan, the government apologized to the assassin and pressured Shinzo’s nationalist religious organization, an unprecedented and disgusting act.). Another likely establishment murder was the assassination of James Forrestal in 1949.10 Truman tapped former CFR member Forrestal to be Defense Secretary but he turned out to be more nationalist than the establishment anticipated. Forrestal stated with revulsion in 1948: “Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.” He resolved to counteract treason within the government. Truman fired him in March 1949. Forrestal then planned to buy the New York Sun newspaper and convert it into an anti-communist paper but he never had the chance. Five days after his dismissal he was taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital for “fatigue” where he was heavily drugged and held incommunicado for seven weeks. His diaries were confiscated by the White House. He was scheduled for discharge on May 22, 1949 but at 2 AM that morning he “fell” from a window with his bathrobe cord knotted around his neck. The death was declared suicide but his brother claimed it was murder.
Newly created meta-narratives: The introduction of each new meta-narrative is powerful, throwing people off center and distracting them. Releasing one after another keeps them from thinking about whether previous narratives were false.
Create new grievance groups and set them against each other. The establishment had the media focus on homosexual rights, when that ran out of energy they turned the focus to transsexual rights, then they advanced to transsexual indoctrination in schools and forcing child vaccinations. These cultural battles keep a lot of the public’s attention distracted.
Another example was the Liberty League, which was set up in 1934 to oppose FDR and immediately characterized as a “extreme rightwing” organization. However, it was backed by the globalists: Pierre and Irene DuPont put up $325,000 for it and it was also financed by J.P. Morgan and the Rockefellers. The backers of Liberty League were busy denouncing Roosevelt and his staff as “communist”, which many of them were, while also organizing American International Corporation, which had been formed to prevent the economy of the Soviet Union from collapsing. The Liberty League successfully corralled the opponents of FDR who were smeared in the media as “rightwing nuts” and “anti-semitic.” The ploy operated from 1934 to the 1936 elections, when it effectively destroyed Alf Landon’s campaign and no effective political opposition was organized against FDR for the rest of his time in office. It was one of the most successful political hoaxes in American history. Roosevelt then married his son to a heiress of the DuPont dynasty.11
Stall tactics resulting in energy depletion: A corollary to the Q Movement / Operation Trust is for the establishment to hint at justice that could occur at a future time; during the Trump era that included the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, DOJ head Bill Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham (whose direct supervisor was the wife of one of the targets of the investigation), all “hopium” operations that went nowhere, where the investigations and media dangled the hope of future justice for years in order to paralyze pressure from the right and deflate their energy. “Limited hangouts”, i.e. selective release of manipulated info, contributes to this. Being outside the power structure the dissident right has limited energy; fast “wins” add to its energy while slow, delayed actions — which includes these stall tactics and lawfare court actions that can take years to resolve —sap it.
Cognitive infiltration: Direct government agents to infiltrate online conspiracy communities and redirect their paranoia toward ends that are both useless and make them appear foolish to the general public. Examples of this include the Sandy Hook shooting where conspiracy theorists argued the dead children didn’t exist, and the flat earth theory. This cognitive infiltration strategy was articulated by Cass Sunstein in 2008 in an article titled “Conspiracy Theories” for the Journal of Political Philosophy, where he made a radical proposal: “Our main policy claim here is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”…they defined “cognitive infiltration” as a program “whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups.” Cognitive infiltration on social media is heavily boosted via bots who push arguments about, for example, the glass dome and the firmament (flat earth arguments) to distract people and lead them into harmless political dead ends.
Crush legitimate grass roots uprisings such as the Tea Party Movement, destroyed by Republican Senate head Mitch McConnell through Machiavellian backroom strategies.
Utilize AI to maximize network shatter effects in banning dissidents: Social media companies map out which people on the right and far left are popular, how they interact with their friends, allies and acquaintances, and then they “chop the head off” these networks in one swoop or multiple purges. In research for this essay, something like 80%+ of recent alt-right twitter links were dead/broken with the users having been permanently suspended, even after Musk supposedly issued blanket account amnesties.12
Ban dissents using other methods: Lean on host providers to shut down problematic internet sites (Andrew Anglin’s website has been shut down an inordinate number of times despite no criminal activity), ban dissident books on Amazon and other bookseller sites, shut down dissident bank accounts (what Trudeau did to Canadian truck protesters), dox and get them fired from their jobs. This is not a new tactic. In the 1930s 30 million people listened to Father Coughlin’s radio broadcasts and newspaper where he had an isolationist, anti-FDR, anti-establishment perspective. The government forced his radio program off the air and closed his newspaper before banning him entirely from politics under threat of losing his priesthood. Other individuals purged for wrongthink include journalist John T. Flynn, who no one has heard of today but who was bigger than Walter Lippmann in the 1930s; historian Harry Elmer Barnes — who played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the British and American governments; and many others include Charles Beard, William Henry Chamberlin, Russell Grenfell, Sisley Huddleston, and A.J.P. Taylor. For a deeper dive into these figures, see Ron Unz’s article American Pravda: Understanding World War 2.
In 1953, historian Henry Elmer Barnes described how the censorship process worked, which remains ongoing today:“The methods followed by the various groups interested in blacking out the truth about world affairs since 1932…fall mainly into the following patterns or categories: (1) excluding scholars suspected of revisionist views from access to public documents which are freely opened to “court historians” and other apologists for the foreign policy of President Roosevelt; (2) intimidating publishers of books and periodicals, so that even those who might wish to publish books and articles setting forth the revisionist point of view do not dare to do so; (3) ignoring or obscuring published material which embodies revisionist facts and arguments; and (4) smearing revisionist authors and their books… leading members of two of the largest publishing houses in the country have told me that, whatever their personal wishes in the circumstances, they would not feel it ethical to endanger their business and the property rights of their stockholders by publishing critical books relative to American foreign policy since 1933. And there is good reason for that hesitancy. The book clubs and the main sales outlets for books are controlled by powerful pressure groups which are opposed to truth on such matters. These outlets not only refuse to market critical books in this field but also threaten to boycott other books by these publishers who defy their blackout ultimatum.”13
Hide enforced government decisions behind privately owned corporations: Government orders are often funneled through “private organizations” such as social media companies in order to get around constitutional issues. For examples, the CDC coordinated with major social media and tech companies to control information about the COVID-19 vaccines. Twitter, Facebook and other social media companies do this routinely on many issues. Senior Google engineer Zach Vorhies leaked 950 pages of internal documents that demonstrate that Google used censorship, blacklist, and machine learning algorithms to rig the 2020 election. “Fact checkers”, i.e. individuals paid to enforce false establishment propaganda, are highlighted by social media and search engines as a defense against disapproved messaging. Reddit and Wikipedia are both highlycompromisedas well. The social media companies are happy to oblige given they self-select for extreme liberalism demonstrated by their employee donations to candidates by party in 2018:
Utilize the FBI and Department of Justice to spy on and target prominent opposition figures. A declassified FISA report stated that the FBI ran 3.1 million illegal FISA searches on American citizens in 2017 alone, compared to 7,500 combined searches by the NSA and CIA in the same year. It later came out that the law firm Perkins Coie had its own NSA search terminal set up in its D.C. offices to spy on domestic opposition; it was placed there to provide the perpetrators protection. In 2023 the DOJ Inspector General revealed that more than 10,000 federal employees have access to the NSA database for surveillance inquiries, more than 3.4 million search queries were ran between 12/1/2020 and 11/30/2021, and approximately 30% were outside the rules and regulations that govern warrantless search, showing the pattern of illegal governmental behavior had only expanded. The FBI can now look at your web browsing history, emails, anything you have ever typed on your phone or computer, any audio you have made in the vicinity of your digital devices without a warrant (per Edward Snowden, the NSA picks up all of that data as part of Total Information Awareness). Then they use parallel construction to prosecute. See also the Room 641A controversy, a telecom interception facility operated by AT&T for the NSA as part of its warrantless surveillance program and a facility that is likely copied throughout the country.
The FBI should be considered the Praetorian Guard equivalent of the elites. Their top objective is to shield the corrupt elite from harm from populists while their secondary objectives are to proactively crush any populism arising from the public14 and to craft narratives that support these objectives, such as convincingmentally ill young men to commit terrorist attacks and to frame white Christians.15According to Chuck Schumer, “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” The FBI even frames high-level politicians such as long-serving Republican Senator Ted Stevens in order to ruin his re-election prospects. The case was thrown out with the judge citing prosecutorial misconduct after Stevens had already lost the election and the prosecutors almost faced criminal prosecution. To serve and protect – the globohomo elites.
Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental Illness: The establishment wants to stick as many people on SSRIs and mood stabilization medications as possible to the point it is placed in the nation’s drinking water. They claim people are depressed, but most depression is caused by the cognitive dissonance a person feels between societal pressure to conform to industrial society’s demands and one’s inability to conform to those demands, or otherwise a desire to live a lifestyle not in accordance with those demands, which will be discussed in Part 6.
Put these tactics together and the government has a robust ability to quash or redirect thoughts and speech that it disapproves of. This is not to say that the establishment is omnipotent and is destined to win forever or that there is nothing to be done by dissidents: the more the establishment uses their tools to manipulate and destroy their opposition, the more people wake up to their overall malice and illegitimacy. The amount of legitimacy and support the establishment has shed in their attempt to take down Trump, “fortify” the 2020 election, and crack down on legitimate free speech has been eye opening and illuminating to millions of people, and more are waking up every day.
***
If the country is falling apart at the seams, indoctrinated and sick, dying from a fentanyl epidemic with open borders, facing a large and increasing wealth gap between rich and poor, skyrocketing crime rates and the masses fooled by meta-narratives, can the government itself fix these problems either by a reform-minded president or from bureaucratic changes? This is where we turn to next in Part 5.
1 This incident was highly crystallizing. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski brushed past Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields in a crowded room to make room for Trump to pass, and she claimed he violently assaulted her. The incident was caught on video from multiple angles. Neoconservatives like Shapiro as well as liberals called for Lewandowski to be fired for “assault”, despite the clear video evidence to the contrary. If people of different political persuasions can’t agree on the interpretation of clear-cut video evidence, what hope is there for agreement on anything else?
3 Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan, an anti-Trump GOPe corporatist at best, while his brother James (who stepped down from co-control in 2020) is either an NPC or sociopathic liberal. i.e. see here, here, and here. Rupert Murdoch has hated Trump since 2015 and actively attempted to undermine him.
5 As Solzhenitsyn stated in The Gulag Archipelago, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.”
On September 1, 1983, the Korean Air Lines Flight 007, en route from Alaska to Seoul, was obliterated by air-to-air missiles from a Soviet interceptor. All 269 passengers and crew, including 61 Americans, were lost, Soviet fighters had trailed the plane for over two hours. Nearly all observers agreed that it could not have been shot down without top clearance from Moscow. The question was: Why did the Soviets do it? Why did they risk the inevitable backlash of world opinion to eliminate a harmless civilian airliner? There had to be something or someone on board important enough to make the consequences worth it. There was — someone all but ignored by the mass media: Dr. Lawrence Patton McDonald, member of Congress.
McDonald was the most dedicated anti-Communist on Capitol Hill. The Review Of The News noted: “From the time he took his oath of office in 1975 until the moment of his death, Congressman McDonald had systematically carried out a campaign against the Soviet Communists of a sort which no other U.S. elected official had ever done on his own.” Author Jeffrey St. John, in his book about he KAL 007 tragedy, Day of the Cobra, observed: “Congressman Lawrence McDonald had spent his entire career warning against the use of terrorism as an instrument of Soviet policy* particularly the use of the threat of nuclear war by the Kremlin as a weapon to paralyze the United States and its Western allies’ will to resist.” McDonald was Washington’s most outspoken critic of trade and technology transfer to the USSR. He was the president and founder of the Western Goals Foundation, which produced books and videotapes on Soviet-generated terror and espionage. He had recently written a series of articles about Yuri Andropov and the KGB, Voting appraisals gave him the most conservative rating in Congress during his five terms in office. And most significantly, Lawrence McDonald was chairman of The John Birch Society — the world’s largest and most sophisticated anti-Communist organization. He was condemned in Pravda, Izuestia, and on Radio Moscow. Dr. Lawrence McDonald was, arguably, the Kremlin’s number one enemy.
The odds against such a man ‘just happening” to be on the flight the Soviets destroyed were astronomical. Yet the news media neglected the obvious potential significance. After the incident, a host of “experts” were called in who assured the public that there was no specific reason for the attack — instead, they explained , it was due to the generalized phenomenon of Soviet “paranoia concerning their airspace.” The following statement by Secretary of State George Shultz was typical:
The answer to the broader question of motivation seems to lie in the character of the Soviet Union. There is a massive concern for security, a massive paranoia, and I think this act was an expression of that excessive concern over security.
It should be noted that as chairman of The John Birch Society ( JBS), McDonald was not only an archenemy of the Soviet Union, but of the American Establishment — of which the JBS is the most vocal critic. For years, the Society has been intellectually at crossed swords with the CFR. Congressman McDonald even wrote the fore- word to Gary Attends The Rockefeller File, in which he spoke out against “the drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent . . .”
When Lawrence McDonald established the Western Goals Foundation, its stated purpose was “to rebuild and strengthen the political, economic, and social structure of the United States and Western Civilization so as to make any merger with totalitarians impossible,” Such a merger now looms closer than ever before. When the CFR delegation paid a visit to Gorbachev and his minions in February 1987, one could only reflect on how timely McDonald’s removal was for the globalist vision.
Lawrence McDonald is dead, but his cause survives — and so does the organization he left behind.”
9 “Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt.” – Louis T. McFadden, June 10, 1932. There were several attempts on his life. In the first assassination attempt, McFadden dodged two bullets fired at him at close range. The second was when McFadden was poisoned at a banquet. In 1936, he was taken ill at his hotel and died of coronary thrombosis [at only 60 years old], but many speculate his death as suspicious.
11 Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, 111.
12 One example of this is Musk’s rationale to keep Alex Jones banned for suggesting Sandy Hook was a hoax. He stated, “My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.” Yet Musk’s son died from SIDS at 10 weeks old and his ex-wife said he did not hold him in his arms when it happened. How are these events relatable? As Bill Maher said previously, “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country. If you care about the real American shit or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak.”
Or see Justice Thurgood Marshall in Procunier v. Martinez (1974): “The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression. Such expression is an integral part of the development of ideas and a sense of identity.” While Twitter is theoretically a privately owned company, evidence increasingly reveals it as completely controlled by the U.S. government.
14 It’s a little ironic that the FBI and the other intelligence agencies exist to quash the rise of radical populists but Hitler, who is seen as the arch-version of this type, started out as the German version of an FBI employee spying on right-wing orgs: “After World War I, Hitler returned to Munich. Without formal education or career prospects, he remained in the army. In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance unit) of the Reichswehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German Workers’ Party (DAP).”
15Per Sundance: “The FBI was fully aware of the Boston Marathon bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers, before they executed their plot. The FBI took no action. The FBI knew about the San Bernardino terrorists, specifically Tasfeen Malik, and were monitoring her communications before her and Syed Farook executed their attack killing 14 people and leaving 22 others seriously injured. The FBI took no action. The FBI knew Colorado grocery store shooter Ahmad Alissa before he executed his attack. The FBI took no action.
The FBI knew in advance of the Pulse Nightclub shooter (Omar Mateen) and were tipped off by the local sheriff. The FBI knew in advance of the San Bernardino Terrorists (Tashfeen Malik). The FBI knew in advance of the Boston Marathon Bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers) tipped off by Russians. The FBI knew in advance of the Parkland High School shooter (Nikolas Cruz). The FBI knew in advance of the Fort Hood shooter (Nidal Hasan), and the FBI knew in advance of Colorado grocery store shooter Ahmad al-Aliwi Alissa. The FBI took no action. Consider the case of the first recorded ISIS attack on U.S. soil in Garland, Texas in 2015. The FBI not only knew the shooters n advance, the FBI took the shooters to the venue and were standing only a few yards away when [they] opened fire. Yes, you read that correctly – the FBI took the terrorists to the event and then watched it unfold. “An FBI trainer suggested in an interview with “60 Minutes” that, had the attack been bigger, the agency’s numerous ties to the shooter would have led to a congressional investigation.”
Remember, shortly before the 2018 mid-term election, when Ceasar Syoc – a man living in his van – was caught sending “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction”, or what FBI Director Christopher Wray called “not hoax devices“? Remember how sketchy everything about that was, including the child-like perpetrator telling a judge later than he was trying to walk back his guilty plea because he was tricked into signing a confession for a crime he did not create. Or more recently, the goofball plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer that involved 18 suspects, twelve of them actually working for the FBI as the plot was hatched? And we cannot forget the January 6th. DC protest turned insurrection effort, which is clearly looking like an FBI inspired and coordinated effort. Have we forgotten the Atlanta “Olympic Park Bombing”, and the FBI intentionally setting up transparently innocent, Richard Jewel? Then, there’s the entirety of the FBI conduct in “Spygate”, the demonstrably evident FBI operation to conduct political surveillance against Donald Trump using their investigative authorities; and the downstream consequences of a massive institutional effort to cover up one of the biggest justice department scandals in history…”
This part discusses the mentality of the corporatist political type and the peculiar ways they interact with sociopathic liberals, as well as delves into Clique Theory.
CORPORATISTS ARE COWARDS AND CAVE TO A CARROT-AND-STICK APPROACH
Corporatists are fundamentally cowards. They love complaining about liberals who bully them to conform to the cause de jure, that they’re simply “moderates” and just want to make money, but at the end of the day they always give in and acquiesce to them. In 1897 Robert Lewis Dabney, Chief of Staff to and biographer of Stonewall Jackson, bitterly wrote about these “moderates” and his description of them applies just as much now as it did then:
It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its bark is worse than its bite, and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it in wind, and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
Absolutely devastating toward corporatists.
Robert Lewis Dabney, proto-4chan poster
Sociopathic liberals have a carrot and a stick approach toward corporatists to get what they want. For the carrot, they tell them: if you play ball you’ll get rich. There is a revolving door between government and industry, including cushy lobbying jobs and board seats that influential corporatists get access to if they do what they’re told; see public choice theory. Per the New York Times, ”Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers… who can join corporations or their boards without waiting.” Wikipedia provides examples of individuals who have moved between rolesin sensitive areas include Dick Cheney (military contracting), Linda Fisher (pesticide and biotech), Philip Perry (homeland security), Pat Toomey, Dan Coats, John C. Dugan1, former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker (media lobbying). Democratic Representative Dick Gephardt left office to become a lobbyist and his lobbying agency, Gephardt Government Affairs Group, earned close to $7 million in revenues in 2010 from clients including Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste Management Inc. There are countless others.
Another carrot for some corporatists, especially politicians, include outright bribery laundered through book deals, with major advances provided even though the books sell almost no copies. For example Obama (a corporatist larping as a liberal who let Citibank appoint his entire cabinet) arranged for a government contract for Common Core to be awarded to Pearson Publishing Company for $350 million; later on, he received a $65 million kickback book-deal from Penguin Publishing, Pearson’s parent company. Insiders said that fathoming the math on this deal was impossible since the advance was so far from the norm. As one foreign rights associate put it: “We’re all so blown away by the numbers on this deal that the sky’s the limit, right?” She went on, “I’ve rarely seen seven-figure deals abroad, but these numbers are new to the game.” Comey, Biden, McCabe and John Brennan also got book deals from MacMillan Publishing, a subsidiary of the same publishing company, with big advances. MacMillan Publishing was owned by Israeli spy Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell. Eleven Senators earned more than $2,000,000 in book royalties or advance payments in 2015.
Other carrot incentives for corporatists who play ball include insider trading (which is rampant in Congress on both sides) and public speaking fees. An easy example of this pay-for-play is Liz Cheney, whose net worth ballooned from $7 million when she took office in 2017 to $44 million in 2020 due to her willingness to advance the globohomo agenda. She was mocked for losing her reelection in 2022 for selling out and being the lone Republican on the 1/6 committee, but she laughed all the way to the bank.
The biggest carrot sociopathic liberals can offer the corporatist type, though, is favorable government regulations and even monopolies. As James Perloff explains2:
It is natural enough to suppose that rich capitalists, who made their fortunes through the free market, would be proponents of that system. This, however, has not been the case historically. Free enterprise means competition: it means, in its purest form, that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the marketplace. But John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and other kingpins of the Money Trust were powerful monopolists. A monopolist seeks to eliminate competition. In fact, Rockefeller once said: “Competition is a sin.” These men were not free enterprise advocates…their coziness with Marxism (it is well to remember that Marx’s coauthor, Friedrich Engels, was a wealthy businessman) becomes more comprehensible when we realize that communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly…[Frederick C.] Howe explained: “These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.
Play ball with the sociopathic liberals and the corporatist type can remove their competition; that’s a deal this personality type would take in a heartbeat. Peter Thiel makes a similar argument in his book Zero to One, where he states, “All happy companies are different: each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition.” He conveniently leaves out the rent-seeking bribery (“lobbying”) and selling-out to sociopathic liberal requirements of monopoly formation, though.
Rent seeking.
Some of the “stick” tactics sociopathic liberals use to pressure corporate types include the following:
HR Departments: “Civil rights” law made “discrimination” illegal so corporations must keep a large human resources department and are subject to the latest fads and whims of a society forever lurching leftwards. Failure to abide by the latest laws and trends results results in lawsuits and decreased profits.
Defining norms: Leftist control over education (especially academia) and media give them the power to define normalized standards of behavior, resulting in brainwashing of both elites and the masses. Being a CEO doesn’t make someone impervious to this process.
ESG scores and stakeholder capitalism: Globalist organizations and financial institutions (e.g. BlackRock) create ESG scores which act as a social credit system for corporations which bullies them into implementing “woke” policies under threat of financial ruin. BlackRock uses the Orwellian term “Stakeholder capitalism” for their bullying and they invest 401k and pension funds into stocks but retain the voting shares of the people who invest with them. Meanwhile, BlackRock took in a large portion of the Federal Reserve’s ETF investments (which the Fed had printed out of thin air), showing the deep interplay between public/private partnerships. Such partnerships are common in 21st century America because the government sees itself limited by the Constitution over what it can accomplish so they incentivize, cajole and threaten corporations to carry out their unconstitutional bidding indirectly on their behalf— Twitter, Facebook and Google are all subject to it.
Pressure groups: Pressure groups like the ADL and SPLC in collaboration with the mainstream media attempt to ruin the lives of anyone who speaks out against leftist ideology. This applies to CEOs as much as it applies to proles.
Conflicts of interest: The boards of multinational-corporations are staffed by members from the Council on Foreign Relations, World Economic Forum, etc. who also enforce wokeness from the top down.
Outright manipulation of stock prices: Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of overstock.com, went public in 2019 with allegations of political espionage by FBI figures including FBI agent Peter Strzok. In a Fox Business interview, Byrne described how he was offered a $1 billion bribe of sorts to stay quiet. In 2018 Overstock was subject to a SEC investigation; Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happened to be the Associate Director of the SEC Enforcement Division who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. Per Sundance, “So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018. I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion. Huh, imagine that? Coincidences. Small world.” One can only assume such actions are common. Byrne resigned from Overstock out of concern it would be targeted due to his whistleblowing.
Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics states that any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. Examples include the Church of England and Amnesty International. Even apolitical foundations set up by right leaning billionaires grow leftist over time; the Ford Foundation regularly promotes LGBT rights and social justice even though Henry Ford was so right-wing he had written a book called The International Jew.
One example of a liberal issue subject to pressure tactics was gay marriage, where the messaging and social pressure pushed onto the public, including corporate types, was a classic slippery slope:
The speed of this social change was breathtakingly fast, occurring in less than a generation. Most advertising today includes homosexuals kissing, race mixing, and commercials being 50%+ black despite making up 14% of the population, which even 10 or 15 years ago would have been seen as shocking. The media is also starting to actively push pedophelia as well. There is a real slippery slope that results from the cowardice and lack of perception that corporate types have: they will always cave to liberal pressure.
The same is true on gun control. Sociopathic and NPC liberals publicly claim to only want “reasonable and incremental gun control measures” but they won’t be and aren’t satisfied with any specific gun restriction. They haven’t been satisfied with red flag laws and they haven’t been satisfied with background checks or banning assault rifles.; if they did want only reasonable restrictions they would eventually be content with the ones passed instead of turning around and demanding more. What they really want, but won’t say publicly, is a total prohibition on gun ownership. It is the same in other western countries: Trudeau announced a Canadian gun ban, Australia banned guns in 1996 and New Zealand banned guns in 2019. These only affect law abiding citizens though: felons and jackbooted enforces of the regime are allowed to keep their weapons and avoid punishment for their crimes which serves a useful purpose in terrorizing and distracting the middle class (i.e. anarcho-tyranny).
So-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” have lost on most cultural issues of importance over the past couple centuries from limiting the size of government, to promoting balanced budgets, to limiting immigration, to limiting the trade deficit, to limiting wars (for small “c” conservatives; the neocons have gotten all the wars they want), to allowing freedom of association; the list goes on and on. This shows the inherent contradiction within nature: despite the corporate “moderate” types being rich and successful and ideological dissidents being poor losers, only the latter can dream of reforming society because they aren’t financially or ideologically compromised.
CLIQUE THEORY
Because only ideological dissidents have the intellectual capacity, analytical abilities and moral integrity to see the establishment for what it is, they are the only ones who may envision the changes necessary to replace the existing system with something better. Ideological dissidents are drawn exclusivelyfrom the Loser clique.
Clique Theory is a theory promulgated by a group of anonymous internet autists who argue that a person’s physiognomy is destiny in modern America (elsewhere and in other eras too, but to a lesser degree). The theory postulates that the U.S. has a rigid, informal social hierarchy based entirely on one’s genotype and phenotype, which is based on one’s genetics and is more rigid than the Indian caste system. An individual based on nothing more than a glance may be categorized into one of the following cliques: Jock, Prep, Nerd, Scumbag, Woman and Loser. There are also various ethnic cliques (Black, Jewish) but each of these still has a regular clique designation within it.
Per the mothballed clique theory website (and with some minor adjustment for clarity) the following describes each clique. The classifications are crude and juvenile, but they provide a helpful approximation for how phenotype and genotype affect one’s life and political outlooks:
Preps: Preps are old money types, have trust-funds set up at birth, have important connections with highly selective breeding leading to high IQ’s and good phenotypes. Preps are exclusive and have high self confidence. They have contempt for others outside their “club”, tailor laws to protect themselves and have no moral compass other than noblesse oblige. It’s hard for preps to mess up and everything is pre-wired for long term success. They are tall and good looking. The prep disadvantages are arrogance, snobbishness, and aloofness. They are also personally corrupt. They’re so used to stealing money from the system and from the other cliques at the professional level that it may spill over into their private lives. That’s why prep politicians are often embroiled in influence peddling and tawdry sex scandals with bimbos and scumbaguettes.
Jocks: Jocks have athletic prowess, courage, leadership skills. They are great at teamwork and have strong work ethics; they are competition-driven and success oriented with rugged phenotypes. They are tall and strong. The jock disadvantages are arrogance and narcissism, lower IQs, lower self-awareness, lower adaptability once sports career ends, and they are subject to physical injuries and early burn-out. Jocks are excellent in sales jobs due to their charisma.
Nerds: Nerds have the highest IQs of all the cliques, have engineering and technology prowess, excellent planning skills, and are perfectionists. They are oblivious to the powers of women and usually end up bossed around by one romantically (if they mate). The nerd disadvantages are obliviousness to humanity, zero social skills, low self-awareness, and they possess terrible phenotypes including being physically weak, emotionally clueless, high susceptibility to intimidation and bullying, and they have poor eyesight.
Scumbags: Scumbags have brute strength and endurance, manual skills and craftsmanship, reproductive prowess, a feral nature and instincts unencumbered by reflection, nuance or moral delusions. They are the clique most likely to get tattoos. Important note: Scumbags are not those who are “scumbags” morally (this confuses a lot of people); it is a specific phenotype. Scumbags watch UFC and get big muscles and get in fights at bars; some become car mechanics or HVAC technicians. The disadvantages of scumbags are they are the lowest IQ of all cliques with minimal education, zero self-awareness, the poorest planning skills, poor impulse control, and they are highly susceptible to substance abuse and the lure of scumbaguettes.
Losers: Losers are anyone not in one of the above cliques; they may be cliqued (like goths or hipsters) or cliqueless. Their high IQ’s plus high self-awareness are actually disadvantages as these traits aggravate their frustration and sense of failure as they attempt to jump their Lane. They are erudite, but only in things that don’t count like liberal arts. The one (usually worthless) advantage losers have is that, being highly aware plus being the clique least tied into the establishment due to lack of material success, they are in the best position to properly critique the societies in which they live.
Jocks and preps are naturally high status and will always be okay in any society they live in, so they don’t care about politics very much and generally go with the flow. Contrast this with losers, so sensitive and personally aware of their loser status and who cannot help but obsess over it. When the loser is autistic on top of this they will provide incisive commentary on society that no other clique can get close to matching; see 4chan /pol as an example. The disadvantages of the loser is their inability to win at anything no matter what they do (which is arguably why Hitler, an ascended loser, was potentially always destined to lose), they are highly aware but delusional, they possess poor phenotypes, work ethic and motor skills; they have voracious sexual appetites but poor prospects leading to perversion; they are highly susceptible to “get rich quick” schemes like liberal arts and the grad school scam; and they possess an often uncontrollable compulsion to spend their lives posting.
Note: if you don’t know what clique you are in, you don’t readily fall into one of the other cliques, or if you spend an excessive amount of time on internet discussion forums, you are loser clique.
Women: Women possess powers of manipulation, seduction, intimidation and bitchiness that are incomprehensible to the other cliques; they have the lowest IQs for data processing but the highest emotional IQs; they are instinct driven. Women are emotional, irrational, mistake and depression prone; physically weak; highly susceptible to the claims of religion and being ruined by other rivals within the woman clique; they are driven by their biological clocks and reproductive cycle.
A minority of people posses hybrid cliques such as scumgeneer (scumbag + nerd clique), or prepbag (prep + scumbag clique).
People may aspire to be in a different clique, but “changing lanes” is impossible and anyone who tries to do so will only end up hurting themselves. For example, a nerd trying to play sports like a jock, or a jock trying to do programming like a nerd, would bring ruination for them both – one must stay in one’s lane or it’s inevitable that person will end up hurt.
Clique theory is not completely fatalistic; one can advance or descend within one’s clique between the low, medium, high, and ascended versions of their clique although the ascended version is quite rare; most people are low versions of their clique. Friends are people who form social alliances based on clique and phenotype. Career accomplishments do not define clique which is immutable. No one generally wants to be friends with a loser clique loser, not even other losers. Internet posters on forums are mostly pure loser clique and have bad phenotypes, although a minority are loser clique hybrids with another clique – there are no frequent internet posters who are not at least 50% loser clique.
Clique flowchart. Examples of clique between ascended, high and low. This should be intuitive to the reader.
Combining clique plus political type designations is an excellent way of describing someone’s core personality. Calling someone a “medium level prep corporate type” or a “high nerd/loser hybrid dissident type (Solzhenitzyn)” or an “ascended nerd corporatist type (Bill Gates)” or a “ascended scumbag/NPC liberal (Eminem)” is highly descriptive. It is more descriptive than the Big 5 Personality Test, which is the best personality test available.
In a society hyper-focused on enforcing conformity via the Overton window or risk being cast out, jumping from one fake meta-narrative to the next to keep the public entertained, only the loser cliqued loser, the lowest of the low, the most socially awkward, the worst performer financially, the eternal outsider, can discern the truth of the state of society and dream of a course correct. It is indeed the only thing they are good at. This is because when other cliques achieve financial success or academic prominence or excel at sports – really any activity not associated with being a loser – such success comes with strings attached that require one to compromise one’s views in order to retain their social status. Only the loser, lacking any success at all, can afford to grasp and promote viewpoints that lack social status.
Here’s to the glory of the loser clique loser!
BASED ON CLIQUE AND POLITICAL TYPE, PEOPLE GENERALLY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET
Based on clique theory and political type theory, a significant majority of individuals are either system NPCs or corporatists and they follow the decisions of sociopathic liberal leaders who spin meta-narrative fantasies for them to believe. The masses embrace these fantasies wholeheartedly and they generally sign on to follow and promote whatever instructions their leaders tell them to do. Wars are fought and many men, women, and children die because of the decisions of a few individuals; history is replete with examples.
For whatever reason, nature seems to adhere to this kind of collective punishment which someone of a just mind would think is abhorrent – after all, why would anyone moral punish the many for the misdeeds of the few? From this perspective, though, when people eagerly embrace following lying, sociopathic leaders, society deserves whatever results from it. Only the loser clique loser dissidents — small in number — and young children who have not yet chosen their path are the real victims of this collective punishment, for the loser clique loser dissidents are the only ones with the individualism, the discernment, and the moral fortitude to dissent from the herd. For them to suffer for the actions of the multitudes is a real tragedy.
***
In Part 4, we will explore the widespread, sophisticated and deadly tools wielded by the establishment to stamp out rising cognitive dissonance among the masses.
1 A Department of the Treasury official in the administration of George H. W. Bush who pressed for banking deregulation and repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, then as counsel to the American Bankers Association lobbied for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing key provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, and then starting in 2005 returned in a senior government role as Comptroller of the Currency.
